回复 20# 的帖子
刚巧看到这篇文章，比较能支持我目前的看法。My purpose in starting this thread is to pull back the FOREX curtain just a bit, so we can take a good look at the "wizard".
First of all we need to understand what we are talking about when we say ECN.
The first thought that comes to mind are the ECN's that enable trading on the NASDAQ market. These ECN's, do nothing but communicate Bids, Offers, Last, Size, depth of market and orders. Hence the acronym, ECN, Electronic COMMUNICATIONS Network
Here are some points to remember about true ECNs and the market places they work in.
1. The ECN has nothing to do with setting the prices
2. The ECN communicates with a central market place
3. The central market place (nasdaq) pushes the quote data of the price action on the different ECN's, which includes depth of market and Id of participant if shown, to the broker, the broker then passes it on to the trader.
Now here are the differences
1. Forex does not have a central market place
2. The ECN programming does mess with the prices
3. There is a limited circle of liquidity
Lets use an example, I bid 50 qqqq at a specific price. My order waits in line until it is filled. Now here is the biggest difference between Forex and Nasdaq, this bid is being offered to the whole universe of Q traders, not just a select pool of liquidity, or two or three liquidity providers. So no matter where you live or who your broker is, if the feed comes from the Nasdq, everybody sees the bid, 50 shares qqqq at x, minus any latency from the broker.
Knowing this we can compare our example to the CurreneX (CX). CX in its purest form is a true ECN. But since there is no central market, the brokers control the liquidity. Remember also that CX is fully customizable by the broker. This means that the scope of liquidity seen by the trader is limited by the white label broker. The CX allows for "hubs" of liquidity, or groups of liquidity providers.
For example, if your broker has a relationship with 5 banks, and 5 large hedge funds/brokers, plus any "local liquidity" or retail traders, this is what you will see on your quote feed.
But we are only talking about quote feeds above, the broker can also restrict who you execute against. So out of 11 feed providers you may only be executing against 1 hedge/broker and the locals, and not the banks. And really, if you are not executing size, you are not going to interact with the banks.
Of course if you need more liquidity the broker will only open it up to you if you are trading larger size. The reason for this is $$$$$. To get to these feeds the broker has to pay, so to make up for this, you, trader dude or dudette, need to trade size so that they can be compensated for the fees they pay. Remember the larger the size the greater the fees. (egad, did I just say that!!!)
Now Hotspot is another true ECN, but they do not use liquidity pools, what you see is what you get. But remember, you only see the quotes and liquidity that Hotspot provides through the banks etc. that they have relationships with. They do not have all of the banks in the world trading on their platform.
Why is this the case, again, no central market.
Now there are other platforms that claim to be ECNs, and compared to passing orders through a trading desk I guess in a sort of a Forex kind of way they are.
But the programming of the platform changes the spreads with some platforms. For example one broker clearly states that during time of high volatility the spreads will widen. Ok, we know this going in, but where does this widening of the spread come from. It DOES NOT come from the banks, if you have a pure feed from Hots or CX, you will see that the spreads in general, do not widen right before news. The spreads will bounce like crazy for a few seconds, but this is normal price action. Any platform that has a fixed wide spread before news is doing so artificially.
Why do they do this? How the heck should I know. Some say it is to prevent incurring losses, and other reasons. But I will tell you it is not the banks who do this.
Now what does this mean to retail traders, not much. For example my 50 shares of qqqq will probably be filled by some other wiener like me who is trading 50 shares, and not by CANT or NITE. So even if your Forex trades are executed against other traders and not by the banks, if you are profitable who cares.
Again, there is no guarantee on the Nasdaq that you will execute against NITE or CANT if you are not trading size, but you are literally participating in the whole market and not just a segment.
The problem is that some brokers like to represent themselves in a way that is, well not exact. An ecn on the Forex works wayyyy different than an ecn on the Nasdaq. To some it may be a case of "define ECN'" and semantics. But you have to know that when somebody sees the acronym ECN used they think of the Nasdaq model. This is not the case in FX 写这个东西的这个老外并没有完全看清楚ECN以及CX和HOT
外汇的ECN和纳斯达克的ECN是不完全一样的，这一点我赞同，纳斯达克的ECN更多的是一个“通道”，是交易者得以进入纳斯达克这个中央市场的通道，但是外汇市场的ECN则更偏向于一个“网络”
另外，就这个老外文章中的观点（不知道我有没有理解错，我英语不好，看这个东西真TM累）我有一点不同意见，文中对CX和HOT的看法似乎偏向于更认可HOT而略轻视CX，而我想反，我更觉得CX合我胃口而HOT有点问题
CX不接受客户直接开户，完全交给白标去做，因此一般客户对CX的印象可能都来自于他选择的白标，而白标们赚钱心切，在我看来，目前没有一个白标不加点（若你有知道确实不加点的，麻烦告诉我）。本身CX的平台是相当优秀的，它哪儿优秀我就不说了，打字累。而HOT本身接受客户直接开户，但是HOT的平台在接受客户直接开户的情况下就能“拉大点差”，你叫我如何放心它呢？HOT另外的缺点，我也有专门的帖子说明
回复 22# 的帖子
我看了下，确实有不少人拿它们两个进行比较。对于我来说，我更倾向于美国背景的公司，CX好像是俄罗斯背景，我回头再挖掘一下。至于ECN的功能，我认为是没有官方规范的的central marketplace，现在基本出结论了---东西是好东西，关键是要看使用的人。linx暗示Hotspot FXR可能有后台人为的操作，这也是可能的。ECN可以做个好ECN，也可以随兴（偶尔）变身为MM，这是我个人的理解。所以FXR可能会存在这种问题，FXR最近的净资本据说只有不到1500W美元，不知道跟FXi是不是各自独立的，这两天跟他们联系一下，看看怎么说。
下面的文章，有兴趣的，可以慢慢看看，也是讨论ECN角色的：
I dont agree with ECNs being EBS for the little guy, there is a huge difference between EBS and the likes of Currenex and Hotspot.
EBS is still mainly a manual execution venue for banks, most of the time a bid or offer is only placed into the system when there is interest, this is changing with apis. Secondly credit is restrictive, you can only deal with banks that you have a direct relationship with so if your line is full you will not be able to hit those prices. It is not readily open to the market.
At the price Currenex and Hotspot have more available liquidity, i.e they may have average of 10 15 available where EBS only has 2-5 (eur/usd).....
both of these ECNS also have streaming prices from banks and hedge funds, and this is where they better EBS, clients have become liquidity providers. They are taking over the role of banks to provide liquidity into a market place. This is where Nz is bang on..and where a little understanding needs to be had...the higher price for dealing on these platforms is down to the clearance of credit necessity but also the constant prices they will see...during times of market fluctuations (non farm payroll this week is an example0 liquidity will dissappear...As I said on another post to Viper, dont complain about the spread because banks have no more idea than you do when making a price during these moves, Streaming prices are based aroudn EBS and Retuers and they have no liquidity during these moves either...they will either widen or pull ... if you want to deal then a client has the ability to make a price to the market.
The holy grail of course is providing a centralised credit mechanism and currently they have been much more successful in this with prime brokers than EBS. Its not centralised in the true sense and indeed as Viper correctly noted Currenex has hubs so if you get the wrong pb you could get really bad liquidity ...(confuses me why the wouldnt put everyone into a centralised pool ?) and of course Hotspot as viper correclty noted is a centralised market place in the sense everyone sees the same price.
As for price movement and spread there is more available liquidity in the market place now than there has ever been, the main difference is how many traders have access to that information and can trade on it.
Spreads have narrowed to reflect this, to a point where retail trading has exploded over the last 5 years, however this has led to unrealistic fight over spread. Where a 2nd or 3rd teir broker relies heavily on bank streams to cover their business, there is a huge risk that those banks pull their liquidity if they themselves do not make enough on the volume...this is why its important to consider a longer term solution where clients can deal with clients Hotspot 今天通过邮件说：
An individual can open an FXi account with the following restrictions :
1. Account must be at least USD 100,0002. Each trade size has to be at least around USD 500,000You would still apply and open an account with Hotspot FXr, and then FXr acts as your credit margin provider for trading on FXi.
Kind regards,
Alex 原帖由 玉龙行者 于 2009/1/20 22:12 发表 http://www.forex-town.com/images/common/back.gif
ECN可以做个好ECN，也可以随兴（偶尔）变身为MM，这是我个人的理解。所以FXR可能会存在这种问题，FXR最近的净资本据说只有不到1500W美元，不知道跟FXi是不是各自独立的...
这其实就是最大的风险（也可以随兴变身为MM），一个真正的ECN就应该专注于发展他的交易技术：撮合、以及提供平滑的流动性的技术，而MM的核心技术更多的是头寸管理。两件事情要同时做好是不容易的，搞不好某天一个大单子上埋下隐患，发展下去就是破产清算以及无休止的法律文书等等，参考巴林银行、瑞富、雷曼等等的破产事件，这不是耸人听闻的说法，金融行业并非固若金汤，相反非常脆弱
不过，如果不是和客户对着做，而是比较简单一点的加点差，多捞点客人的油水，那么的话风险是小很多了，利润也会是不错的，不过商业诚信就没有了，将来能发展到的层次也是有限的。对客户来讲，在这样的平台上交易成本是巨大的 有一点比较令我费解的是，一部分ECN的代理为什么要加点差。如果不对赌，那么和直接加佣金的赚头是一样的，而且前者还破坏了ECN最重要的核心规则，我实在看不出这么做有什么好处。
不过话说回来，对于CurrenEX 和 HSFXi 来说，加点差的行为可能只发生在 White Label Partners，而对于HSFXr来说，目前还不太好判断是不是加过了点差。（因为点差大小和ECN的合作清算行的数量、以及提供的流动性有很大关系） 聯系FC Stone或者Man Financial:handshake
如果你可以有7位数以上的投资额度建议你去
http://www.barx.com/ 或EBS Deutsche Bank或 London Capital Group的CurrenexLava TradingFXall清算能力都不错，毕竟外汇SPOT 市场交易量在伦敦占7成以上，佣金根据你的交易量，可以谈得， 开公司与否并不重要，以私人投资的名义也不是不可以，关键是资金，，资金进出香港和新加坡的几家大银行都可以，比如CITY等瑞士的几家大银行也可以，，没有大家传说的那么多金额条件，只是资金用途和来源的审查比较啰嗦，CrediSwiss 等 :handshake敢问KEYA兄在哪家机构任职？ 有问题请教 楼上的联系到了没？