AppId is over the quota
AppId is over the quota
At the global treaty conference on telecommunications here, the United States got most of what it wanted. But then it refused to sign the document and left in a huff. What was that all about? And what does it say about the future of the Internet — which was virtually invented by the United States but now has many more users in the rest of the world? It may mean little about how the Internet will operate in the coming years. But it might mean everything about the United States’ refusal to acknowledge even symbolic global oversight of the network. The American delegation, joined by a handful of Western allies, derided the treaty as a threat to Internet freedom. But most other nations signed it. And other participants in the two weeks of talks here were left wondering on Friday whether the Americans had been negotiating in good faith or had planned all along to engage in a public debate only to make a dramatic exit, as they did near midnight on Thursday as the signing deadline approached. The head of the American delegation, Terry Kramer, announced that it was “with a heavy heart” that he could not “sign the agreement in its current form.” United States delegates said the pact could encourage censorship and undermine the existing, hands-off approach to Internet oversight and replace it with government control. Anyone reading the treaty, though, might be puzzled by these assertions. “Internet” does not appear anywhere in the 10-page text, which deals mostly with matters like the fees that telecommunications networks should charge one another for connecting calls across borders. After being excised from the pact at United States insistence, the I-word was consigned to a soft-pedaled resolution that is attached to the treaty. The first paragraph of the treaty states: “These regulations do not address the content-related aspects of telecommunications.” That convoluted phrasing was understood by all parties to refer to the Internet, delegates said, but without referring to it by name so no one could call it an Internet treaty. A preamble to the treaty commits the signers to adopt the regulations “in a manner that respects and upholds their human rights obligations.” Both of these provisions were added during the final days of haggling in Dubai, with the support of the United States. If anything, the new treaty appears to make it more intellectually challenging for governments like China and Iran to justify their current censorship of the Internet. What’s more, two other proposals that raised objections from the United States were removed. One of those stated that treaty signers should share control over the Internet address-assignment system — a function now handled by an international group based in the United States. The other, also removed at the Americans’ behest, called for Internet companies like Google and Facebook to pay telecommunications networks for delivering material to users. Given that the United States achieved many of its stated goals in the negotiations, why did it reject the treaty in an 11th-hour intervention that had clearly been coordinated with allies like Britain and Canada? In a Dubai conference call with reporters early on Friday, Mr. Kramer cited a few remaining objections, like references to countering spam and to ensuring “the security and robustness of international telecommunications networks.” This wording, he argued, could be used by nefarious governments to justify crackdowns on free speech. But even Mr. Kramer acknowledged that his real concerns were less tangible, saying it was the “normative” tone of the debate that had mattered most. The United States and its allies, in other words, saw a chance to use the treaty conference to make a strong statement about the importance of Internet freedom. But by refusing to sign the treaty and boycotting the closing ceremony, they made clear that even to talk about the appearance of global rules for cyberspace was a nonstarter. It may have been grandstanding, but some United States allies in Europe were happy to go along, saying the strong American stand would underline the importance of keeping the Internet open.
Showing posts with label Analysis. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Analysis. Show all posts
Friday, December 28, 2012
Wednesday, June 13, 2012
Forex Day trading With Multiple Timeframe Analysis
AppId is over the quota
AppId is over the quota
AppId is over the quota
It is not uncommon to see people new to the business of trading try to utilise 5 minute charts and experience numerous losses in the process of doing so. This is not to say that trading higher timeframe charts is a simple path to success – because it is not. Higher timeframe charts do however remove some of the noise which is exacerbated when trading with the lower timeframe Forex charts. A 20 pip stop loss can be hit in seconds during major event risk or even on interaction with a technical level.
Does this mean that lower timeframe Forex trading is an exercise in futility? I would say this is not the case but an awareness of the bigger picture is essential. This post will look at a top down analysis piece which culminated in a trade on the 5 minute timeframe charts. As you will see there was a lot of thought going into the setup and it was not limited to the 5 minute chart in isolation
This trade was on the GBPUSD currency pair. Our weekly GBPUSD analysis brought to light the following information re the pound/dollar major.
Price was trading just above the psychological 1.6000 GBPUSD handle.Commitment of traders COT report data showed the pound was relatively robust in terms of non-commercial (large speculators) positioning.Price was moving into a confluence area of potential support on the higher timeframe charts.Now you may see this as irrelevant, when looking to trade intra-day on the lower timeframe, but it tells us there is a chance the bigger traders will be looking for GBPUSD longs as the new week begins. At the very least it shows us that the market is not “overtly” bearish on the pound.
Further to this we have a gap down on EURUSD and the dollar index gaps higher. The gap was still open as the Frankfurt/London Open session begins and some traders may be looking to initiate a gap trade play. This information is noted down before the trading day begins.
So the top down analysis had shown that price did not close below support. If the bears are trapped in a net breakeven or worse trade and do not see further downside they may need to liquidate positions. Even if they have a profit on the table and see price stalling at support they may become nervous and take a profit before the London open.
All of the above is supplementary information compared with the last piece of the puzzle. As the Frankfurt and London markets open cable tests double bottom area support following a strong 5 minute bearish candle (see price action within the red circle above).
The next candle (prior to the trigger candle) is hinting that price my be running out of bearish momentum with the small wick below. This is not really a strong signal on its own though. The next candle was my trigger to go long. A 5-minute bullish engulfing candle at the double bottom area. A 5 minute trade signal like this is not uncommon but the time (liquidity hitting the market at European open) and location (price structure support) made it stand out in my eyes.
I was already aware that there was not event risk due and had checked the financial calendar schedule. The spread was checked before trade initiation to make sure it was acceptable. The exit was at the horizontal dotted black line above. Traders differ in this area (profit taking) but I prefer to grab a quick profit and minimise risk.
The trade lasted around 10 minutes and went smoothly to the target (it does not always work out so well… trust me). If price had of hesitated at the down sloping trend line a decision would have need to be made regarding potentially closing out early.
Hopefully this gives an insight into the preparation that goes into a trade idea. Do not go out and try to replicate this. The post is purely for commentary purposes only and not a recommendation on how to trade. Take care out there.
Related posts:
App Store From FXCMDollar Index Analysis 16th May 2012Dollar Index Technical Analysis 15/5/2012Forex Broker Articles – What is easy-forex?Gold Technical Analysis Update 12th MayTuesday, June 12, 2012
18 There is a S & P 500 technical analysis update may 2012
SPX ( S & P 500) No. 5 times continuously trading yesterday, delete. The NASDAQ looking like strong downward pressure on was a decrease in large high-tech shares experience. S & P index 3.31% so far number: falling in the month of 6.7% in May. A non-volatile is expected to decrease in the short term potential speculative short, around 1285-1289, area and starting fresh is liquidated if interests. The daily high 2011 / 10 / 27 as highlighted in the daily graph is consists of potential technical support areas before resistance from and the 38.2% Fibonacci retrace the last down wave. As a counter trend rates than seen in any movement, high momentum strong, S & P 500 falling now will shows signs of slowing down. Shin-1 5, failed a subsequent drop in near "double top" chart patterns have left recently range highs. This drop is the 4/2/2012 almost 4 years of high come from the set point. S & P 500 SPX ( ) daily chart
Related articles:
Earn money every week-analysis-2012 Gold 2012 Dollar Index technical analysis of 15 / 5 / 2012 Gold technical analysis 5/12/2012Tuesday, May 22, 2012
News Analysis: Greek exit? Euro-zone may be ready
Commissioned-dragging and brinkmanship over the past few years have won the other members of the currency union valuable time to prepare for life without Greece. The banks recorded losses of Greek investments, companies are drawing up plans to deal with emergencies and Europe is zazdraviha of rescue for other vulnerable countries such as Portugal, Ireland and Spain.
These measures are also minimized the risks to the United States, making it less likely that "Lehman moment" will spread panic through global financial markets. American investment funds and banks are also sharply reduced their investments in Europe.
But some experts say the Europe preparations remain incomplete and the potential costs of a Greek exit, are highly uncertain and potentially significant. That reality, helps to explain why Germany continues to profess its determination to keep Greece from currency union if possible.Still, European leaders are not optional — even eager reduced — to publicly comment on the possibility that Greece will leave something they long refused to countenance, not only because relations with Greece to continue to deteriorate, but also as a result of their preparations.
"We have worked hard to mitigate against such a scenario," Dutch Finance Minister, Jan KEES de Jager, told Reporters after a meeting of Ministers of the European finance early this week. "That is why contagion risk is much, much less than one and a half years."What once seemed unthinkable is being reduced to a budget line. Economists in German Bank recently calculated that a Greek exit will cost the German Government about 100 billion euros (127 billion dollars), or about 3% of the nation's annual economic output.
François Baroin, departing French Finance Minister, said this week that Greek exit will cost France to 50 billion euro, a similar proportion of its production to its economically."Greece is not in itself of large transactions. It is not a significant risk and our banks and insurance companies will be able to absorb it, "Mr Baroin told French radio station Europe 1, on Tuesday.
More urgent matter since goes to say, Mr Baroin to consequences for other struggling countries in the lower end of Europe. He warned that the departure of each article may spilt "doubt and suspicion" in the minds of foreign investors on the health of the euro. Stock markets declined around the world and that Europe and will nothing.The first project of the Finance Minister is to convince the markets that everything is under control, and in recent days, European officials have lined up to insist that the euro will survive.
"They look pretty in ease, quite resigned to the fact that they could deal with it, which I think is a result of the months in which they had to prepare," says Jacob Funk Kirkegaard, research fellow at the Institute for international economics Peterson here.He said the current round of negotiations is intended primarily to influence the outcome of the Greek elections next month, but he added that that Europe is lawfully in a better position to deal with the worst case.
But Kenneth s. Rogoff, a professor at Harvard and former Chief Economist of the International Monetary Fund, said Europe made progress, but not yet adequately prepared to monitor deposition. He said, Europe without sufficient mechanisms to ensure that loans remains available for other troubled countries, Spain and Italy. In addition, there is no political consensus for support for a loan from the local governments and private companies. And finally, he said, there is no reliable long term to ensure the viability of the euro."These are difficult political decisions, that they not only are ready for," he said. "They must be. They had two years to think about it. But they are not ready. "
This article has been revised to reflect the following correction:
Correction of 19 may 2012
Article on analysis on Friday for Europe readiness of Greece possible exit of euro misstated, some editions, the relative price of such exit to the Government of Germany. Actual expenditure, around 127 billion dollars, which is noted properly 3% of annual economic results of Germany, is not less than one-tenth of a percent of the 1.
Saturday, May 19, 2012
News Analysis: Greek exit? Euro-zone may be ready
Commissioned-dragging and brinkmanship over the past few years have won the other members of the currency union valuable time to prepare for life without Greece. The banks recorded losses of Greek investments, companies are drawing up plans to deal with emergencies and Europe is zazdraviha of rescue for other vulnerable countries such as Portugal, Ireland and Spain.
These measures are also minimized the risks to the United States, making it less likely that "Lehman moment" will spread panic through global financial markets. American investment funds and banks are also sharply reduced their investments in Europe.
But some experts say the Europe preparations remain incomplete and the potential costs of a Greek exit, are highly uncertain and potentially significant. That reality, helps to explain why Germany continues to profess its determination to keep Greece from currency union if possible. Still, European leaders are not optional — even eager reduced — to publicly comment on the possibility that Greece will leave something they long refused to countenance, not only because relations with Greece to continue to deteriorate, but also as a result of their preparations.
"We have worked hard to mitigate against such a scenario," Dutch Finance Minister, Jan KEES de Jager, told Reporters after a meeting of Ministers of the European finance early this week. "That is why contagion risk is much, much less than one and a half years." What once seemed unthinkable is being reduced to a budget line. Economists in German Bank recently calculated that a Greek exit will cost the German Government about 100 billion euros (127 billion dollars), or about 3% of the nation's annual economic output.
François Baroin, departing French Finance Minister, said this week that Greek exit will cost France to 50 billion euro, a similar proportion of its production to its economically. "Greece is not in itself of large transactions. It is not a significant risk and our banks and insurance companies will be able to absorb it, "Mr Baroin told French radio station Europe 1, on Tuesday.
More urgent matter since goes to say, Mr Baroin to consequences for other struggling countries in the lower end of Europe. He warned that the departure of each article may spilt "doubt and suspicion" in the minds of foreign investors on the health of the euro. Stock markets declined around the world and that Europe and will nothing. The first project of the Finance Minister is to convince the markets that everything is under control, and in recent days, European officials have lined up to insist that the euro will survive.
"They look pretty in ease, quite resigned to the fact that they could deal with it, which I think is a result of the months in which they had to prepare," says Jacob Funk Kirkegaard, research fellow at the Institute for international economics Peterson here. He said the current round of negotiations is intended primarily to influence the outcome of the Greek elections next month, but he added that that Europe is lawfully in a better position to deal with the worst case.
But Kenneth s. Rogoff, a professor at Harvard and former Chief Economist of the International Monetary Fund, said Europe made progress, but not yet adequately prepared to monitor deposition. He said, Europe without sufficient mechanisms to ensure that loans remains available for other troubled countries, Spain and Italy. In addition, there is no political consensus for support for a loan from the local governments and private companies. And finally, he said, there is no reliable long term to ensure the viability of the euro. "These are difficult political decisions, that they not only are ready for," he said. "They must be. They had two years to think about it. But they are not ready. "
This article has been revised to reflect the following correction:
Correction of 19 may 2012
Article on analysis on Friday for Europe readiness of Greece possible exit of euro misstated, some editions, the relative price of such exit to the Government of Germany. Actual expenditure, around 127 billion dollars, which is noted properly 3% of annual economic results of Germany, is not less than one-tenth of a percent of the 1.
Friday, May 18, 2012
USD index analysis for predictions for May 14, 2009
Dollar index since March 16, saw the highest recorded level on Friday. $ 1.89 per cent per month now USDX. saw as the main profit (Silver) and goods sold almost 5 XAGUSD% down day and XAUUSD (gold), 3.5% or more down. This is getting on the flight and dollars: price cash key 80.00 level or higher will be looking for the right deal and USDX bulls continue to move backwards to the long term $ 80.73 adds weight to move beyond high March. 80.00 above has been seen not primarily since the mid-near weekly January.The EURUSD currency pair weighted dollar index 1.3000; Under the deal, we are under the direction of the strength of the dollar and the weekly chart, USDX bias scenario 80.00 above the 1.3000 price don't can close the EURUSD and the rest, see the potential for upside down, one thing to note is that increased volatility did not come on the index and USDX dollars (26 weeks) moving average weekly coverage of 61%.Dollar index technical updates-daily chart
Related posts:
Dollar index technical analysis 15/5/2012EURUSD daily Analysis allows you to analyze the news on December 15th – ForecastEURUSD-2012EURUSD-11/5/2012 updates daily analysis of news and ForecastDollar index analysis of 2012-10/05Thursday, May 17, 2012
Dollar Strength "Making It Difficult" for Gold Prices to Rally – Gold Analysis
AppId is over the quota
AppId is over the quota
AppId is over the quota
Dollar Gold Prices fell as low as $1574 per ounce Friday morning – their lowest level since the first week of January – before recovering some ground, while stocks and commodities fell and US Treasury bonds gained, with dealers in major gold buying countries reporting continued limited demand for precious metals.
Silver Prices fell to $28.54 an ounce – also a four-month low, and 6.1% down on last Friday’s close.
Heading into the weekend, spot market Gold Prices looked set for a 3.7% weekly loss by Friday lunchtime in London. Based on PM London Fix gold prices, the week ended 2 March was the last time gold fell further in a single week.
On the currency markets, the Euro fell to its lowest level against the Dollar since January 23 – two days before the Federal Reserve published policymakers’ interest rate projections for the first time, showing a majority expected near-zero rates until at least late 2014.
The US Dollar Index – which measures the Dollar’s strength against a basket of other currencies – hit its highest level since March 16 this morning.
“When the market gets very nervous, then they buy Dollars and gold finds it difficult to rally,” says Jesper Dannesboe, senior commodity strategist at Societe Generale in London.
“Given what’s going on in the markets at the moment, any rally will probably just be a bounce before another setback.”
The Reserve Bank of India ordered exporters to convert 50% of their foreign exchange holdings to Rupee Thursday, a day after the currency closed at an all-time low against the Dollar in Indian trading.
Despite the central bank’s move, however, the Rupee again fell against the Dollar on Friday, at one point coming within 0.6% of Wednesday’s low. Rupee Gold Prices however still traded slightly lower this morning. The most heavily traded gold contract on Mumbai’s Multi Commodity Exchange, the June delivery contract, touched its lowest level in over a month during Friday’s trading.
“Slowly deals are taking place as market is in the falling mode,” one dealer told newswire Reuters.
“Traders will try to catch the bottom…[but] people will not be willing to maintain huge inventory in a falling market and only resort to need-based buying.”
Over in China – behind India the world’s second-largest gold buying nation last year – some Gold Dealers say they expect to see gold demand growth fall this year.
“Chinese consumers share a quite pronounced tendency in which they usually Buy Gold when prices are rising and refrain from purchasing when prices are conceived to be on a downtrend,” says Xin Zhihong, vice president at Shanghai jeweler Lao Feng Xiang.
“Some consumers are now sitting on the sidelines…the expectation that Gold Prices will always rise and that gold’s value can only appreciate seems to have faded.”
“It’s the worst start of the year [for Chinese gold demand] since the financial crisis in 2008,” adds Emily Li, brand general manager at Chow Sang Sang, the second-biggest gold jeweler in Hong Kong.
China’s gold imports from Hong Kong – seen by many as a proxy for overall imports – rose 59% month-on-month in March, figures published this week show. The 63 tonnes figure however was 39% down on last November’s all-time high, while the volume of gold heading from China to Hong Kong also rose, leaving net exports in March at 38 tonnes.
Chinese consumer price inflation fell to 3.4% last month – down from 3.6% in March, according to official data. Growth in retail sales and industrial production also slowed, while figures published Thursday show exports grew by 4.9% year on year in April, compared to 8.9% y-o-y a month earlier.
The lower CPI figure “confirms that inflation is trending down and that the policy focus will remain on promoting growth,” reckons Zhang Zhiwei, Hong Kong-based China economist at Nomura.
“The weak export data yesterday put more pressure on the government…probably policy loosening will become more likely going forward.”
Here in Europe, the Spanish government is set to miss its deficit targets in both 2012 and 2013, with both Spain and Italy expected to fall back into recession, according to European Union forecasts published Friday.
The forecasts, produced by the European Commission, show that Spain’s deficit for this year is expected to be 6.4% of GDP – compared to an EU target of 5.3%. In 2013, Spain is expected to have a 6.3% deficit-to-GDP ratio, versus a target of 3%.
Despite the news, yields on 10-Year Spanish government bonds fell slightly this morning, dipping back below 6%.
France meantime is forecast to meet its 2012 deficit target of 4.5% of GDP. Next year, however, the Commission says it expects the French government deficit to be 4.2% of GDP, meaning that France, like Spain, would miss the 3% target. The Commission has the power to fine governments that miss EU targets.
“Without further determined action…low growth in the EU could remain,” said Olli Rehn, European Commissioner for economic and monetary affairs, adding that there are “large disparities between member states”.
In Germany, consumer price inflation remained unchanged at 2.1% last month, official figures published Friday show.
German inflation however is likely to be “somewhat above the average within the European monetary union” Bundesbank head of economics Jens Ulbrich told the German parliament finance committee this week.
Greece, which is still without a government after Sunday’s election, must stick to its reform plans or it risks having bailout payments stopped, German foreign minister Guido Westerwelle said Friday.
“If Greece strays from the agreed reform path, then the payment of further aid tranches won’t be possible,” said Westerwelle.
Over on Wall Street, JPMorgan recorded a $2 billion trading loss in the first quarter of the year, Q1 earnings published Thursday show.
“This puts egg on our face,” said JPMorgan chief executive Jamie Dimon, who blamed “errors, sloppiness and bad judgment” for the losses.
Investors meantime are “losing faith” in commodity hedge funds, Reuters reports.
“For people that only came in when the noise about commodities started a couple of years ago, they have basically done nothing,” one investor told the newswire.
Get the safest gold – stored in non-banking sector professional vaults in your choice of London, New York or Zurich – and pay the lowest possible prices, with BullionVault…
BullionVault, 11 May ’12
The London Gold Market Report is the daily market review from BullionVault, the world’s largest physical gold and silver market for private investors. A full member of professional trade body the London Bullion Market Association, BullionVault publishes the LGMR every day that the market is open, bringing you insider comment and analysis from the very center of the world’s $240 billion-a-day physical gold trade, and putting the latest gold price action into its wider financial and economic context
Please Note: All articles published here are to inform your thinking, not lead it. Only you can decide the best place for your money, and any decision you make will put your money at risk. Information or data included here may have already been overtaken by events – and must be verified elsewhere – should you choose to act on it.
Related posts:
The Case for Higher Gold PricesGold Bull Market Not Over – Gold Futures Show "Disconcerting" Bearishness – Greece Faces June DeadlineGold News And Analysis – Demand to Buy Gold Needs Worse Crisis – Price SteadiesGold Analysis – Bearish Gold Bullion Opens Up $1522 – Markets Ponder ContagionDollar index technical analysis to 2012-15/05
USDX weekly range trade after closing on Monday a strong daily peaking before continuing. Rising prices and now the recent integration of the current day is near the apartment. slipped 0.09% It's no surprise that this region's countless previous occasions has proven to be a small response at the bottom of the pivot is the price. Pair EURUSD high weighting in terms of (USDX) Frankfurt/London open in preparing a brief rally this morning; the EUR/USD rate is now giving most of the profits the previous intra-day support test 1.2840 again on the strength of the ' risk-while this off "once US State to protect their investment by investors to buy Treasuries. attributable to Speculators move prices are generally high. moving towards United States Treasury bonds Prices and yields move inversely related, the rate of return is low. Benchmark 10-year note yield is gaining at a price I can see 1.769% of our hearts, the lowest level since October. Gold is the main pricing structure support; You should monitor any precious metal reaction with strong upside in gold and the United States dollar in regards to the negative relationship between the movements of the dollar often have the potential to give you a hint. The price is $ 1530 area has provided tremendous support for the last time when I visited around right now. 80.75 area on any break $ 81.77 a previous high target. x bulls However, the price has moved backwards with little return and potentially high due to the distortion correction before heading. Go back to the initial support level for USDX of 80.00.
Related posts:
USD index analysis and prediction for may 14thGold MayGBPUSD technical analysis technical analysis update 12 December 2012EURUSD daily analysis update-2012-11/05 news and ForecastDollar index analysis to 2012-10/5
Gold technical analysis update December
Gold $ 1530 area earlier demand for the precious metal zone range would be to move it to the bottom and the lightest two prior attempts proved to be reached. Spot market gold price at the close of trade experienced by 3.5% weekly loss on Friday as the United States dollar to master the broad-based strength.As concerns the European financial market flow XAUUSD infection; Dollar resumes bearish pressure on dollar strength spot gold markets have seen offered little support for this week's $ 1,600 gold is weighed. This is a testament to the strength of this trend is $ 1600 price has seen many previous contacts with the pivot operation. It comes before the current price is above the trend line, before demand area worth noting is heading in ascending order. This daily and weekly gold chart below can be found at: precious metal in our latest analysis in General, see gold news updates. Gold daily chart
Related posts:
Dollar index technical analysis 15/5/2012GBPUSD gold buying demand "difficult"-gold AnalysisGold news and analysis-technical analysis for the gold price rally 12-2012Dollar strength requirements, even worse crisis-price SteadiesGold Analytics-bearish gold bullion opens $ 1522-market speculation infectionGBPUSD technical analysis may 12th, 2012
GBPUSD currency exchange rate Friday about 70 pips above the main psychological 1.6000 level round deadline this week number in; pips 161 (only 53% of the average weekly range) comes a week after. Dollars, pounds down. Resilient against the euro; the Moon approximately 99% of the visible Sterling is 2.4% drop seen earlier this month for the EURUSD. This supports the following key areas of the previous 2008 EURGBP breaks down at a level not seen since 0.8066 has to deal.GBP United Kingdom pound Net long position 25339 net long contract is growing by about 9,000. The latest COT report data according to the loss of most of the other currencies for the Green places to drop all 1.6000. GBPUSD ascending trend line in the chart below, as highlighted by a cable. This is the daily chart and then arrange in 50EMA. for return at this level may be looking for the bull cable. However, the dollar is strong in cash scenarios; Currently, flight mode, this risk aversion related to Greece debt situation and JP Morgan, "rogue trader ' scenarios subject to the flow. Gold prices were up by 3.5% weekly loss spot market is a broad-based dollar strength on the close of the deal late Friday. Gold is heading to $ 1,530 now and strong demand earlier regional reaction here to potentially benefit from the weight of the cable: on the Green
Related posts:
Dollar index technical analysis 15/5/2012Forex day trading and multiple period AnalysisGold technical analysis update 12 MayEURUSD 12-2012EURUSD daily analysis update-Analytics News-11/05 2012 news and viewsTuesday, May 15, 2012
Dollar index technical analysis to 2012-15/05
USDX weekly range trade after closing on Monday a strong daily peaking before continuing. Rising prices and now the recent integration of the current day is near the apartment. slipped 0.09% It's no surprise that this region's countless previous occasions has proven to be a small response at the bottom of the pivot is the price. Pair EURUSD high weighting in terms of (USDX) Frankfurt/London open in preparing a brief rally this morning; the EUR/USD rate is now giving most of the profits the previous intra-day support test 1.2840 again on the strength of the ' risk-while this off "once US State to protect their investment by investors to buy Treasuries. attributable to Speculators move prices are
generally high. moving towards United States Treasury bonds Prices and yields move inversely related, the rate of return is low. Benchmark 10-year note yield is gaining at a price I can see 1.769% of our hearts, the lowest level since October. Gold is the main pricing structure support; You should monitor any precious metal reaction with strong upside in gold and the United States dollar in regards to the negative relationship between the movements of the dollar often have the potential to give you a hint. The price is $ 1530 area has provided tremendous support for the last time when I visited around right now. 80.75 area on any break $ 81.77 a previous high target. x bulls However, the price has moved backwards with little return and potentially high due to the distortion correction before heading. Go back to the initial support level for USDX of 80.00.Related posts:USD index analysis and prediction for may 14thGold MayGBPUSD technical analysis technical analysis update 12 December 2012EURUSD daily analysis update-2012-11/05 news and ForecastDollar index analysis to 2012-10/5
Saturday, May 12, 2012
Analysis of two Annals papers on benefits of mammography in younger women
Results of two studies published in the Annals of Internal Medicine point to benefits of biennial mammography screening starting age 40 for women at increased risk.
One evaluated data from 66 published articles and from the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium. The authors’ conclusion:
The second study tried to assess “tipping the balance of benefits and harms to favor screening mammography starting at age 40.” The lead author concluded:
“The evidence suggests that for women at twice the average risk for breast cancer, biennial screening beginning at age 40 has more benefits than harms,” said study lead author Nicolien T. van Ravesteyn, MSc, of the Department of Public Health, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. “These results provide important information toward developing more individualized, risk-based screening guidelines.”
Dr. Otis Brawley, chief medical and scientific officer of the American Cancer Society, wrote an accompanying editorial. Excerpts:
“I worry that the public perceives mammography as a better technology than it actually is. Mammography screening is often promoted for its benefit. Unfortunately, many do not appreciate its limitations. Truth be told, it cannot avert all or even most breast cancer deaths. There are also tradeoffs. Mammography, like every screening test, has a potential for harm, and one must carefully weigh the harm–benefit ratio for a specific woman or a specific population of women (such as those aged 40 to 49 years) before advising use of the test. The harms associated with mammographic screening include false-positive results, false-positive biopsy results, radiation exposure, false-negative results and false reassurance, pain related to the procedure, overdiagnosis (that is, diagnosis of tumors that are of no threat), and overtreatment. False-positive results are the most common and easily quantifiable harm. On the basis of statistics specific to U.S. practice patterns, about half of women getting an annual mammogram for 10 years starting at age 40 years will have at least 1 false-positive result that requires additional testing. More than 5% will get a biopsy during that time.
…These studies also demonstrate that questions about annual versus biennial screening are legitimate but unsettled. The Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network consistently shows that annual screening of women in their 40s marginally increases the number of lives saved while substantially increasing harms. This means that patients and their physicians need to make value judgments regarding the harms and benefits.
In the future, more emphasis will be placed on riskbased screening guidelines tailored to the individual. There may be recommendations that some women at very high risk get annual testing, some at intermediate risk get biennial testing, and some at normal risk start screening at a later age. This will be challenging because many health care providers and members of the lay community do not understand screening and the concept of risk. Specific tools designed to educate them need to be developed and rigorously assessed. Ultimately, the preferences of individual women, recognizing the potential for harm and benefit, should be respected.”
For more perspective, I asked Russell Harris, MD, MPH of the University of North Carolina, to analyze the new studies. He wrote:
“These are well-conducted studies that try to move us toward more efficient screening for breast cancer. Certainly we are all in favor of that. At present, our screening is based on the fact that the risk of breast cancer and breast cancer mortality increases with age; thus, we base starting screening on age. This is the famous “start at age 40 vs start at age 50” debate we have been having for many years. These investigators suggest that perhaps there are risk factors beyond age that could allow us to better target the women who could benefit from screening. It is a good idea.
Unfortunately, the first paper (Nelson et al) shows that we just don’t know enough about the factors that increase or decrease the risk of breast cancer to be able to use this proposed strategy. This causes the second paper (van Ravesteyn) to make some statements that may be misunderstood and confusing.
Nelson (the first paper) systematically reviews studies of the risk of breast cancer, finding that, other than age, extremely dense breasts on mammogram and presence of first-degree family history of breast cancer are the most important risk factors. It is important to know that dense breasts on mammography may well reduce the ability of mammography to detect breast cancer, and that very few women will have 2 or more first degree relatives who have been diagnosed with breast cancer (which is the group that has a really substantial increased risk). The problem is that neither of these factors increase risk more than about two-fold. These factors would be much more useful if they increased risk by 15 or 20-fold.
Van Ravesteyn et al (the second paper) then use their models to find that if we could identify women in their 40s whose risk is more than 3 times usual risk, then the number of lives extended by screening those women in their 40s would be about the same as the number in their 50s whose lives are extended by screening. (In neither case is this a large number of women.) Unfortunately, they do not adequately address the issue of the harms of screening, especially including overdiagnosis, a problem that many people far underestimate. Because the models do not adequately address harms, and because we don’t know how much benefit there would be (if any) from screening women in their 40s with dense breasts, and because there are so few women in their 40s with 2 or more first degree relatives, this strategy really doesn’t get us very far toward making screening more efficient. The best strategy is still what the USPSTF recommended: individual discussions between patient and medical team to develop an individual approach.
Some people who have wanted to start screening mammography at age 40 will read these papers and find a justification for starting early. A better interpretation of these studies is that we still need better risk tools that help us become more efficient with breast cancer screening – and this means not only finding women whose risk is high enough that screening makes good sense AND also finding women in their 50s and 60s whose risk is low enough that screening doesn’t make sense. Then we can truly say we are more efficient – screening women more likely to benefit and NOT screening women more likely to be harmed.”
Analysis of two Annals papers on benefits of mammography in younger women
Results of two studies published in the Annals of Internal Medicine point to benefits of biennial mammography screening starting age 40 for women at increased risk.
One evaluated data from 66 published articles and from the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium. The authors’ conclusion:
The second study tried to assess “tipping the balance of benefits and harms to favor screening mammography starting at age 40.” The lead author concluded:
“The evidence suggests that for women at twice the average risk for breast cancer, biennial screening beginning at age 40 has more benefits than harms,” said study lead author Nicolien T. van Ravesteyn, MSc, of the Department of Public Health, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. “These results provide important information toward developing more individualized, risk-based screening guidelines.”
Dr. Otis Brawley, chief medical and scientific officer of the American Cancer Society, wrote an accompanying editorial. Excerpts:
“I worry that the public perceives mammography as a better technology than it actually is. Mammography screening is often promoted for its benefit. Unfortunately, many do not appreciate its limitations. Truth be told, it cannot avert all or even most breast cancer deaths. There are also tradeoffs. Mammography, like every screening test, has a potential for harm, and one must carefully weigh the harm–benefit ratio for a specific woman or a specific population of women (such as those aged 40 to 49 years) before advising use of the test. The harms associated with mammographic screening include false-positive results, false-positive biopsy results, radiation exposure, false-negative results and false reassurance, pain related to the procedure, overdiagnosis (that is, diagnosis of tumors that are of no threat), and overtreatment. False-positive results are the most common and easily quantifiable harm. On the basis of statistics specific to U.S. practice patterns, about half of women getting an annual mammogram for 10 years starting at age 40 years will have at least 1 false-positive result that requires additional testing. More than 5% will get a biopsy during that time.
…These studies also demonstrate that questions about annual versus biennial screening are legitimate but unsettled. The Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network consistently shows that annual screening of women in their 40s marginally increases the number of lives saved while substantially increasing harms. This means that patients and their physicians need to make value judgments regarding the harms and benefits.
In the future, more emphasis will be placed on riskbased screening guidelines tailored to the individual. There may be recommendations that some women at very high risk get annual testing, some at intermediate risk get biennial testing, and some at normal risk start screening at a later age. This will be challenging because many health care providers and members of the lay community do not understand screening and the concept of risk. Specific tools designed to educate them need to be developed and rigorously assessed. Ultimately, the preferences of individual women, recognizing the potential for harm and benefit, should be respected.”
For more perspective, I asked Russell Harris, MD, MPH of the University of North Carolina, to analyze the new studies. He wrote:
“These are well-conducted studies that try to move us toward more efficient screening for breast cancer. Certainly we are all in favor of that. At present, our screening is based on the fact that the risk of breast cancer and breast cancer mortality increases with age; thus, we base starting screening on age. This is the famous “start at age 40 vs start at age 50” debate we have been having for many years. These investigators suggest that perhaps there are risk factors beyond age that could allow us to better target the women who could benefit from screening. It is a good idea.
Unfortunately, the first paper (Nelson et al) shows that we just don’t know enough about the factors that increase or decrease the risk of breast cancer to be able to use this proposed strategy. This causes the second paper (van Ravesteyn) to make some statements that may be misunderstood and confusing.
Nelson (the first paper) systematically reviews studies of the risk of breast cancer, finding that, other than age, extremely dense breasts on mammogram and presence of first-degree family history of breast cancer are the most important risk factors. It is important to know that dense breasts on mammography may well reduce the ability of mammography to detect breast cancer, and that very few women will have 2 or more first degree relatives who have been diagnosed with breast cancer (which is the group that has a really substantial increased risk). The problem is that neither of these factors increase risk more than about two-fold. These factors would be much more useful if they increased risk by 15 or 20-fold.
Van Ravesteyn et al (the second paper) then use their models to find that if we could identify women in their 40s whose risk is more than 3 times usual risk, then the number of lives extended by screening those women in their 40s would be about the same as the number in their 50s whose lives are extended by screening. (In neither case is this a large number of women.) Unfortunately, they do not adequately address the issue of the harms of screening, especially including overdiagnosis, a problem that many people far underestimate. Because the models do not adequately address harms, and because we don’t know how much benefit there would be (if any) from screening women in their 40s with dense breasts, and because there are so few women in their 40s with 2 or more first degree relatives, this strategy really doesn’t get us very far toward making screening more efficient. The best strategy is still what the USPSTF recommended: individual discussions between patient and medical team to develop an individual approach.
Some people who have wanted to start screening mammography at age 40 will read these papers and find a justification for starting early. A better interpretation of these studies is that we still need better risk tools that help us become more efficient with breast cancer screening – and this means not only finding women whose risk is high enough that screening makes good sense AND also finding women in their 50s and 60s whose risk is low enough that screening doesn’t make sense. Then we can truly say we are more efficient – screening women more likely to benefit and NOT screening women more likely to be harmed.”
Analysis of two Annals papers on benefits of mammography in younger women
Results of two studies published in the Annals of Internal Medicine point to benefits of biennial mammography screening starting age 40 for women at increased risk.
One evaluated data from 66 published articles and from the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium. The authors’ conclusion:
The second study tried to assess “tipping the balance of benefits and harms to favor screening mammography starting at age 40.” The lead author concluded:
“The evidence suggests that for women at twice the average risk for breast cancer, biennial screening beginning at age 40 has more benefits than harms,” said study lead author Nicolien T. van Ravesteyn, MSc, of the Department of Public Health, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. “These results provide important information toward developing more individualized, risk-based screening guidelines.”
Dr. Otis Brawley, chief medical and scientific officer of the American Cancer Society, wrote an accompanying editorial. Excerpts:
“I worry that the public perceives mammography as a better technology than it actually is. Mammography screening is often promoted for its benefit. Unfortunately, many do not appreciate its limitations. Truth be told, it cannot avert all or even most breast cancer deaths. There are also tradeoffs. Mammography, like every screening test, has a potential for harm, and one must carefully weigh the harm–benefit ratio for a specific woman or a specific population of women (such as those aged 40 to 49 years) before advising use of the test. The harms associated with mammographic screening include false-positive results, false-positive biopsy results, radiation exposure, false-negative results and false reassurance, pain related to the procedure, overdiagnosis (that is, diagnosis of tumors that are of no threat), and overtreatment. False-positive results are the most common and easily quantifiable harm. On the basis of statistics specific to U.S. practice patterns, about half of women getting an annual mammogram for 10 years starting at age 40 years will have at least 1 false-positive result that requires additional testing. More than 5% will get a biopsy during that time.
…These studies also demonstrate that questions about annual versus biennial screening are legitimate but unsettled. The Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network consistently shows that annual screening of women in their 40s marginally increases the number of lives saved while substantially increasing harms. This means that patients and their physicians need to make value judgments regarding the harms and benefits.
In the future, more emphasis will be placed on riskbased screening guidelines tailored to the individual. There may be recommendations that some women at very high risk get annual testing, some at intermediate risk get biennial testing, and some at normal risk start screening at a later age. This will be challenging because many health care providers and members of the lay community do not understand screening and the concept of risk. Specific tools designed to educate them need to be developed and rigorously assessed. Ultimately, the preferences of individual women, recognizing the potential for harm and benefit, should be respected.”
For more perspective, I asked Russell Harris, MD, MPH of the University of North Carolina, to analyze the new studies. He wrote:
“These are well-conducted studies that try to move us toward more efficient screening for breast cancer. Certainly we are all in favor of that. At present, our screening is based on the fact that the risk of breast cancer and breast cancer mortality increases with age; thus, we base starting screening on age. This is the famous “start at age 40 vs start at age 50” debate we have been having for many years. These investigators suggest that perhaps there are risk factors beyond age that could allow us to better target the women who could benefit from screening. It is a good idea.
Unfortunately, the first paper (Nelson et al) shows that we just don’t know enough about the factors that increase or decrease the risk of breast cancer to be able to use this proposed strategy. This causes the second paper (van Ravesteyn) to make some statements that may be misunderstood and confusing.
Nelson (the first paper) systematically reviews studies of the risk of breast cancer, finding that, other than age, extremely dense breasts on mammogram and presence of first-degree family history of breast cancer are the most important risk factors. It is important to know that dense breasts on mammography may well reduce the ability of mammography to detect breast cancer, and that very few women will have 2 or more first degree relatives who have been diagnosed with breast cancer (which is the group that has a really substantial increased risk). The problem is that neither of these factors increase risk more than about two-fold. These factors would be much more useful if they increased risk by 15 or 20-fold.
Van Ravesteyn et al (the second paper) then use their models to find that if we could identify women in their 40s whose risk is more than 3 times usual risk, then the number of lives extended by screening those women in their 40s would be about the same as the number in their 50s whose lives are extended by screening. (In neither case is this a large number of women.) Unfortunately, they do not adequately address the issue of the harms of screening, especially including overdiagnosis, a problem that many people far underestimate. Because the models do not adequately address harms, and because we don’t know how much benefit there would be (if any) from screening women in their 40s with dense breasts, and because there are so few women in their 40s with 2 or more first degree relatives, this strategy really doesn’t get us very far toward making screening more efficient. The best strategy is still what the USPSTF recommended: individual discussions between patient and medical team to develop an individual approach.
Some people who have wanted to start screening mammography at age 40 will read these papers and find a justification for starting early. A better interpretation of these studies is that we still need better risk tools that help us become more efficient with breast cancer screening – and this means not only finding women whose risk is high enough that screening makes good sense AND also finding women in their 50s and 60s whose risk is low enough that screening doesn’t make sense. Then we can truly say we are more efficient – screening women more likely to benefit and NOT screening women more likely to be harmed.”
Thursday, October 20, 2011
The importance of fundamental analysis and Forex trading
Basic analysis Forex trading is its currency and market how big economic and political events affecting certain countries with statistics information about various countries ' economic situation provides. Forex brokers are, check the statement given the currency market movements in speech, economists, experts, and politicians.
The answer to all questions of fundamental analysis, such as how to plan their tactics are Forex traders? To determine the FX traders currency trading plan? and many more. This analysis, as well as price currency trader notices, positive or negative growth rate is an important part of currency trading and good edge analyzes various other factors such as the FX trading , such as inflation, economic policies.
FX traders often confused, is the most important question special newbie-how to work with forex traders use fundamental analysis Forex trading ??
Basics of fundamental analysis should be a comprehensive learning and how expert understanding of the Forex trade market affect the situation. You can to prove to clearly understand and most important step of analysis Forex fundamental trading . Plan the basic analysis of strategies almost all experienced Forex traders, Forex brokers. Generally, it appears various causes of market movements and describes the effect of technical analysis and of technical analysis is used.
Fundamental analysis of the underlying elements follows.
First and most important factor is basic economic analysis of the definition to analyst economic force today's and future gross domestic product (GDP), foreign investment, stocks, and a variety of factors.
If the second based on the analysis of the fundamental factors that interest rates directly, to increase interest rates in the currency of certain specific currency price is to move even higher foreign investment means that economic growth effect affect is.
Is an important aspect of the third and commodity price analysis determines country commodity prices a meaningful economic growth.
Therefore, including gas, oil money, Silver's price factors study on fundamental analysis in a major. It is very important to get this analysis forex trader or a proper Forex trading decisions in the blink of an eye, changing currency exchange market and financial status quo on this analysis, Forex brokers very difficult for the traders.
This post was made using the Auto Blogging Software from WebMagnates.org This line will not appear when posts are made after activating the software to full version.
Using Intermarket Analysis in Your Currency Trading
I am going to assume that if you are reading this article then you already have a foundational knowledge of the foreign exchange (forex) market, so I am going to breeze through the basics and go right to the main topic of intermarket analysis.
If you are a financial market junkie like me, the topic of intermarket analysis is a fascinating one because it can applied to making money with forex trading (the main topic of this article) as easily as it can be applied to commodities. As you can probably guess, the term "intermarket" in this context simply means looking beyond normal economic data in order to come to a conclusion about where the price of a certain currency pair is headed. The opposite of intermarket analysis is plain fundamental analysis, usually focusing on major economic data such as employment, labor, and interest rates.
A few of the most significant intermarket relationships have to do with gold, oil, and the 10-year bond yield in the United States. The reason that the 10-year yield is important is because this value can be correlated to the value of a dollar index, or a basket of goods that can reveal the overall strength of the US dollar.
When it comes to gold and oil (which are arguably two of the most important commodities in the world today), the prices of those commodities will most affect the currencies of the countries that produce these commodities. There are two main relationships when it comes to gold and oil: Canada is a large producer of oil, an so the Canadian dollar (CAD) will be affected by changes in oil prices; and Australia produces alot of gold, and there are many companies in Australia that manufacture gold products such as rare coins, so the Australian dollar (AUD) will be affected by changes in gold prices.
These are some of the most profound instances of intermarket relationships in the global economy, but keep in mind that these relationships are *not* exclusive to the currencies I just mentioned. That is to say, changes in gold prices are not going to only affect the price of the Australian dollar and leave the value of every other currency unchanged; changes in the value of these important commodities like gold and oil will affect every currency, it just so happens that a larger part of the Australian economy has business interests in gold, so if gold gets more expensive then it becomes harder to do business.
Though oil and gold each have a "flagship" currency which they affect the most, fluctuations in the price of each of these commodities will also affect every currency in a somewhat predictable manner. When it comes to gold, a basic rule of thumb is that the currency value of all nations will decrease when gold gets more expensive, since this can indicate that more people are buying precious metals because they may not have as much faith in the main governing bodies in the world.
The way that oil affects currency prices is very interesting, since at this point in history (but hopefully not for much longer) nearly every major economy is dependent on oil for transportation and heating. The way that changes in oil prices affect a country's currency depend on whether or not that country is an importer or an exporter of oil. As an example, Canada has traditionally been an exporter of oil, whereas the United States has been an importer. So when oil becomes more expensive, this can be damaging to the United States economy and beneficial to an oil-exporter like Canada.
As a forex or currency trader, it is important to understand these relationships so that you do not derive your trading signals from only one source. It is also good to know how major commodities affect currency prices because you can also use this knowledge to make money in the global stock market, by investing in companies such as a Canadian oil producer or an Australian company the specializes in gold coins.
This post was made using the Auto Blogging Software from WebMagnates.org This line will not appear when posts are made after activating the software to full version.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)