qas30

--== It is Not Random But Designs ==--
Having trading discipline is the beginning; keeping discipline is the progress;
staying discipline is the success

Trading's 6 Biggest Losers :Rogue Traders

Published on: Senin, 25 Maret 2013 in , ,
Rogue trading makes headlines. In late 2011 an unauthorized trader lost $2 billion for the Swiss-based bank, USB. The idea of a single person losing millions and occasionally billions of dollars is always interesting, but it is even more so when that person is losing other people's money.
In this article we will look at six of the rogue traders (in no particular order) who became famous for their very public losses.

Nick and the Nikkei - $1.3 BillionNick Leeson is probably the most famous rogue trader in the world. He even wrote a book on the subject, which was aptly titled "Rogue Trader" (1996). In 1992, he was the stereotypical rising star and his magic touch allowed him to become the head of Barings operations on the Singapore International Monetary Exchange - all at the tender age of 28.

But, he soon lost his trading touch and started to rack up a number of large losses. He used his position as both the head trader and the one responsible for settling trades in the office to hide his losses in a secret account, which was numbered 88888.

At the beginning of 1995, his trading losses were already significant when he had the enormous misfortune of placing a short straddle on the Nikkei, which was a bet that the market wouldn't make a large move overnight. However, the next day there was an earthquake in Kobe, which sent the Nikkei lower and led to a massive loss In an attempt to recoup these losses, Leeson made large risky bets that the Nikkei would recover quickly form the quake, which it didn't, leading to further losses. (For related reading, see Are Derivatives Financial "Weapons Of Mass Destruction"? and Hedge Fund Failures Illuminate Leverage Pitfalls.)

In the end, Leeson lost an estimated $1.3billion for the bank, which resulted in the bankruptcy of Barings, a bank that had survived for more than two centuries in the industry. Leeson received a six-and-a-half year sentence but was released early for good behavior after being diagnosed with cancer.

John Rusnak and the Yen - $691 MillionJohn Rusnak of Allfirst Financial found failure in the Japanese yen. Initially, from when he was hired in 1993 and up until 1995, when the Asian markets were doing well, so did Rusnak. But, Rusnak started gambling and losing progressively larger amounts as the previously friendly markets turned against him in 1996. By 1997, Rusnak had lost $29.1 million. By 2001, he had lost $300 million. And, in a stroke of incredibly bad luck, he sold over $300,000 in options which brought his total losses to $691 million.

Like Leeson, it was Rusnak's ability to work the regulatory system to conceal his losses that allowed him to do much more damage than should have been possible. In the end, Rusnak received a jail sentence of seven-and-a-half years and is on the hook for paying back the $691 million.

Mr. Copper - $2.5 BillionYasuo Hamanaka, better known as Mr. Copper, was a trader for Sumitomo Corporation. Hamanaka specialized in, of course, copper. He is said to have controlled 5% of the world copper market, but failed in an attempt to corner the market. In 1996, Sumitomo Corp. disclosed $2.6 billion loss on copper trades.

The range of his activities and the time period in which they occurred (a full decade ending with a 1996 conviction and eight-year prison sentence) have raised questions about whether he was a rogue trader or simply a member of a price-fixing conspiracy. His conviction centered on his having forged his supervisor's signature in a letter, but the extent to which he went rogue is still in question.Liu Qibing - $200 Million - $1 Billion (unconfirmed)An even more mysterious 2005 copper caper occurred when Liu Qibing, a man who may or may not have been a metals trader for the Chinese government, took a huge bet (around 200,000 tons) that copper prices were going to fall. However, copper prices rose substantially over the life of the trade as global demand for copper increased, which led to massive losses on the trade.

As the paper trail led back to the Chinese State Reserve Bureau, other traders realized China would have to fill the amount shorted. This drove copper prices up. The Chinese government tried to depress prices by claiming copper reserves five-times larger than previously estimated and, in a bizarre twist, denied that a Liu Qibing had even existed to place a short. The extent of the losses are up for debate, as are the current whereabouts of the ephemeral Liu Qibing.

Brian Hunter and Amaranth - $6.5 BillionHedge fund traders get an easy ride when it comes to rogue trading because they are expected to take big risks, but Brian Hunter of Amaranth should be considered a textbook case.

His gambles in natural gas futures were initially successful, particularly so when Hurricane Katrina wreaked havoc on the infrastructure and pushed prices up while Hunter happened to hold a long position. The huge profits attracted more and more investors to Amaranth, providing Hunter with more capital to gamble with.
Sadly, Hunter's ability to predict the weather turned out to be no more consistent than the TV forecasters' and the natural gas futures turned on him. In one day, on September 14, 2006, Hunter and his colleagues lost $560 million alone. In total, he ended up losing around $6.5 billion, which led to closure of Amaranth. (For more on this, read Losing The Amaranth Gamble.)

Jerome Kerviel - $7.1 Billion
Surpassing even Hunter's losses, Jerome Kerviel has set the bar improbably high for future rogue traders. His losses from speculation in European futures cost his employer, Société Générale, more than $7 billion.

As with Leeson and Rusnak, Kerviel was able to manipulate the system using knowledge he gained while working in the office that monitored traders prior to being promoted to a trading position. He made no personal profit from his rogue trading. The 2007 mortgage meltdown probably hastened his fall from grace, but the highly leveraged and unapproved trades were bound to have disastrous consequences.

Conclusion This is a far from complete list. It's missing Robert Criton, the scourge of OrangeCounty, Peter Young and his propensity to wear women's clothes at trials, and many other equally compelling tales. At the heart of all of these, however, is the old tale of hubris. When a trader begins to feel that he or she has a special gift for sniffing out money-making positions, it can be a dangerous situation. Unfortunately, luck is a fickle friend. When these formerly magical traders start losing, they often look for ways to magnifying their bets and win back their losses.

Aside from the financial damages that rogue traders inflict upon the market, they do serve one very important function; they remind us that seeking exceptional returns means taking on equally exceptional risk. There is no magic trick that can change this fact, so an investor has to know how much risk he or she can safely handle as well as when to quit.


here is the bigest Loser List : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_trading_losses 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rogue_trader 

Make Money By Being A Forex Loser

Published on: Jumat, 22 Maret 2013 in , , ,
Many new Forex traders think that successful traders have successful deals all the time. Most successful traders, as a matter of fact, trade with success rates about fifty percent and seventy five percent. Because of this it also means that they also fail fifty to twenty five pecent of the time.

If you add up all the losses made by a successful trader (in dollar terms) the losses are often much bigger than the gains or losses made by an unsuccessful trader. Therefore successful Forex traders are not only the bigger winners but also the biggest losers (in dollar terms). Trading activity is sometimes much more important to trying to get a hundred percent record at all times.


There are many reasons for this. Good traders have accepted the fact that losing is part of Forex trading. They therefore process and accept loses in a very constructive way. They are not distracted by failures or become emotionally upset. They view their losses as learning experiences and therefore get great value from loses. They also know that a trader's success rate is merely one of the components to a financially rewarding Forex trading career. They know that to succeed it take a balance between many trading skills and factors. These factors include sound money management, a positive and objective trading psychology, how many gains you make on gains, how much is lost on unsuccessful trades.

Using this constructive attitide allows them to trade more often (Not talking about over trading) as they are not distracted by trading psychology challenges such as depression and paralysis. They are also more confident at increasing the number of lots traded based on their past successes.

Successful traders therefore trade more and use more lots. Not only do they make more (in dollar terms) on their winning trades but at the same instance they lose more on their losing trades because their size of of lots are gradually increased.

Unsuccessful traders don't risk as much on their trading or don't trade as much due to their inability to deal with losses positively. This increases their insecurity and gives them a trading inferiority complex. Most unsuccessful traders are so distracted by their losses that they start their search for the Holy Grail over and over again every week.

You can save so much energy and time processing your losses positively. Almost all trading techniques can be made to be profitable by adding a number filters anyway (or reversing the trading direction on unsuccessful systems) so the trading system is the easy part.

Successful trader have a good money management process and a positive trading psychology.

Good traders lose money because it is part of trading (the market will always do what the market will do) and they don't lose any sleep about these loses. How well do you deal with your trading losses?

The biggest difference between successful traders and unsuccessful traders is the ability to manage losses positively.

7 Steps Become a Forex Looser

Published on: in , ,
Forex market doesn't beat so many traders because they're not intelligent people, but the Forex market is such a different market that a tested and proven system is absolutely essential to making good money in the Forex.

Here are seven common mistakes that new Forex traders often make, also known as 7 easy steps to becoming a Forex loser:

#1: Following your gut. It may work for winning $20 off your buddy off the occasional football game, but the Forex market is a market, not a sporting event. Following a "gut feeling" that isn't founded on research, analysis, or a system is a sure fire way to lose and to lose big in the long run.

#2: Not anticipating changes from the demo trading to real life trading. There is more than one way this can negatively affect a trader. A trader can become squeamish when it's real money and hesitate, causing them to lose.

Or the opposite can happen: a trader can be over aggressive in demo and assume that when they're more cautious with real money, they won't lose. Plan on additional pressures when dealing in the real market, otherwise if you don't you'll definitely be a Forex loser.

#3: Not having a clear trading strategy. You have to have a clear trading strategy, aka a tried and true trading system, in order to succeed in Forex. You can't just use one method one day, and a completely different one the next.

A consistent proven method is how you'll make money in the Forex. Knowing exactly how your strategy works, to the smallest detail, is what will determine whether you succeed or not.

#4: Not confirming potential trends with technical analysis. Not all mistakes are made by complete newcomers. Once you get good at identifying patterns just by looking at a chart, it might be easy to go by look and not go through the technical analysis to confirm what you see. This would be a mistake.

Technical analysis not only can help confirm you're in a breakout, but can also warn you when the other signals in the market suggest it's a weak or false movement. Not confirming your trend is a huge mistake that can bust you in no time flat.

#5: Completely ignoring all fundamental analysis. Even the most successful, die-hard technical analysis traders are going to pay attention to the economic reports. Technical analysis is great, but those reports will always affect currency.

A market may be trending up, but if there is a surprise interest rate drop when the expectation was a raise, well, you're going to be on the wrong side of a beating if that takes place and you don't notice.

#6: Focusing on one currency. There is an inherent problem with this. Forex is currency trading with pairs. Just because a currency is doing well against most currencies, doesn't mean it is doing well against all of them.

For example, the USD could lose 20-40 pips against the Euro, British Pound, and Canadian Dollar, but go up 40 pips against the Japanese Yen. Seeing mixed results in currency pairs is, in fact, more common than not.

#7: Emotion & Fear. After you get burned a few times, it can be hard to get back into the fire. Especially if you did your homework, found some good indicators, and what looked like a good situation ended up as a bad trade.

It happens. You can't let it get under your skin. Letting too much fear under the guise of "caution" will make it impossible for you to be a Forex winner.

These are 7 steps to becoming a Forex loser, a road all too many traders have gone down before. Finding a great proven trading system can help to ensure that you don't make the same mistake.

American forex traders lose $20 million in September 2011

Published on: Rabu, 20 Maret 2013 in , , ,
Every month CFTC publishes Futures commission merchants (FCMs) and retail foreign exchange dealers (RFEDs) financial data. Amongst other things CFTC also discloses Total Amount of Retail Forex Obligations – which is basically the total equity of retail forex traders that broker holds.
September 2011 report shows that US retail forex traders have lost about $20 million. This figure however is to be viewed cautiously as this report just shows changes in total capital and doesn’t specify reasons for changes. We can assume that the $20 million decrease in total retail forex obligations mostly came from losses due to high volatility experienced in September – but we cannot be 100% sure about all of it. Some brokers like ILQ, Tradestation and FXClub have even shown an increase in clients equity while brokers like Oanda have experienced a decrease of over $13 million.
What’s even more interesting is that while September 2011 retail forex obligations report indicates that many traders lost money in September, the Q3 2011 US forex brokers profitability report shows the opposite – clients’ profitability is actually up.



8.2011 9.2011 change
ADVANCED MARKETS 1,527,782 1,392,951 (134,831)
ALPARI 10,829,320 10,595,935 (233,385)
FXCM 145,264,186 145,254,197 (9,989)
FXCLUB 3,097,749 4,488,081 1,390,332
FXSOL 17,325,490 17,083,483 (242,007)
FXDD 33,756,982 31,758,420 (1,998,562)
GAIN 97,819,890 98,486,559 666,669
GFT 91,754,561 83,813,305 (7,941,256)
ILQ 5,207,838 7,819,830 2,611,992
IBFX 31,623,759 30,232,166 (1,391,593)
MB 32,828,208 32,593,827 (234,381)
OANDA 161,477,887 148,089,093 (13,388,794)
PFG 33,991,858 33,213,234 (778,624)
TRADESTATION 37,336,604 38,537,987 1,201,383
XPRESSTRADE 578,289 936,685 358,396




Totals 711,381,458 689,675,561 (20,124,650)

Month on Month change in client deposits in 2011

These Guys Lost 7 Million of Their Clients' Money

Capital Blu Management LLC showed their clients solid monthly returns. It looked like a sound investment. The only real warning sign was that the money wasn't in individual accounts, but in a pooled account.

According to the CFTC, while clients thought they were getting those monthly returns, Capital Blu was really losing over $7 million of the $17 million that has been invested. Millions more are unaccounted for, The owners, Donovan Davis, Jr., Blayne Davis, and Damien Bromfield are charged with running a fraudulent commodity pool. In addition to the charges against those individuals and CapitalBlu, a second company, DD International Holdings, LLC, is also charged. Further, there is an issue of money being illegitimately transferred to Nakano Capital Partners, LP, Nakano Capital Advisors, LLC, and/or Nakano Capital Management, LLC.

Some of the money was also misused for personal use. Things like luxury cars and private jet charters were paid for with client funds. Some of it was misused for very personal use. $40,000 was spent for a two night party at a “gentlemen's” club. We are shocked at these abuses of client funds and saddened that none of us ever get invited to that sort of party.

There were about 100 investors involved. That would make the average investment $170,000. 7 million was lost. That cost each investor an average of $70,000. There are millions more unaccounted for.

We wish to give a very special Thank You to the newest member of the FPA's Review Moderation Team for bringing this to our attention earlier today.

The FPA has blacklisted CapitalBlu. We hope that most of the missing money can be recovered so that investors can get at least some of their money back.

How to Lose Millions in Speculative Currency Trading







Australia's largest bank, National Australia Bank (NAB), lost hundreds of millions of dollars in speculative currency trading. The scandal broke out in January 2004 when a fellow trader working in the Melbourne office of the bank exposed unauthorized foreign currency derivatives trading. Initial reports had indicated that the total loss could be as high as A$600 million but Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA), country's banking regulatory body, found that the currency trading scandal has cost the bank A$360 million.



In its detailed report on the scandal released on March 24, 2004, APRA found that the board of the National Australia Bank had been lax in regulation and supervision of currency risk management system. In its report, APRA recommended 75 improvements to restore confidence in the bank. These improvements include closing down of foreign currency options operations of NAB and increasing capital reserves by A$700 million until new trading limits and better risk management controls are put into action. APRA has also recommended that NAB should increase its capital adequacy reserves ratio to 10 per cent, which stood at 9.7 per cent at the end of September 2003.



The findings of APRA are consistent with an independent review into the scandal by accountancy firm PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC). The PwC review had also found that the currency traders had exploited loopholes and weaknesses in the NAB’s system to hide trading losses. Although the scandal was uncovered in January 2004, the PwC review found that currency traders were concealing losses for several months.

With a market capitalization of A$45.8 billion, NAB is the largest stock in the Australian financial markets. The revelation that the NAB had lost hundreds of millions of dollars on unauthorized currency trading sent shockwaves to the financial markets. The scandal wiped out almost A$2 billion from bank’s market capitalization within few days.

Undeniably, the currency scandal has severely dented the reputation of the NAB but this is not the first time that the bank has been hit by a scandal and suffered huge losses due to poor risk management controls. In 2001, NAB had to write down A$3.6 billion from the purchase of US mortgage business, HomeSide. Millions of dollars were also lost in a fraud when NAB lent money to buy fictitious coaches. In fact, just six months before the latest currency trading scandal, APRA had cautioned senior management of NAB about its lax approach towards risk management systems in currency trading.

In the aftermath of scandal, several senior staff members of NAB have lost their jobs and the board has been restructured. The so-called “rogue traders” — Luke Duffy, David Bullen and Vince Ficarra in Melbourne and Gianni Gray in London — have been dismissed and are under investigation by the Australian Federal Police. While NAB Chairman Charles Allen and Chief Executive Frank Cicutto have resigned.

The currency trading scandal at NAB was the result of a combination of factors including greed, arrogance and lax regulatory and supervisory framework. In October 2003, “rogue traders” at NAB were trading highly leveraged call options on the Australian and New Zealand dollar in the anticipation that these currencies would fall against the US dollar. But their speculative bets were wide of the mark. Instead of falling, Australian and New Zealand dollar rose substantially against the US dollar between October and December 2003. With these currencies gaining strength, the currency traders at the NAB were losing millions of dollars every day.  If “rogue traders” had closed positions as the market moved against them, the losses would have been minimal. Instead, they doubled their bets in order to recover initial losses. Taking advantage of loopholes and weaknesses in the bank's system, they also entered fictitious currency transactions in the books to cover up their losses.



What is astonishing is that fictitious currency transactions and breach of trading limits went unnoticed for months at the NAB despite a plethora of internal checks and balances. It was only on January 9 2004, when a fellow trader noticed discrepancies in trading accounts and alerted the management. At that time, “rogue traders” had incurred a loss of A$185 million. Two weeks later when the entire currency portfolio of the bank was restructured, the total losses increased to A$360 million.



To some extent, blame lies with the behavior of four “rogue traders” at the NAB who were known for their aggressive approach in currency trading. All in their early 30s, “rogue traders” were so consumed by “profit is king” culture at the NAB that they overlooked warning signals. The year-end bonuses from currency trading gave them additional incentives to conceal losses and create illusionary profits through fictitious trading. Despite highly paid, currency traders earn more money through bonuses. The four “rogue traders” each received bonuses between A$120000 and A$265000 for the financial year 2002-03, almost double their annual salary. Gary Dillon, the bank's global head of foreign exchange, received a bonus of A$500000 last year on top of a hefty salary.



Although much attention has been paid in the media about the role of four “rogue traders” in perpetuating fraud at the NAB, but several important contributory factors have been largely ignored. To a large extent, lax regulation and supervision at the NAB provided conducive environment for “rogue traders” to carry out huge speculative bets on currency derivatives. It is difficult to believe that “rogue traders” were trading beyond their daily limits without the tacit approval from the higher authorities at the NAB. As per media reports, “rogue traders” had breached trading limits on as many as 800 occasions in the year 2003 and, at one stage, had an unhedged foreign exchange exposure of more than A$2 billion. It is implausible that senior management at the NAB was unaware of non-compliance of daily Value at Risk (VaR) limits and other standards by traders.



On the contrary, senior management at the NAB ignored the violation of trading limits and other standards since “rogue traders” were generating handsome profits for the bank through speculative bets in currency markets. In the words of David Bullen, one of the four traders, “We were over the limits and they were being signed off on a daily basis...so my boss was aware, his boss was aware and then other areas of the bank were aware of this type of thing. You know, it's not like, you know, [you] can hide limits and stuff like that from the rest of the bank…All they [senior management] ever really wanted was for money to be made, and the way that came about was secondary.”



It is also difficult to believe that fictitious transactions went unnoticed by the back office of the bank for almost three months. When a currency transaction is completed in the trading room, it is passed to the back office of the bank for recording. Confirmation of the transaction also comes from outside the bank, from the counterparties of the transaction. The agreed transaction is then entered into the bank's accounting system. It is inconceivable that the counterparties did not inform the back office of NAB about their transactions for almost three months. All these developments corroborate the contention that the scandal is not limited to only four “rogue traders” and back office of the NAB is equally involved in it.



It is evident that some of the lessons from earlier derivative scandals have not been learnt. One of the main lessons learnt from the Barings scandal was the need for complete separation and autonomy between the trading room and the back office of the bank. But in the case of NAB scandal, we have seen how back office fully connived with the trading room.



This scandal has busted several myths associated with the risk management systems of banking sector. First, banks and financial institutions do not have better governance and risk management systems than the non-financial corporate sector. Second, technical solutions and models (e.g., VaR), howsoever sophisticated these may be, are of little help in preventing the financial fraud.



The NAB scandal also reflects the growing dependency among banks and financial institutions on currency speculation and other risky businesses to reap higher profits. As deregulation and rampant competition from foreign banks have eroded their profits, banks are increasingly resorting to speculative activities in currency markets. Banks are the biggest players in the global currency trading. The global currency market is the largest market in the world. Since the breakdown on Bretton Woods system in the early 1970s, currency trading has increased manifold. Nowadays, over US$1.2 trillion is traded on an average every single day in global currency markets, whereas in 1977, the daily turnover was just $18 billion.



Since foreign exchange markets are extremely volatile and pose a systemic risk, their phenomenal rise has been a matter of serious concern. According to the Bank of International Settlement (BIS), daily spot transactions have declined over the years but currency trading through derivative instruments has witnessed a dramatic increase. Unlike spot transactions, currency derivatives (e.g., currency options, currency futures and currency swaps) are less transparent. Moreover, trading in currency derivatives is not only restricted to banks and financial institutions. Recent evidence suggests that non-financial institutions and transnational corporations are increasingly trading in currency derivatives. It is generally claimed that transnational corporations indulge in currency derivatives to protect their overseas businesses from foreign exchange risk but the possibilities of misusing currency derivatives to book speculative profits cannot be denied.



Although derivatives are supposed to help in reducing risk, they have become one of the biggest sources of volatility and instability in the global financial markets. Warren Buffett, the world's greatest stock market investor, recently described derivatives as financial weapons of mass destruction. In the Annual Report of Berkshire Hathaway (2002), Buffett stated “We view them [derivatives] as time bombs both for the parties that deal in them and the economic system ... In our view ... derivatives are financial weapons of mass destruction, carrying dangers that, while now latent, are potentially lethal.” Since derivatives are highly leveraged instruments, a small fluctuation in prices and exchange rates can cause huge losses to parties involved in such transactions and thereby pose systemic risk. We have seen how the collapse of massive hedge fund Long-Term Credit Management (LTCM) in 1998 had almost brought the global financial system to its knees.



In global currency markets where the risks and rewards are astronomical, the possibilities of frauds are also enormous. No wonder, the world is increasingly witnessing a series of currency trading scandals. Some scandals have come out in the open while others remain buried. Two recent scandals involving banks are cited here. In 2002, AllFirst Financial, a subsidiary of Allied Irish Bank — Ireland's second largest bank — lost US$750 million on foreign currency options trading when its trader, John Rusnak, systematically falsified bank records and documents to hide losses from speculative bets. Rijecka Banka — Croatia’s third largest bank — lost US$100 million (nearly three-quarters of the bank’s capital) in March 2002 when its currency dealer, Eduard Nodilo, indulged in unauthorized foreign exchange trading to hide past losses. In the aftermath of this scandal, the German bank, Bayerische Landesbank, sold its 59 per cent share in Rijecka Banka to the government for a symbolic price of US$1. The growing list of currency trading scandals calls for greater regulation of banks involved in currency trading, particularly currency derivatives.



To sum up, the NAB currency trading scandal not only demonstrates that very little has changed in the past one decade, but also raises fears of recurrence of it if policy makers remain oblivious of their responsibility to regulate banks as well as global currency markets.
Subscribe to our RSS Feed! Follow us on Facebook! Follow us on Twitter!