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."
"Perhaps buying some internationally exchanged stock of China real-estate companies? It's never too late to enter a bubble or profit from a bubble after it bursts. As a native Chinese, my observations suggest that the bubble may exist in a few of the most populated cities of China such as Beijing, Shanghai and Shenzhen, the price doesn't seem to be much higher than expected in cities further within the mainland, such as Xi'an and Chengdu. I myself is living in Xi'an. I did a post about the urban housing cost of Xi'an at the end of last year: http://www.xianhotels.info/urban-housing-cost-of-xian-china~15 It may give you a rough idea of the pricing level. The average of 5,500 CNY per square meter (condo) hasn't fluctuated much since the posting of the entry. But you need to pay about 1,000 to 3,000 higher to get something desirable. For location, just search ""Xi'an, China"" in Google Maps. =========== I actually have no idea how you, a foreigner can safely and easily profit from this. I'll just share what I know. It's really hard to financially enter China. To prevent oversea speculative funds from freely entering and leaving China, the Admin of Forex (safe.gov.cn) has laid down a range of rigid policies regarding currency exchange. By law, any native individual, such as me, is imposed of a maximum of $50,000 that can be converted from USD to CNY or the other way around per year AND a maximum of $10,000 per day. Larger chunks of exchange must get the written consent of the Admin of Forex or it will simply not be cleared by any of the banks in China, even HSBC that's not owned by China. However, you can circumvent this limit by using the social ID of your immediate relatives when submitting exchange requests. It takes extra time and effort but viable. However, things may change drastically should China be in a forex crisis or simply war. You may not be able to withdraw USD at all from the banks in China, even with a positive balance that's your own money. My whole income stream are USD which is wired monthly from US to Bank of China. I purchased a property in the middle of last year that's worth 275,000 CNY using the funds I exchanged from USD I had earned. It's a 43.7% down payment on a mortgage loan of 20 years: http://www.mlcalc.com/#mortgage-275000-43.7-20-4.284-0-0-0.52-7-2009-year (in CNY, not USD) The current household loan rate is 6.12% across the entire China. However, because this is my first property, it is discounted by 30% to 4.284% to encourage the first house purchase. There will be no more discounts of loan rate for the 2nd property and so forth to discourage speculative stocking that drives the price high. The apartment I bought in July of 2009 can easily be sold at 300,000 now. Some of the earlier buyers have enjoyed much more appreciation than I do. To give you a rough idea, a house bought in 2006 is now evaluated 100% more, one bought in 2008 now 50% more and one bought in the beginning of 2009 now 25% more." Here's what the GnuCash documentation, 10.5 Tracking Currency Investments (How-To) has to say about bookkeeping for currency exchanges. Essentially, treat all currency conversions in a similar way to investment transactions.  In addition to asset accounts to represent holdings in Currency A and Currency B, have an foreign exchange expenses account and a capital gains/losses account (for each currency, I would imagine).  Represent each foreign exchange purchase as a three-way split: source currency debit, foreign exchange fee debit, and  destination currency credit. Represent each foreign exchange sale as a five-way split: in addition to the receiving currency asset and the exchange fee expense, list the transaction profit in a capital gains account and have two splits against the asset account of the transaction being sold. My problems with this are: I don't know how the profit on a currency sale is calculated (since the amount need not be related to any counterpart currency purchase), and it seems asymmetrical.  I'd welcome an answer that clarifies what the GnuCash documentation is trying to say in section 10.5. When you buy a currency via FX market, really you are just exchanging one country's currency for another. So if it is permitted to hold one currency electronically, surely it must be permitted to hold a different country's currency electronically. "Not all call options that have value at expiration, exercise by purchasing the security (or attempting to, with funds in your account).   On ETNs, they often (always?) settle in cash.  As an example of an option I'm currently looking at, AVSPY, it settles in cash (please confirm by reading the documentation on this set of options at http://www.nasdaqomxtrader.com/Micro.aspx?id=Alpha, but it is an example of this).  There's nothing it can settle into (as you can't purchase the AVSPY index, only options on it).  You may quickly look (wikipedia) at the difference between ""American Style"" options and ""European Style"" options, for more understanding here. Interestingly I just spoke to my broker about this subject for a trade execution.  Before I go into that, let me also quickly refer to Joe's answer:  what you buy, you can sell.  That's one of the jobs of a market maker, to provide liquidity in a market.  So, when you buy a stock, you can sell it.  When you buy an option, you can sell it.  That's at any time before expiration (although how close you do it before the closing bell on expiration Friday/Saturday is your discretion).  When a market maker lists an option price, they list a bid and an ask.  If you are willing to sell at the bid price, they need to purchase it (generally speaking).  That's why they put a spread between the bid and ask price, but that's another topic not related to your question -- just note the point of them buying at the bid price, and selling at the ask price -- that's what they're saying they'll do. Now, one major difference with options vs. stocks is that options are contracts. So, therefore, we can note just as easily that YOU can sell the option on something (particularly if you own either the underlying, or an option deeper in the money).  If you own the underlying instrument/stock, and you sell a CALL option on it, this is a strategy typically referred to as a covered call, considered a ""risk reduction"" strategy.  You forfeit (potential) gains on the upside, for money you receive in selling the option. The point of this discussion is, is simply: what one buys one can sell;  what one sells one can buy -- that's how a ""market"" is supposed to work.  And also, not to think that making money in options is buying first, then selling.  It may be selling, and either buying back or ideally that option expiring worthless. -- Now, a final example.  Let's say you buy a deep in the money call on a stock trading at $150, and you own the $100 calls.  At expiration, these have a value of $50.  But let's say, you don't have any money in your account, to take ownership of the underlying security (you have to come up with the additional $100 per share you are missing).  In that case, need to call  your broker and see how they handle it, and it will depend on the type of account you have (e.g. margin or not, IRA, etc).  Generally speaking though, the ""margin department"" makes these decisions, and they look through folks that have options on things that have value, and are expiring, and whether they have the funds in their account to absorb the security they are going to need to own.  Exchange-wise, options that have value at expiration, are exercised.  But what if the person who has the option, doesn't have the funds to own the whole stock? Well, ideally on Monday they'll buy all the shares with the options you have at the current price, and immediately liquidate the amount you can't afford to own, but they don't have to.  I'm mentioning this detail so that it helps you see what's going or needs to go on with exchanges and brokerages and individuals, so you have a broader picture." 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 "It is not clear to me why you believe you can lose more than you put in, without margin. It is difficult and the chances are virtually nil. However, I can think of a few ways. Lets say you are an American, and deposit $1000. Now lets say you think the Indian rupee is going to devalue relative to the Euro. So that means you want to go long EURINR. Going long EURINR, without margin, is still different than converting your INRs into Euros. Assume USDINR = 72. Whats actually happening is your broker is taking out a 72,000 rupee loan, and using it to buy Euros, with your $1000 acting as collateral. You will need to pay interest on this loan (about 7% annualized if I remember correctly). You will earn interest on the Euros you hold in the meantime (for simplicity lets say its 1%). The difference between interest you earn and interest you pay is called the cost of carry, or commonly referred to as 'swap'. So your annualized cost of carry is $60 ($10-$70). Lets say you have this position open for 1 year, and the exchange rate doesnt move. Your total equity is $940. Now lets say an asteroid destroys all of Europe, your Euros instantly become worthless. You now must repay the rupee loan to close the trade, the cost of which is $1000 but you only have $940 in your account. You have lost more than you deposited, using ""no margin"". I would actually say that all buying and selling of currency pairs is inherently using margin, because they all involve a short sale. I do note that depending on your broker, you can convert to another currency. But thats not what forex traders do most of the time." High risk foreign debt is great until the bottom falls out of the market when the government default on debt or revalues currency. If you do this, you should be able to sustain near total losses of principal and interest. "To speak to this a little more broadly: apart from groups like hedge funds and other investors investing for purely speculative purposes, one of the major purposes of forwards (and, for that matter, futures) for companies in the ""real economy"" is to ""lock in"" a particular price in advance (or to reduce the risk of some kind of investment or transaction). Investopedia defines a currency forward as follows (with a few key points emphasized): [A currency forward is] a binding contract in the foreign exchange market that locks in the exchange rate for the purchase or sale of a currency on a future date. A currency forward is essentially a hedging tool that does not involve any upfront payment. The other major benefit of a currency forward is that it can be tailored to a particular amount and delivery period, unlike standardized currency futures. This can be a major advantage for planning and risk management purposes. For example, if I know I'm going to have to pay $1 million USD in the future and most of my revenue is in Euros, the actual amount I'll have to pay will vary based on the exchange rate between Euros and dollars. Thus, it's very worthwhile for me to be able to ""lock in"" a particular exchange rate so that I know exactly how much I'm going to pay relative to my projected revenue. The goal isn't necessarily to make money off the transaction (maybe they do, maybe they don't) as much as to reduce risk and improve planning ability. The fact that it doesn't involve an up-front payment is also a major advantage. It's usually a bad practice to ""sit on"" cash for a year if you can avoid it. Another key point: savings accounts pay less interest than inflation. If inflation is 3% and your savings account pays 1%, that looks remarkably like a guaranteed 2% loss to me."