Dear Spinola,
the big discussion in the wake of Black Thursday has centred on leverage, quite erroneously in my opinion. I personally don’t see this as a situation that could’ve been managed any better with lower gearing. For example, even with a book composed solely of 1:100 orders, with 100,000,000 exposure (i.e. 1,000,000 margin) a 30% move would’ve caused a loss of 29,000,000. With 1:50 leverage the loss would’ve just been 28,000,000 rather than 29.
How?
Pair goes down by 30%
Case 1 leverage 1:100 , My 1000, position 100,000
I loose 30,000
Case 2 Leverage 1:50 My 1000, Position size = 50000
I loose 30% of 50000 = 15000
More the leverage more you loose ( or gain) is it not
Or am I missing something!😱
Dear Moka2,
The extract you take from this article is written from a broker’s point of view. In each instance note that the total notional exposure is the same i.e. 100,000,000, but the margin posted with a prime broker is different (1,000,000 on 1:100 and 2,000,000 on 1:50). A 30% move against you is 30,000,000 but the extra loss on 1:100 is 29m and 28m on 1:50.
In the example you provide you are looking at it from a client’s point of view and this does not equate to the example given by our CEO in the article. In both cases you have only specified your deposit size and leverage, which will determine the maximum lot size you can open. So, with 1,000 deposit on a 1:100 account you could open a maximum of 1 lot, whereas with a 1,000 deposit on a 1:50 account you could open a maximum of 0.5 lots (if you are not using stop losses). As you can see both are totally different trades and as your example shows, different losses incurred on a 30% move.
The premise of our CEO’s comments are that lower leverage wouldn’t necessarily have caused brokers to lose any less than they did on the SNB move. This of course is subject to opinion and a point that is being debated within our industry.
Kind Regards,
FxPro Team