Binary options trading
In the United States, the Securities and Exchange Commission approved exchange-traded binary options in 2008. Trading commenced on the American Stock Exchange (AMEX) and the Chicago Board Options Exchange (CBOE) in May and June 2008.
AMEX (now NYSE American) offers binary options on some exchange-traded funds and a few highly liquid equities such as Citigroup and Google. On the exchange binary options were called “fixed return options” (FROs); calls were named “finish high” and puts were named “finish low”. To reduce the threat of market manipulation of single stocks, FROs use a “settlement index” defined as a volume-weighted average of trades on the expiration day. AMEX and Donato A. Montanarosubmitted a patent application for exchange-listed binary options using a volume-weighted settlement index in 2005. CBOE offers binary options on the S&P 500(SPX) and the CBOE Volatility Index (VIX). The tickers for these are BSZ and BVZ, respectively.
NADEX, a U.S.-based Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) regulated exchange, launched binary options for a range of Forex, commodities, and stock indices‘ markets on June 2009,. On March 30, 2010 the CFTC issued an amended Order of Designation to allow trades on NADEX to be intermediated. NADEX have since offered binary options trading between buyers and sellers. They do not participate in the trades.
On June 6, 2013, the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) jointly issued an Investor Alert to warn about fraudulent promotional schemes involving binary options and binary options trading platforms. The two agencies said that they had received numerous complaints of fraud about binary options trading sites, “including refusal to credit customer accounts or reimburse funds to customers; identity theft; and manipulation of software to generate losing trades”. Other binary options operations were violating requirements to register with regulators.
In June 2013, U.S. regulators charged Israeli-Cypriot company Banc De Binary with illegally selling binary options to U.S. investors. In February 2016, the company reached an $11 million settlement with U.S. authorities. Regulators found the company used a “virtual office” in New York’s Trump Tower in pursuit of its scheme, evading a ban on off-exchange binary option contracts. The company neither admitted nor denied the allegations. In November 2016, SEC published yet another Investor Alert on binary options websites. In 2016,
In February 2017 the Times of Israel reported that the FBI was conducting an active international investigation of binary option fraud, emphasizing its international nature, saying that the agency was “not limited to the USA”. Victims from around the world were asked to contact an FBI field office or the FBI’s Internet Crime Complaint Center. The investigation is not limited to the binary options brokers, but is comprehensive and could include companies that provide services that allow the industry to operate. Credit card issuers will be informed of the fraudulent nature of much of the industry, which could possibly allow victims to receive a chargeback, or refund, of fraudulently obtained money.
On March 13, 2017, the FBI reiterated its warning, declaring that the “perpetrators behind many of the binary options websites, primarily criminals located overseas, are only interested in one thing—taking your money”. They also provide a checklist on how to avoid being victimized.
There is also a popular binary options recovery services scam, where fraudsters promise to “hunt” down the binary options scammers and retrieve the money from them through legal methods. In January 2018, Boston federal prosecutors filed a complaint against Leonel Alexis Valerio Santana and Frank Gregory Cedeno, accusing them of such type of fraud. In August 2018, Santana was sentenced to 63 months in prison, three years of supervised release, and ordered to pay restitution of $105,869 (Cedeno was indicted in March and pleaded not guilty).
My Mid Term ETF Investments
Blackrock World Technology Fund A2 USD
Blackrock World Gold Fund A2 USD
Allianz Global Artificial Intelligence AT Acc USD
Blackrock China Fund A2 USD
Predicting a recession is a notoriously difficult undertaking — both for investors and financial experts.
Yield curve inversions, a rare phenomenon, are often interpreted as a sign of recession. Since the late 1960s, there have been about nine episodes of a protracted yield curve inversion, with each later followed by a slowdown.
Thus, when the yield for 10-year U.S. Treasury notes dipped below that of three-month Treasury bills in late March, it spurred much debate about whether the next recession is looming. According to the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, there is a 25% probability of a U.S. recession in the next 12 months, based on Treasury spreads.
We beg to differ. The outlook for the global economy, and in turn financial markets, may not be nearly as bleak as the yield curve suggests.
We estimate the probability of a recession in the U.S. at less than 10% in the next 12 months, less than 20% in two years and just over 30% in three years. Contrary to commonly used models such as that of the New York Fed, our model does not include market data but focuses on structural macro data such as consumption and income balances and central bank accommodation.
The yield curve is clearly an important indicator to look at, though it does not pinpoint the precise timing of a recession. The yield curve inversion between July 2000 and January 2001, for example, was followed by a U.S. recession between March and November 2001. The yield curve inverted again in July 2006 to May 2007 ahead of the global financial crisis in the autumn of 2008.
As the circumstances of each recession are different, it is prudent to look at the bigger picture. First, certain conditions have changed over the past decade: Following the 2008 financial crisis, major central banks introduced significant quantitative easing measures that have moved bond markets and yields to levels where an inversion of the yield curve is more likely now than in previous economic cycles. This diminishes the role of yield curve inversions as a recession bellwether.
Furthermore, other structural macroeconomic factors can potentially signal a recession. It is therefore important to look at labor markets, corporate and consumer debt, the fiscal policy of major central banks, and the state of the Chinese economy, to name just a few. None of these signals currently point to an impending downturn.
So where does this leave the global economy? It is in the late phase of an extended economic cycle, and global growth should reaccelerate in the second half of 2019, providing late-cycle opportunities for investors.
The good news for investors is that the clear uptrend we saw in financial markets during the first quarter should continue in the coming months. This view is based on changes in underlying conditions that have altered the big picture in recent months.
The most noticeable shift has been in U.S. monetary policy. While U.S. labor markets remain strong, the U.S. Federal Reserve has signaled that it will not hike further this year, while the European Central Bank has also put rate hikes on hold. The Fed’s new policy of patience came after a historically turbulent fourth quarter for financial markets in 2018 as a number of issues — slumping global industrial production, Brexit, the U.S.-China trade war, and a hawkish Fed — scared off investors.
At the same time, the Chinese economy appears to be on the mend. The latest Purchasing Managers’ Index in China rose above 50 to enter expansionary territory for the first time in four months, with new orders and purchase volumes advancing. Such improvements indicate that the Chinese government’s fiscal and monetary stimulus is helping to strengthen the economy. Any resolution in the current U.S.-China trade dispute would provide additional support. As China’s economy picks up steam, other economies, including the export-oriented euro zone, should improve as well.
These combined factors should bode well for financial markets and risky assets in particular in coming months. Equities, real estate and commodities all stand to benefit. For the investors who missed the first-quarter rally, there should be future opportunities to participate in rising markets. Any small correction in equities in the coming months could be viewed as an opportunity to re-enter the market.
Investors now find themselves back to where they were in the fall of 2018 — before the fourth-quarter correction — when U.S. equity markets were hitting all-time highs. Economic cycles do not last forever. But for now, focusing on the likely upside ahead should prove rewarding.
—Michael Strobaek is the global chief investment officer at Credit Suisse.
Atomic Swaps has the potential of completely revolutionizing the money transfer system in the crypto world. To put it in simple terms, atomic swaps will enable people to directly trade with one another wallet-to-wallet.
Since 2012, the concept of a trustless, peer-to-peer cryptocurrency has been a pretty hot topic. In July 2012, a developer by the name of Sergio Demian Lerner created the first draft of a trustless exchange protocol. The idea was pretty appealing, however, it wasn’t really fleshed out.
The breakthrough in atomic swap research happened around May 2013, when TIer Nolan provided the first full account of a procedure for atomic swaps. Tier Nolan is widely credited as the inventor of atomic swaps.
In this guide, we are going to look into how atomic swaps work and the advantages that they are going to bring into the ecosystem.
Problems With Centralized Exchanges
Suppose Alice has Bitcoin and wants to sell them for Litecoin. Similarly, we have Bob who has Litecoin but wants some Bitcoin instead. Normally what would have happened is that both of them would have had to go a centralized exchange, sell their cryptos and buy newer cryptos. However, there are a lot of problems with these exchanges.
#1 Hack Vulnerability
Centralized exchanges always have the risk of getting hacked. Probably the most infamous example of this is Coincheck which got hacked for $550 million worth of NEM. The worst part is that this hack greatly reduced crypto sentiment in Japan, a country that was traditionally known to be very crypto friendly.
#2 Subject to Mismanagement
The infamous Mt. Gox hack where bitcoins worth $500 million were robbed happened directly as a result of CEO Max Karpeles’s inept management. As Andreas Anatopoulos put it:
“Magic The Gathering Online Exchange (Mt. Gox) is a systemic risk to bitcoin, a death trap for traders and a business run by the clueless.”
#3 Volume Demands
Exchanges can’t deal with changes in demand, especially when there is a sudden increase in demand. Do know why BCH’s value nearly went down by half on 12th November?
Turns out, there was a sudden rise in demand and most exchanges couldn’t cope. Bithumb, in particular, suffered 90 mins of downtime and lost 60,000 BTC in volume.
#4 Subject to Government Regulation
Because the centralized exchanges are registered in particular countries, they are subject to the whims of the government,
Because of the reasons stated above, centralized exchanges are not the ideal way to go forward for mainstream adoption.
What Are Atomic Swaps?
Atomic swap is a peer-to-peer exchange of cryptocurrencies from one party to another, without going through a third party service like a crypto exchange. During this entire process, the users have full control and ownership of their private keys.
On September 20, 2017, Decred and Litecoin did the first known successful implementation of the atomic swap.
Another interesting thing to note about atomic swaps:
They can either be directly executed between separate blockchains with different native coins
Or, they can also be executed via off-chain channels that are offshoots of the main blockchain.
Atomic swap is also known as cross-chain trading.
How Does Atomic Swaps Work?
To give a very simplistic explanation. Two parties who are going to engage in atomic swaps decide on a shared secret. The two parties will share their cryptos if and only if their secrets match. So, this way, if somebody else barges into this exchange, they won’t be able to get their hands on any of the coins because they will not know this secret.
Ok, so now you know the concept, but how does it actually work?
In order to execute this, something known as Hashed Timelock Contracts or HTLCs are used. If you are familiar with the lightning network then you should know how hashed timelock contracts work. Right now we will just give you a brief description of what hashed timelock contracts are.
What are Hashed Time Contracts?
Hashed timelock contracts are a special form of payment channels. Payment channels are basically off-chain state channels which deal with payments.
A state channel is a two-way communication channel between participants which enable them to conduct interactions, which would normally occur on the blockchain, off the blockchain. What this will do is that it will decrease transaction time exponentially since you are no longer dependent on a third party like a miner to valid your transaction.
So what are the requirements to do an off-chain state channel?
A segment of the blockchain state is locked via multi-signature or some sort of smart contract, which is agreed upon by a set of participants.
The participants interact with each other by signing transactions among each other without submitting anything to the miners.
The entire transaction set is then added to the blockchain.
The state channels can be closed at a point which is predetermined by the participants. Closing can happen because of one of the following reasons:
Time lapsed eg. the participants can agree to open a state channel and close it after 2 hours.
It could be based on the total amount of transactions done eg. close the chain after $100 worth of transactions have taken place.
Hashed timelock contracts or “HTLCs” are one of the most convenient applications of the payment channels.
So, what is an HTLC?
Earlier iterations of payment channels which use “timelocks”. An HTLC “extends” that by introducing “Hashlocks” along with the timelocks.
The HTLC enables opening up of payment channels where funds can get transferred between parties prior to a pre-agreed deadline. These payments get acknowledged via the submission of cryptographic proofs. Along with that, another brilliant feature of the HTLCs is that it allows a party to forfeit the payment given to them and return it to the payer. The idea is to use a multisignature transaction system that holds both traders accountable for a swap to be successful.
An old investing rule of thumb is working better than it has in a while.
It’s called the “60-40” rule — which describes a portfolio made up of 60 percent stocks and 40 percent fixed-income securities. Advisors have recommended the balance as a middle-of-the-road way of investing. It puts the majority of an investor’s money into stocks, which are riskier but higher yielding than bonds, while still having a solid amount held in government, corporate and agency bonds.
The Vanguard Balanced Index fund, which mirrors that portfolio rule, just had its best quarter in nearly a decade with a 9.5 percent gain in the first quarter.
The approach is usually more of a hedge. When stocks do well, it’s not typically the case that bond prices also rally. But this year has been different, thanks to the Federal Reserve.
The Fed signaled in January that it was putting the brakes on raising its short-term benchmark rates. Investors embraced the stance and bought bonds, pushing their prices higher as the yields fell. That also boosted stocks. Higher rates can sometimes dampen enthusiasm for stocks because rising borrowing costs eat into corporate profits and can make earnings valuation look too high.
Bond yields and prices move in opposite directions. In this case, lower yields means higher bond prices, and therefore more value for that 40 percent of an average investors’ “60-40” portfolio. With the Fed no longer a roadblock and the economy chugging along at a respectable 2 percent growth, U.S. stocks and bonds have both been in favor this year.
In other words, the quarter was “the perfect storm, in a good way” for investors, according to Paul Schatz, president at Heritage Capital.
“The rising tide of the first quarter has lifted all ships, debris and just about anything and everything in the ocean,” Schatz said. “The 60-40 portfolio was an easy winner.”
The other factor boosting U.S. Treasurys was how good they looked compared with the rest of the world. The German and Japanese 10-year government bonds, for instance, both yield negative interest rates. Any return looks great in comparison, especially for global investors looking for a place to park their money. The U.S. 10-year yields just under 2.5 percent.
“We might think of U.S. bonds as low income — but for the rest of the world it’s like a high yield bond,” said Ken Kamen, president of Mercadien Asset Management. “Worldwide demand is helping.”
The amount a retail investor should put in stocks versus bonds has a lot to do with their tolerance for risk and how close they are to retiring. Advisors often recommend that younger investors invest a greater portion of their money in stocks, or around 80 percent. Someone who is retired, on the other hand, might put 30 percent in stocks and have 70 percent in bonds.
Will it last?
Another rule of thumb advisors have used over the years is to subtract their age from 100. The remainder is the percentage of their portfolio that should be in stocks, some advisors say.
“It is the default for people, it has worked for the past 30 years and it continues to work,” said Rick Ferri, investment advisor and author of “All About Asset Allocation.” “It’s a pretty nice long-term allocation that outperforms most endowment funds for years, and is a tough balance to beat.”
Ric Edelman, CEO of Edelman Financial Services, said the fact that the 60-40 model worked so well is more of a reflection of the strong quarter than anything. The start to 2019 was a “a wonderful environment” for both stocks and bonds, he said. But that might not last.
“Sixty-forty has never not worked,” said Edelman. “But it’s unrealistic that the pace continues. We need to temper our enthusiasm.”
Based on the first quarter’s double-digit rally, if the S&P 500 stayed on the same growth trajectory, it would end the year up by more than 40 percent. Edelman expects that growth in share prices to retract, or slow at the very least.
Others are less excited about the old-school model, regardless of how great the quarter was. As money manager Peter Tanous put it — the 60-40 model is “dead.” Tanous, who has been in the business for 50 years, said there was a time when it worked great because bonds would kick back 8 percent.
“The problem is, that has not been true for a number of years,” Tanous told CNBC. In the prolonged low-rate environment over the last decade, “the 40 percent in bonds is sitting there ’doing nothing.”
“You need to look for other creative ways to create income, and you may need to take a little more risk compared to the old days,” he said.
— With reporting by CNBC’s Michael Santoli
At some point in their life, most small businesses will go to a bank or other lending institution with what they believe to be sound business loan proposals to borrow money for expansion of their operation. Many small business owners, however, initially fall victim to several of the common and potentially destructive myths that concern applying for loans. You should always do your own research.
By: Phoenix Lee/
Myths concerning applying for a loan
For example, first-time borrowers commonly believe:
Lenders are lined up and eager to provide money to small businesses.
Banks are willing sources of financing for start-up businesses.
Loans are obtained by talking the lender out of funds.
When it comes to seeking money, the company speaks for itself.
A bank, is a bank, is a bank, and all banks are cold, impersonal institutions.
Banks, especially large ones, do not need and really do not want the business of a small firm.
Research shows that 67 per cent of all small businesses that borrow money get that money from commercial banks. This places banks among the largest sources of credit; and makes them one of the most vital components to small business survival. Understanding what your bank wants and how to properly approach them with sound business loan proposals can mean the difference between getting your money for expansion and having to scrape through finding cash from other sources.
The name for people who simply walk into a bank and ask for money is “Bank Robbers”. To present yourself as a trustworthy businessperson, dependable enough to repay borrowed money, you need to first understand the basic principles of banking.
Your chances for receiving a loan will greatly improve if you can see your proposal through a banker’s eyes and appreciate their position. Banks have a responsibility to government regulators, depositors, and the community in which they are in. While a bank’s cautious perspective may be irritating to a small business owner, it is necessary in order to keep the depositors money safe, the banking regulators happy, and the economic health of the community growing.
Banks differ in the types of financing they make available, interest rates charged, willingness to accept risk, staff expertise, services offered, and in their attitude toward small business loans. Selection of a bank is essentially limited to these choices. Furthermore, a bank will typically not make business loans to any size business unless a current account or money market account is maintained.
Ultimately, your task is to find a business-oriented bank that will provide the financial assistance, expertise, and services your business requires now and is likely to require in the future.
A good loan specialist will be able to assist you in deciding which bank will best suit your needs and prepare sound business loan proposals.
As such, you should devote time and effort to building a background of information and goodwill with the bank you choose, and get to know the loan officer you will be dealing with early on. You should also build a favourable climate for a loan request long before the funds are actually needed. The worst possible time to approach a new bank is when your business is in the throes of a financial crisis. That is like walking into a funeral parlor carrying a body.
Remember that bankers are essentially conservative lenders with an overriding concern for minimising risk. Logic dictates that this is best accomplished by limiting loans to businesses they know and trust, and to those who make sound business loan proposals.
Experienced bankers know that every firm encounters occasional difficulties; a banker you have taken the time and effort to build a rapport with will have faith that you can handle these difficulties. A responsible reputation for debt repayment may also be established with your bank by taking small loans, repaying them on schedule, and meeting all facets of the agreement in both letter and spirit.
By doing so, you gain the bankers trust and loyalty. He or she will consider your business a valued customer, favor it with privileges, and make it easier for you to obtain future financing.
Lending is the essence of the banking business and making mutually beneficial loans is as important to the success of the bank as it is to the small business. This means that understanding what information a loan officer seeks, and providing the evidence required to ease normal banking concerns, is the most effective approach to getting what is needed.
Sound business loan proposals should contain information that expands on the following points:
What is the specific purpose of the loan?
Exactly how much money is required?
What is the exact source of repayment for the loan?
What evidence is available to substantiate the assumptions that the expected source of repayment is reliable?
What alternative source of repayment is available if management’s plans fail?
What business or personal assets, or both, are available to collateralise the loan?
What evidence is available to substantiate the competence and ability of the management team?