how much of foreign exchange (forex/fx) “deep liquidity” is really just unbacked leverage and what is the effect?
"In essence the problem that the OP identified is not that the FX market itself has poor liquidity but that retail FX brokerage sometimes have poor counterparty risk management. The problem is the actual business model that many FX brokerages have. Most FX brokerages are themselves customers of much larger money center banks that are very well capitalized and provide ample liquidity. By liquidity I mean  the ability to put on a position of relatively decent size (long EURUSD say) at any particular time with a small price impact relative to where it is trading. For spot FX, intraday bid/ask spreads are extremely small, on the order of fractions of pips for majors (EUR/USD/GBP/JPY/CHF). Even in extremely volatile situations it rarely becomes much larger than a few pips for positions of 1 to 10 Million USD equivalent notional value in the institutional market. Given that retail traders rarely trade that large a position, the FX spot market is essentially very liquid in that respect. The problem is that there are retail brokerages whose business model is to encourage excessive trading in the hopes of capturing that spread, but not guaranteeing that it has enough capital to always meet all client obligations. What does get retail traders in trouble is that most are unaware that they are not actually trading on an exchange like with stocks. Every bid and ask they see on the screen the moment they execute a trade is done against that FX brokerage, and not some other trader in a transparent central limit order book. This has some deep implications. One is the nifty attribute that you rarely pay ""commission"" to do FX trades unlike in stock trading. Why? Because they build that cost into the quotes they give you. In sleepy markets, buyers and sellers cancel out, they just ""capture"" that spread which is the desired outcome when that business model functions well.  There are two situations where the brokerage's might lose money and capital becomes very important. In extremely volatile markets, every one of their clients may want to sell for some reason, this forces the FX brokers to accumulate a large position in the opposite side that they have to offload. They will trade in the institutional market with other brokerages to net out their positions so that they are as close to flat as possible. In the process, since bid/ask spreads in the institutional market is tighter than within their own brokerage by design, they should still make money while not taking much risk. However, if they are not fast enough, or if they do not have enough capital, the brokerage's position might move against them too quickly which may cause them lose all their capital and go belly up. The brokerage is net flat, but there are huge offsetting positions amongst its clients. In the example of the Swiss Franc revaluation in early 2015, a sudden pop of 10-20% would have effectively meant that money in client accounts that were on the wrong side of the trade could not cover those on the other side. When this happens, it is theoretically the brokerage's job to close out these positions before it wipes out the value of the client accounts, however it would have been impossible to do so since there were no prices in between the instantaneous pop in which the brokerage could have terminated their client's losing positions, and offload the risk in the institutional market. Since it's extremely hard to ask for more money than exist in the client accounts, those with strong capital positions simply ate the loss (such as Oanda), those that fared worse went belly up. The irony here is that the more leverage the brokerage gave to their clients, the less money would have been available to cover losses in such an event. Using an example to illustrate: say client A is long 1 contract at $100 and client B is short 1 contract at $100. The brokerage is thus net flat. If the brokerage had given 10:1 leverage, then there would be $10 in each client's account. Now instantaneously market moves down $10. Client A loses $10 and client B is up $10. Brokerage simply closes client A's position, gives $10 to client B. The brokerage is still long against client B however, so now it has to go into the institutional market to be short 1 contract at $90. The brokerage again is net flat, and no money actually goes in or out of the firm. Had the brokerage given 50:1 leverage however, client A only has $2 in the account. This would cause the brokerage close client A's position. The brokerage is still long against client B, but has only $2 and would have to ""eat the loss"" for $8 to honor client B's position, and if it could not do that, then it technically became insolvent since it owes more money to its clients than it has in assets. This is exactly the reason there have been regulations in the US to limit the amount of leverage FX brokerages are allowed to offer to clients, to assure the brokerage has enough capital to pay what is owed to clients." I'd think that liquidity and speed are prioritized (even over retail brokers and in come cases over PoP) for institutional traders who by default have large positions.  When the going gets tough, these guys are out and the small guys - trading through average retail brokers - are the ones left holding the empty bag. "First it is worth noting the two sided nature of the contracts (long one currency/short a second) make leverage in currencies over a diverse set of clients generally less of a problem.  In equities, since most margin investors are long ""equities"" making it more likely that large margin calls will all be made at the same time. Also, it's worth noting that high-frequency traders often highly levered make up a large portion of all volume in all liquid markets ~70% in equity markets for instance.  Would you call that grossly artificial?  What is that volume number really telling us anyway in that case? The major players holding long-term positions in the FX markets are large banks (non-investment arm), central banks and corporations and unlike equity markets which can nearly slow to a trickle currency markets need to keep trading just for many of those corporations/banks to do business.  This kind of depth allows these brokers to even consider offering 400-to-1 leverage.  I'm not suggesting that it is a good idea for these brokers, but the liquidity in currency markets is much deeper than their costumers."
Which of these two factors is likely to be more significant?  There is long term trend that puts one favourable with other. .... I realise that I could just as easily have lost 5% on the LSE and made 5% back on the currency, leaving me with my original investment minus various fees; or to have lost 5% on both. Yes that is true. Either of the 3 scenarios are possible. Those issues aside, am I looking at this in remotely the right way?  Yes. You are looking at it the right way. Generally one invests in Foreign markets for; There are various indexes on the stock market that track the currencies.  Though it is different than Forex (probably less leverage), you may be able to get the effects you're looking for.  I don't have a lot of knowledge in this area, but looked some into FXE, to trade the Euro debt crisis.  Here's an article on Forex, putting FXE down (obviously a biased view, but perhaps will give you a starting point for comparison, should you want to trade something specific, like the current euro/dollar situation). However, is it a risk that they may withhold liquidity in a market panic crash to protect their own capital?  Two cases exist here. One is if you access the direct market, then they cannot. Secondly if you are trading in the internal market created by them, yes they can do to save their behind, but that is open to question. They don't make money on your profit or loss, their money comes from you trading. So as long as you maintain the required margin in your accounts, you can go ahead. I had a mail exchange with IG Index regarding this and they categorically refuted on this point. Will their clients be unable to sell at a fair market price in a panic crash? No. Also, do CFD providers sometimes make an occasional downward spike to cream off their clients' cut-loss order?  Need proof regarding this, not saying it cannot happen. They wouldn't antagonize the people bringing them business without any reason. They would be putting their money at risk. But you should know, their traders are also in the market. Which might look skimming your money, it would be their traders making money in the free market. After all Google, Facebook etc also sell your personal data for profit, why shouldn't the CFD firm also. Since they are market makers, what is to prevent them from attempting these tricks? Are these concerns also valid for forex brokers serving the retail public? What you consider as tricks are legitimate use of information to make money. "No one is FORCED to use leverage. But most people do. Trading companies like it because, the more leverage, the more ""business"" (and total commissions). If someone starts with $1 million and leverages it up ten times to ten million, companies would rather do ten million of business than one. That's a given. On the other hand, if you're Warren Buffett or Bill Gates, and you say I want to do $1 billion of FX, no leverage, no trading company is going to turn it down.  More often, it's a company like IBM or Exxon Mobil that wants to do FX, no leverage, because they just earned, say $1 billion Euros. Individuals USUALLY want to use more leverage in order to earn (or lose) more with their capital." Very likely this refers to trading/speculating on leverage, not investing. Of course, as soon as you put leverage into the equation this perfectly makes sense.  2007-2009 for example, if one bought the $SPX at its highs in 2007 at ~$1560.00 - to the lows from 2009 at ~$683.00 - implicating that with only 2:1 leverage a $1560.00 account would have received a margin call. At least here in Europe I can trade index CFD's and other leveraged products. If i trade lets say >50:1 leverage it doesn’t take much to get a margin call and/or position closed by the broker. No doubt, depending on which investments you choose there’s always risk, but currency is a position too. TO answer the question, I find it very unlikely that >90% of investors (referring to stocks) lose money / purchasing power. Anyway, I would not deny that where speculators (not investors) use leverage or try to trade swings, news etc. have a very high risk of losing money (purchasing power). "Right... so the fundamental question is if the roll-over cessation will cause short term interest rates to decouple from the Fed's say-so.  This is otherwise known as a bond auction failure.  The fed wants the treasury debt off their books, but they don't want to raise interest rates to make that happen.  So, they're going to experiment with uptake outside of the Fed to see if they can ""boil the frog"".  If the frog starts to squirm, I guarantee you that they're going to take the pot off the burner.  At their the proposed roll-over suspension rate, it'll take approximately 12 to 16 years to to get that two trillion off their books... and that assumes that nothing bad happens during that time.  &gt; Do you know of any good writeups that would back your side?  The closest you're going to find would be anything written about the JCB post 1995... but it looks like their program of direct stock market participation (technically, they're using ETFs, probably for financial cryptography purposes) [began in earnest in 2010](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-07-19/japan-bourse-head-turns-surprise-critic-of-kuroda-etf-purchases)  [this piece ](https://blog.kurtosys.com/central-banks-unthinkable-buying-stocks/) indicates that the Japanese aren't the only ones doing this.  England, The Swiss and even the EU is doing the same thing across multiple exchanges.  As the article points out, there's a two pronged effect of suppressing FX stock price correlations (strengthening or weakening of currencies raising or lowering stocks listed on associated bourses) and reducing volatility through market intervention (AKA plunge protection teams).   They also reference an Investco survey of  central bank reserve managers." In my experience thanks to algorithmic trading the variation of the spread and the range of trading straight after a major data release will be as random as possible, since we live in an age that if some pattern existed at these times HFT firms would take out any opportunity within nanoseconds. Remember that some firms write algorithms to predict other algorithms, and it is at times like those that this strategy would be most effective. With regards to my own trading experience I have seen orders fill almost €400 per contract outside of the quoted range, but this is only in the most volatile market conditions. Generally speaking, event investing around numbers like these are only for top wall street firms that can use co-location servers and get a ping time to the exchange of less than 5ms. Also, after a data release the market can surge/plummet in either direction, only to recover almost instantly and take out any stops that were in its path. So generally, I would say that slippage is extremely unpredictable in these cases( because it is an advantage to HFT firms to make it so ) and stop-loss orders will only provide limited protection. There is stop-limit orders( which allow you to specify a price limit that is acceptable ) on some markets and as far as I know InteractiveBrokers provide a guaranteed stop-loss fill( For a price of course ) that could be worth looking at, personally I dont use IB.  I hope this answer provides some helpful information, and generally speaking, super-short term investing is for algorithms. &gt; Theoretically you'd expect the exchange rate to move against you enough to make this a bad investment.   Actually, the theoretical and intentional expectation is that the currency with the highest interest rate should appreciate even more.  Canada has traditionally offered an interest rate premium over the US specifically to help the strength of its currency and attract capital to stay there.  &gt; In reality this doesn't happen  Because carry trades/fx have so little margin requirements, and so many speculators on one side of the trade, there is a significant short squeeze risk any time there is a de-risking shock to the economy.  Any unwinding impulse, scares other carry trade participants to unwind, and then forces many more to unwind. "What you are saying is a very valid concern.  After the flash crash many institutions in the US replaced ""true market orders"" (where tag 40=1 and has no price) with deep in the money limit orders under the hood, after the CFTC-SEC joint advisory commission raised concerns about the use of market orders in the case of large HFT traders, and concerns on the lack of liquidity that caused market orders that found no limit orders to execute on the other side of the trade, driving the prices of blue chip stocks into the pennies.  We also applaud the CFTC requesting comment regarding whether it is   appropriate to restrict large order execution design that results in   disruptive trading. In particular, we believe there are questions   whether it is ever appropriate to permit large order algorithms that   employ unlimited use of market orders or that permit executions at   prices which are a dramatic percentage below the present market price   without a pause for human review So although you still see a market order on the front end, it is transformed to a very aggressive limit in the back end. However, doing this change manually, by selling at price 0 or buying at 9999 may backfire since it may trigger fat finger checks and prevent your order from reaching the market.  For example BATS Exchange  rejects orders that are priced too aggressively and don't comply with the range of valid prices.  If you want your trade to execute right now and you are willing to take slippage in order to get fast execution, sending a market order is still the best alternative." "Unless you are buying a significant value of your goods in USD then the relative strength of USD versus your local currency will have little to no effect on what the value of your investments is worth to you. In fact only (de|in)flation will effect your purchasing power. If your investments are in your local currency and your future expenses (usage of the returns on the investments) will be in your local currency FX has no effect. To answer your question, however, since all investments involve flows of money there can be no investment (other than perhaps gold which is really a form of currency) that isn't bound to at least one currency. In general investments are expected to be valued against the investor's home currency (I tend to call it ""fund currency"" as I work with hedge funds) as the return on the investment will be paid out in the fund currency and returns will be compared on the same basis. If investments are to be made internationally then it is necessary to reduce, or ""hedge"" the exchange rate risk. This is normally done using FX swaps or futures that allow an exchange rate in the future to be locked in today. Far from being unbound from FX moves these derivatives are closely bound to any moves but crucially are bound in the opposite direction to the hoped for FX move. an example of this would be if I'm investing 100GBP (my local currency) in a US company XYZ corp which I expect to do well. Suppose I get 200USD for my 100GBP and so buy 1 * 200USD shares in XYZ. No matter what happens to XYZ stock any move in GBP/USD will affect my P&L so I buy a future that allows me to exchange 200USD for 100GBP in 6 month's time. If GBP rises I can sell the future and make money on both the higher exchange rate and the increase in XYZ corp. If GBP falls I can keep the future until maturity and exchange the 200USD from XYZ corp for 100GBP so I only take the foreign exchange hit on any profits. If I expect my profits to be 10USD I can even buy futures such that I can lock in the exchange rate for 110USD in 6 months so that I will lose even less of my profit from the exchange rate move." theoretically this concept makes sense.  However as recent numbers have shown ( I do not have the source handy but one can simply obtain this information via the ECB's website) banks have tapped this LTRO, something in the likes of 500 billion or so, and instead of buying Sovereign debt, they instead prefer to park this money with the ECB, paying something like 25 bps on deposits.  so instead of using this LTRO money to buy Sovereigns or perhaps lend to other banks, easing the strain on LIBOR, banks have just parked this money back with the ECB, as the ECB has seen its deposits once again reach record amounts (again, see the ECB website for proof).  Just this speaks volumes about the LTRO carry trade and how it is evidently not going to achieve its long term goal of bringing spreads down in Europe.  Perhaps in the short run yes, but if you look at the fundamentals (EURUSD, the EUR Basis Swap and the OIS-LIBOR Spread) they show how the situation in Europe is far from over, and the LTRO is nothing close to a long term and stable solution Yes, and there's a good reason they might. (I'm gonna use equity options for the example; FX options are my thing, but they typically trade European style). The catch is dividends.  Imagine you're long a deep-ITM call on a stock that's about to pay a dividend. If that dividend is larger than the time value remaining on the option, you'd prefer to exercise early - giving you the stock and the dividend payment - rather than hanging on to the time value of the option.  You can get a similar situation in FX options when you're long a deep-ITM American call on a positive-carry currency (say AUDJPY); you might find yourself so deep in the money, with so little time value left on the option, that you'd rather exercise the option and give up the remaining time value in return for the additional carry from getting the spot position early. Now, is there any clever way to combine FOREX transactions so that you receive the US interest on $100K instead of the $2K you deposited as margin?  Yes, absolutely. But think about it -- why would the interest rates be different? Imagine you're making two loans, one for 10,000 USD and one for 10,000 CHF, and you're going to charge a different interest rate on the two loans. Why would you do that? There is really only one reason -- you would charge more interest for the currency that you think is less likely to hold its value such that the expected value of the money you are repaid is the same. In other words, currencies pay a higher interest when their value is expected to go down and currencies pay a lower interest when their value is expected to go up. So yes, you could do this. But the profits you make in interest would have to equal the expected loss you would take in the devaluation of the currency. People will only offer you these interest rates if they think the loss will exceed the profit. Unless you know better than them, you will take a loss. If we postulate that there is at least some element of truth to the phrase 'A leopard does not change his spots'  and then consider this tidbit He conveniently forgets to mention his 1.5 million dollar fraud fine   from the SEC over investment “advice” he sold through a news letter.   The SEC claimed and the judge agreed that the report was “replete with   lies”. I think that gives you just about all you might need to know regarding the man behind the video, and the nature of it's content.  Oh, and it's purpose?  To SELL YOU the same said newsletter. I guess it's natural for Stansberry to feel as he does. After all if the US gov had just busted me for conning and lying to folks, and fined ME 1.5Mill, I'd be having some pretty intense lurid fantasies about it going down in flames, and trying to hide any money I had left offshore also.   A huge amount of his argument hinges on the US no longer being the world's reserve currency.  Firstly, while I'll admit I'm none too happy with the way the national debt has been managed for oh, around 30 years how, (which includes I will note going from a pretty much balanced budget, to around an 80% increase in the debt from 2001 through 2008, when 'times were good' and there was little need to spend money we didn't have), when compared to a lot of other countries, we still don't look that bad.  You have to ask yourself this first, if not the US, then WHO?  are the governments of the world going to trust China? could the Yen handle the load?  Is the Euro any better off especially considering problems in Greece, Ireland, etc.  Do countries like Switzerland have enough liquidity and available ways to invest there?  In order for the US to STOP being the world's reserve currency, you must have something to replace it with, and really, can we realistically think of one country/currency with the capability to become a new 'world reserve currency'???  Secondly, even then should such a shift actually happen, it doesn't mean people will ALL just magically stop buying US debt.  Yes the demand would go down, but it would not go to zero.  There are after all a worldfull of other countries who's money is right now NOT the world reserve currency, and yet they are able to sell bonds and people and even other countries invest there. (China for example does not invest exclusively in the US), so yeah we might have to start paying more interest to get people to buy US debt, but it's not like the demand will go away.   Save your money, save your time, don't buy into this dung. "You are violating the Uncovered Interest Rate Parity.  If Country A has interest rate of 4% and Country B has interest rate of 1%, Country B's expected exchange rate must appreciate by 3% compared to spot. The ""persistent pressure to further depreciate"" doesn't magically occur by decree of the supreme leader. If there is room for risk free profit, the entire Country B would deposit their money at Country A, since Country A has higher interest rate and ""appreciates"" as you said. The entire Country A will also borrow their money at Country B.  The exception is Capital Control. Certain people are given the opportunity to get the risk free profit, and the others are prohibited from making those transactions, making UIP to not hold."