Time to move to MT5??? - page 2
You are missing trading opportunities:
- Free trading apps
- Over 8,000 signals for copying
- Economic news for exploring financial markets
Registration
Log in
You agree to website policy and terms of use
If you do not have an account, please register
MQ can solve the no-hedge rule problem by implementing a 'built-in' system for one order management. Sort of like a built-in "Virtual Order Manager", but superior since any number of different EA's can run at the same time automatically, with no need to change their code.
I would be pleased to see a "built-in Virtual Order Manager" rather than the MQL5-coded one that I am developing. The ideal place to put one is not at the client end as I have done, where internet link failures and PC crashes can play havock, but at the broker server end. I am sure Metaquotes realises how much of a change the move to position management is for programmers, so I suspect that they simply cannot do it (server based orders) because it wouldn't conform with the rules.
Paul
http://paulsfxrandomwalk.blogspot.com/
...same-symbol hedging...
G
IMHO thats covering not hedging, quite a different thing
Since mid-09, we haven't even been getting consistent range trading, certainly no sustained trending
Even break-outs became too limited to be worthwhile, but hedging (but not buy/sell same pair) has consistently earned
Has the advantage of being automatically ECN-compatible and doesn't break the no-hedge rule (unless you open an opposite 'set')
My 2c worth :)
-BB-
IMHO thats covering not hedging, quite a different thing
I agree, but that's the term used in the forums these days when talking about the 'no-hedging' rule / MT5. I only use the term 'hedging' to refer to opposite same-currency orders in these kind of discussions, otherwise I use 'hedging' to refer to multi-currency trading, etc. I don't understand why this confusion in terms came in the first place. Opening opposite orders in the same currency pair is NOT hedging by definition (Wiki: Hedge).
Since mid-09, we haven't even been getting consistent range trading, certainly no sustained trending
Even break-outs became too limited to be worthwhile, but hedging (but not buy/sell same pair) has consistently earned
Has the advantage of being automatically ECN-compatible and doesn't break the no-hedge rule (unless you open an opposite 'set')
My 2c worth :)Agreed. It does not break the no-hedge rule and can be used in MT5 with no problems (and indeed is profitable if done right). My opinions were only in reference to same currency opposite orders (what is referred to as 'hedging' in MT5 discussions), not to multi-currency by-definition hedging.
I am sure Metaquotes realises how much of a change the move to position management is for programmers, so I suspect that they simply cannot do it (server based orders) because it wouldn't conform with the rules.
If they do it server-side, why wouldn't it confirm to the rules? As long as they achieve the effect of one net position per currency pair, it does not break any rules.
Opening opposite orders in the same currency pair is NOT hedging by definition (Wiki: Hedge).
With tongue rather in cheek, I've commented on this before (https://forum.mql4.com/22700/page4):
Language is a system of consensus. If key market participants call it hedging, then it's hedging. The word has then acquired multiple, related meanings.
More usefully, and for background, the explanation I heard for the no-hedging rule was that lots of US clients were placing hedging orders to flatten their position just before getting hit with a margin call. The spread would then widen, and take out the account anyway. The clients were under the mistaken impression that their hedging order gave them absolute protection, and would go complaining to the regulator. And the regulator got fed up of receiving these complaints - or, more charitably, came to the conclusion that the average level of customer understanding was too low for the practice to be allowed to continue.
gordon wrote >>
For anybody who did not agree with my last statement, there's an excellent explanation on the economical usefulness of opening opposite trades in the MT4 book - in the section about function OrderCloseBy() -> https://book.mql4.com/trading/orderclose (it's somewhere in the middle of that page).
All very true but, as you're probably already aware, not all brokers support the OrderCloseBy() command. And, in addition to spread, a non-hedging environment generally saves on swap, because it's asymmetric.
Interesting... I am surprised though that such tactics were widespread, since they are obviously flawed.
All very true but, as you're probably already aware, not all brokers support the OrderCloseBy() command.
Nope, did not know that. I have had live accounts with about 5 brokers and had demos with countless others... Never noticed that. Probably cause I rarely open opposite orders in same pair. Good to know.
I don't quite understand why US traders are freaking out about MT5 and the built-in NFA no hedging compliance feature. I'm a US trader and I solved the issue of NFA's ridiculous new rules by simply switching to a UK broker. Problem solved. Done. These days I trade with atcbroker.com, who is located in the US but is an IB for FXCM UK and uses their institutional feed with really low spreads.
I am assuming that non-US brokers will either keep MT4 or will use a version of MT5 that doesn't have the ridiculous NFA rules hardcoded.
MT4 works fine for most things I want to do. The glaring problem I see with MT4 is the limitations of Strategy Tester, namely:
1) You cannot specify the spread you want to use in testing
2) You cannot specify any commissions, only the default used by the broker right now
3) HUGE LIMITATION: You cannot test an EA on multiple currency pairs or even use multiple currency pairs at the same time
One additional limition (also HUGE) is that you cannot call any MT4 functions from a C/C++ DLL. In other words, there is no API into MT4. This means that you can only code some of your EA trading logic into a C/C++ DLL but much of it will remain in the MQL file which means it can be easily decompiled. That makes it tough to sell a commercial EA or indicator without worrying that someone will decompile it pretty quickly. I would love to see an actual API in MT5.
If MT5 does not solve all the above it is in my opinion a waste of time. If that's the case it will be like Windows Vista - a remarkably costly exercise for Microsoft to spend millions of dollars and years of effort to create a clunky POS that nobody wants.
If MT5 does not solve all the above it is in my opinion a waste of time. If that's the case it will be like Windows Vista - a remarkably costly exercise for Microsoft to spend millions of dollars and years of effort to create a clunky POS that nobody wants.
There is a fundamental difference between what MS does and what MQ does...MQ does not sell its software to use, the end-user, rather it is a platform paid for by the broker. The customer gets what they want, problem is we fail to recognize that we aren't the customer. We are the end-user.
Big difference when it comes to understanding the motivation behind the existence, or lack thereof, certain "features" to the platform.
There is a fundamental difference between what MS does and what MQ does...MQ does not sell its software to use, the end-user, rather it is a platform paid for by the broker.
I'm really just arguing here for the fun of it. Feel free to ignore...
As far as I remember, Microsoft's revenue is about 40% Windows and 40% Office. Much of the operating system sales will be via hardware manufacturers. You pay $x for a computer, of which y% ends up in Microsoft's bank account. That's not a world away from a broker paying for MT4 Server, and then passing on the cost to you, the investor, in their various forms of charges such as spread and/or commission. (A bit more complex as an analogy when dealing with purchases of Windows/Office by your employer.) You could argue that MQ's success stems largely from emulating precisely this part of MS's business model - shift millions of copies of paid-for software while having no more than hundreds of paying customers.
And, @zortag: I still stand by my remarks from Jan 28th on page 1 of this thread. Existing MT4 users aren't the principal audience for MT5, and the reason for building it. The frequent statements on this forum from existing users saying "why should I switch?" are missing the point, IMHO. A tiny bit like turkeys asking, "Why should I vote for Christmas?"
That is a fair point you make jjc regarding varying degrees of business separation. I think the corporate sales model is more apripo to the situation. For sales to businesses in which the end-user, the employees, aren't directly shelling out dollars to purchase but whose income potential is certainly dependent on their productivity with said "free to them" software. Apple did the same thing back in the 80's (in the USA at least) with their apple IIe program in the k-12 school system. Dell followed suit in the 90's.