Precious metals are pumping across the board. Gold wasted no time pumping straight to $4,400 per ounce this morning, surpassing its previous record high established back in October. It was not alone. Silver reached all the way up to $69 per ounce within hours of the opening bells across Asia, pushing even further into record high territory. The white metal is up a staggering 140% since the start of the year, and is by no means alone. After breaching $2,000 last Friday, platinum blasted straight out of the gate this morning, moving up to $2,100 per ounce. Platinum is up over 130% since January and is now only $200 away from beating its previous all-time high of $2,300 per ounce, recorded back in 2008. As if that were not enough, palladium also continued its ascent this morning, reaching to $1,850 and beyond, meaning the metal has joined silver and platinum in doubling since the start of the year. The drama in precious metals appears to be relatively self-contained for the time being, with markets further afield remaining unaffected. Christmas is only a few days away, and the economic calendar is as barren as one would expect. With regard to the US economy, Tuesday has a couple of meagre offerings in the form of the ADP employment change and heavily delayed Q3 GDP figures, while the latest jobless claims arrive early this week on Wednesday. Other than that, there is very little to whet the appetite this week; the earnings calendar is equally mundane. With the Christmas break just around the corner, traders understandably have their sights on matters closer to home. Markets around much of the world will shut down on Thursday and Friday for Christmas and Boxing Day, while US markets will close for half a day on Wednesday but reopen on Friday. #Gold #Silver #Metals
The trade plan was sound. The stop-loss was respected at exactly the level it was set. The account still came out four pips worse than any calculation made before entry. That gap is slippage, and it carries a cause and a price tag. This guide sets out what slippage is, why it appears, when it appears, what it costs once converted into cash, and which of the available defences genuinely reduce it. Slippage is the difference between the price you expect a trade to be executed at and the price it actually fills at. It runs in both directions: a buy order expected at 1.0902 that fills at 1.0900 has slipped two pips in your favour, and the same order filling at 1.0904 has slipped two pips against you. On a standard lot of EUR/USD, each of those pips is worth $10. Ready to trade with execution you can measure? Open your Radex Markets account today. The term “slippage” refers to the change in execution price between the moment an order is placed and when it is filled by the market. It appears in any market where quotes move and orders have to be matched against real counterparties, which makes it as present in equities and futures as it is in forex. The mechanism sits in the gap between sending and matching. An order leaves the platform as an instruction to fill a certain size. By the time that instruction reaches the point of matching, the quotes standing behind it have updated and other orders have consumed part of the volume that was resting at that price. What is left decides the fill, which may be the requested price or the next one along. Slippage is measured in two ways, and the two produce different numbers for the same fill. Measured against the mid price at the moment the order was sent, the figure includes half the spread and tends to look larger. Measured against the executable price at that same moment, meaning the actual ask that could have been bought at, the figure isolates the movement that happened during execution. Broker execution statistics normally use the second definition, so a fill reported as 1.4 pips of slippage on one measure can be quoted as 0.5 pips on the other. Anyone comparing execution quality between two venues needs to check which measure each one is using before drawing a conclusion. Market matching produces slippage on its own, without anyone intervening. Execution quality still changes the size of it: how fast an order is routed, how many liquidity providers are quoting, and how deep those quotes are all decide whether the next available price is one pip away or fifteen. In my own records the difference between a good execution window and a poor one on the same pair has been consistently larger than the difference between two brokers, which is why I spend more time choosing when to trade than comparing execution statistics. Slippage: the variance between an order's requested price and its executed price, expressed in pips or in the currency of the account. Many traders meet the term for the first time on a crypto exchange rather than a forex platform, and the two are not describing the same mechanism. Back in forex terms, what can be set is the maximum deviation on the platform, the order type, the position size and the moment of entry. What cannot be set is the depth of the book on the other side, and that is the thing actually deciding the fill. Slippage has direction, and the direction decides whether it adds to the result or subtracts from it. The mechanism is identical in both cases; the only difference is which side of the requested price the market was standing on at the moment of matching. Positive slippage is a fill at a better price than the one requested, meaning a buy executing lower or a sell executing higher. It appears when price is moving in the trader's direction during the fraction of a second the order is in flight, and when depth is good enough that the improved quote is still available at the moment of matching. Venues that pass on price improvement rather than keeping it will hand that difference back. A worked case: a market buy on EUR/USD for one standard lot expecting 1.0902 fills at 1.0900 after a brief dip. That is 2 pips of positive slippage. At $10 per pip on a standard lot the fill is worth $20 more than the trade that was planned, and the break-even point sits two pips closer. My own view is that positive slippage is worth recording but never worth planning around. Over a year of entries it has offset perhaps a fifth of what the negative side has taken, and it has never once arrived on a stop-loss, which is where the cost actually lands. Negative slippage is a fill at a worse price than the one requested, meaning a buy executing higher or a sell executing lower. Traders feel this version far more often than its counterpart, and the reason is structural rather than unlucky. Stop-losses trigger precisely when price is running hard in one direction and the book on the other side has thinned out. The order arrives at the worst possible moment by design, because the condition that fires it is the same condition that empties the depth. A worked case: a long EUR/USD position of one standard lot entered at 1.0870 with a stop at 1.0850, planning a 20-pip risk. A release pushes price through the level and the stop fills at 1.0846. The realised loss is 24 pips rather than 20, which at $10 per pip is $240 instead of the $200 the position was sized for. The trade took 20% more risk than the plan allowed, and no part of the plan was executed incorrectly. The lesson that cost me the most to learn is that this does not average out. A run of ordinary trades can look fine while one gapped stop quietly undoes a fortnight of them, so I now size positions against the worst fill I have seen on that pair rather than against the level I set. No slippage refers to situations where the execution price exactly matches the requested price. It is a frequent outcome rather than a theoretical one, and it depends on four conditions holding at the same moment. What cannot be done is to guarantee the outcome in advance. Any claim that an account or a platform never experiences slippage deserves scepticism, because the claim is about market matching rather than about the platform. A guaranteed stop is the one instrument that fixes an exit price, and it does so by having a counterparty carry the execution risk for a premium, which is a different thing from removing slippage. The everyday version looks like this: 0.1 lots of EUR/USD on a buy limit at 1.0900 during a quiet Asian session, where the top of the book holds many multiples of that size and the pair has moved under 15 pips in three hours. That order fills at 1.0900 nearly every time, because nothing in those conditions can push it past the level. Slippage is not spread evenly across the week; it concentrates into particular market conditions and time windows. Recognising those conditions is what turns slippage from bad luck into a scheduling decision. Every cause below reduces to the same sentence: at the price requested, there was not enough volume available to fill the order. The five routes to that condition are different, and so are the defences against them. On a major release, quotes reprice several times within the first second and the level on screen is gone before the order arrives. A surprise against the forecast can move a major pair 40 to 80 pips in under a minute, and the first few of those pips come out of the fill rather than out of the market. The releases that do this most reliably: When the book is thin, an order works down through progressively worse levels until it is filled. Volatility does not need to be involved at all. The same 1-lot order on the same pair can cost nothing at 14:00 London time, when London and New York are both trading, and 2 to 3 pips at 23:00, when neither is. Nothing about the pair changed; the number of participants quoting it did. Late evening is where most of the slippage I have paid for was collected, and the trades I was taking in that window were rarely the ones worth taking. Read more：What is liquidity in Forex and how is it measured The market reopens past a whole range of prices, so no trade occurred at the requested level and none could have. A stop sitting inside a gap is executed as a market order at the first price that does exist on the other side. No platform setting prevents this outcome. A maximum deviation limit will reject the order rather than improve it, which on a stop-loss leaves the position open in a market that has already moved. A market order buys certainty of filling and pays for it in price. A limit order buys certainty of price and pays for it in the risk of not filling. The choice is which of the two certainties to give up, and wanting both is not on the menu. Volatility and thin depth usually arrive together, and when they do the spread pulls apart before anything else happens. A pair quoted at 0.6 pips in normal conditions can trade at 5 pips or wider in the seconds after a release, which pushes the execution price away from expectation before the market itself has moved at all. Those five causes concentrate into four windows. High-impact data releases are the sharpest: quotes reprice within seconds and depth vanishes entirely, making this the highest exposure of the week. The market open and close carry high exposure for a different reason, as liquidity rotates between sessions and the book is briefly held up by fewer participants. Late New York and public holidays sit at moderate to high, with thin books and spreads that stay wide for hours rather than seconds. The weekend reopen is the highest exposure of all for anyone holding a position, because everything that happened while the market was closed arrives as a single movement. An economic calendar turns three of those four into something that can be marked in advance. Filtering it to high-impact events for the currencies actually traded, noting the release times in local time, and treating the five minutes either side of each one as closed for new orders removes most of the exposure. The weekend reopen is handled by position size instead, because timing cannot help once the market is shut. I stop placing orders at 21:00 London time and do not place another until the London open. That single rule has done more for my execution than any change of platform. Slippage equals the fill price minus the expected price, positive on a buy meaning more was paid than intended, and reversed on a sell. Converting that difference into money takes three steps. Step 1 — Price difference into pips: for pairs quoted to four decimal places, one pip is 0.0001; for yen pairs quoted to two decimal places, one pip is 0.01. Step 2 — Pips into cash per lot: pips × pip value of the pair. Step 3 — Cash per lot into total cost: cash per pip × number of lots. Slippage cost = (fill price − expected price) in pips × pip value × lots A minimal substitution: a EUR/USD buy expected at 1.0900 fills at 1.0903. The difference is 0.0003, which is 3 pips. At $10 per pip on one standard lot, that fill cost $30 more than the trade that was planned. The same slippage in pips costs proportionally more as size grows, and the spread between the smallest and largest common sizes is wider than most traders expect. Three pips of slippage on EUR/USD costs $3 at 0.1 lots, $15 at 0.5 lots, $30 at 1 lot and $150 at 5 lots. A trader who grows from half a lot to five lots has multiplied the cost of every future slippage event by ten without changing a single thing about how they trade, which is why the same execution habits that were affordable at small size stop being affordable later. Slippage belongs in the same column as the spread and any commission, and it is the only one of the three that never appears on a pricing page. A strategy running on 0.8 pips of spread that averages 0.4 pips of slippage per round trip is actually paying 1.2 pips, which is 50% more than the figure it was backtested against. That single omission explains a large share of the gap between a backtest that looked viable and a live account that does not. Running the formula through one complete trade. Setup. A short EUR/USD position of 2 standard lots entered at 1.0920, with a take-profit at 1.0870 and a stop at 1.0945. The trade is planned as 50 pips of reward against 25 pips of risk, a ratio of 2:1. The slippage event. Price runs the wrong way through a thin late afternoon, the stop triggers, and the fill comes back at 1.0951 rather than 1.0945. Step-by-step calculation. Checking the arithmetic. The planned loss was 25 pips × $20 = $500. The realised loss was 31 pips × $20 = $620. The difference is $120, which matches the slippage cost calculated directly. Change in risk-reward. The trade was built on 2:1. With the denominator now 31 pips against an unchanged 50-pip target, the real ratio was 1.61:1. Slippage changed the structure of the trade and not only its cash result, and a strategy whose edge depends on a 2:1 ratio does not survive many of those. The same trade the other way. Had those 6 pips arrived on entry instead, filling the short at 1.0926 rather than 1.0920, the position would have opened $120 better off with the stop and target untouched. Same mechanism, same size, opposite side of the requested price. This is about what to do once slippage has already happened, which is a different problem from reducing it next time. Three things need establishing immediately: the actual fill price, whether real risk now exceeds what the position was sized for, and how far the risk-reward ratio has moved. Until those are known, any decision about the trade is being made against numbers that are no longer true. From there, three responses are available and each suits a different situation. When unusual slippage happens repeatedly rather than once, the response is different again: stand down, review execution quality against the two measurement baselines, and check whether the trading window itself has been the problem all along. A run of bad fills in the same hour of the day is not an execution problem, it is a scheduling one. My own first action after a large slippage event is to write the intended price and the realised fill side by side in the trade log before doing anything else. It takes fifteen seconds and it stops the next decision being made from memory, which in my experience is always more generous than the record. Every order type answers one question: certainty of filling, or certainty of price? Slippage exposure follows directly from the answer, which makes order selection the most direct control a trader has. The stop-limit deserves its own paragraph, because it is the order most often reached for and most often misunderstood. Setting a stop at 1.0850 with a limit at 1.0840 instructs the platform to sell anywhere in that 10-pip band and nowhere below it. If price trades through the band in one move, the order does not fill and the position stays open, still losing. That trade-off is worth taking when the downside of a bad fill is larger than the downside of staying in, which in practice means orderly markets, positions small enough to exit manually, and levels where price is likely to pause. It is worth avoiding through weekend gaps and scheduled releases, where the whole reason for setting a stop was the scenario in which the band gets skipped. The guaranteed stop is the only row in the table carrying no exposure, and the reason is that the exposure has been transferred rather than removed. A counterparty commits to the stated exit price regardless of what the market does in between, and charges a premium for accepting that risk. Nothing about the market has changed; the question is only whether that premium is cheaper than the fill that would otherwise have happened. Read more：Types of Forex Orders: Master the 7 Types Like a Pro Read more：What is a stop order? Types, examples and how to set one Slippage cannot be eliminated, and any approach built on the assumption that it can will fail at the exact moment it matters. What follows reduces exposure, which is a smaller claim and an achievable one. Place no new orders in the five minutes before a high-impact release, and wait 15 to 20 minutes after it before treating quotes as reliable again. The first move after a release is frequently reversed once the detail is read, and the spread usually needs that long to return to its normal band. This is the rule that has saved me the most money and the one I broke most often when starting out, because standing aside during the most interesting minutes of the day never feels like a decision at the time. Depth differences between pairs show up directly in the fills. EUR/USD, USD/JPY and GBP/USD carry the bulk of daily turnover and quote tightly for most of the trading day, while crosses and exotics can be five to ten times thinner at the same moment. Slippage on an exotic during a quiet hour is often larger than slippage on a major during a release. A limit order converts price risk into the risk of not being in the trade at all. That is a good exchange for entries, where missing one setup costs nothing and a bad fill costs real money on every unit of size. It is a poor exchange for exits. A limit on a stop-loss can leave a position open while it is still moving against the account, which is the one outcome a stop exists to prevent. Limits for getting in, market orders or guaranteed stops for getting out, is the division I have settled on and have not had reason to revisit. Read more：Limit Orders in Forex: Where to Place Buy and Sell Limits Slippage grows when an order is large relative to what is resting at the top of the book. The test is straightforward and runs on existing fill records: if 1-lot orders fill at the quoted price while 5-lot orders come back a pip or two worse in the same conditions, size has crossed the depth available and the account is now paying for the privilege of moving the market. A guaranteed stop closes at the price set regardless of gaps, charged either as a wider spread on entry or as a fee when the stop is triggered. The arithmetic decides it. If the premium is 2 pips and the position is being held through a central bank decision that has produced 60-pip gaps before, the cost is trivially worth paying. On an intraday trade in an orderly session, where realistic slippage is under a pip, the same premium is twice the expected cost of insuring against something that will not happen. Read more：What is a stop-loss order and how to set it A weekend gap is the hardest slippage to defend against, because there is no continuous price for a stop to work on. Everything that happened between Friday's close and Sunday's open arrives as one movement, and the stop executes at the first price on the other side of it. If a position genuinely has to be held, size is the only lever left. Running half the usual position through the weekend keeps the cash exposure of a 50-pip gap at the level normally accepted from a 25-pip move. I hold over the weekend perhaps twice a year, and each time it has been for a reason I could write down before Friday's close rather than a position I simply had not closed. Read more：Best time to trade forex: When to enter the market during the day If slippage cannot be removed, is there anything about it that can be used? The honest answer has two halves. What can be used: What it costs: On balance slippage is a cost, not an opportunity. The point of the first list is that it can be read and worked with rather than only endured; the point of the second is that nothing in the first list outweighs it. My own position is that slippage is best treated as a tax whose rate is partly under my control: I cannot refuse to pay it, but I decide how much of the year I spend in the brackets where it is highest. Slippage happens when a trade fills at a different price than expected due to fast market movements or low liquidity. It cannot be avoided completely, but it can be minimised with the right tools and habits. Three actions do most of the work: choose the window by staying out around high-impact releases, choose the order type by using limits where price matters more than speed, and size the position against the depth actually available on that pair. Slippage is calculated as the difference between the expected execution price and the actual fill price of a trade. To turn that into money, convert the difference into pips, then multiply by the pip value of the pair and the number of lots. A EUR/USD fill 3 pips worse than expected on 1 standard lot costs 3 × $10 = $30. Slippage in forex is the difference between the price expected when a currency order was sent and the price it actually filled at. It appears when quotes move between the order being sent and matched, or when there is not enough volume resting at the requested price. Slippage runs in both directions: positive slippage gives a better price than requested, negative slippage costs more. Traders notice the negative version more often because it concentrates on stop-losses, which trigger precisely when liquidity is thinnest. On major pairs in normal conditions, slippage is usually a fraction of a pip and often zero. Around high-impact releases or weekend gaps it can be several times larger. Persistently large slippage in ordinary conditions is a reason to review execution quality rather than market conditions. A limit order guarantees the fill will not be worse than the price set, which removes negative slippage at that level. The cost is that the order may not fill at all if price never returns, so price risk has been exchanged for execution risk. Slippage tolerance is the maximum price deviation a trader is willing to accept before an order is rejected. The term is most common on crypto exchanges, where it is set as a percentage; forex platforms express the same control as a maximum deviation in points. Slippage is the gap between the price requested and the price received. It has three directions, five causes that all reduce to insufficient volume at the requested price, four windows where it concentrates, a cost that can be calculated to the dollar before a trade is placed, and a different exposure for every order type. Four tests cover almost all of it. Check the calendar before placing an order and stand down for five minutes either side of a high-impact release. Use limits to get in and market orders or guaranteed stops to get out. Watch whether larger orders fill worse than smaller ones, and treat that as the ceiling on size. Add average slippage to the spread when judging whether a strategy actually pays. The habit that changed the most for me was writing the realised fill next to the intended price in the trade log, every time, including the trades that worked. Two months of that turned slippage from something I complained about into a number I knew, and the number turned out to be concentrated in a window I could simply stop trading. The RADEX MARKETS editorial team consists of seasoned financial professionals and market observers. Dedicated to delivering objective market summaries, macroeconomic insights, and educational content, the team strives to keep traders well-informed in a fast-paced financial environment. Reviewed by RADEX MARKETS Risk Warning Trading derivatives and leveraged products carries a high level of risk, including the risk of losing substantially more than your initial investment. Related concepts:
The rally in platinum continued yesterday, pushing the metal to within touching distance of $2,000 per ounce and matching its 2008 price tag. Platinum has now doubled since the start of the year, an accolade also achieved by silver earlier in the month, but the precious metal may not be the last. The club has a couple of weeks left to welcome a third member into its ranks, this time in the form of palladium, which surpassed $1,750 yesterday and is up 90% so far this year. Gold came close to another record high on Thursday, but ultimately fell short, settling to a minor loss at $4,332 per ounce by the daily close. Markets received a surprising update yesterday when the Bureau of Labor Statistics revealed a significant slowdown in US inflation. Year-over-year inflation was expected to hit 3.1% in November, but the official figure came in at just 2.7%. Core inflation, which excludes the more volatile components such as energy and food, lowered to 2.6%, falling far short of expectations of 3.0%. The unexpected figures buoyed US stock markets, lifting the Dow, S&P 500 and Nasdaq to positive daily closes. It is still too early to be thinking about the next move by the Federal Reserve, but should inflation continue to show signs of abating, it will open the door for future rate cuts on the dollar, which are currently not expected until March at the earliest. The Bank of Japan raised the interest rate on the yen to a 30-year high of 0.75% this morning. The move was widely expected and provoked little to no reaction in currencies or in financial markets in general. The central bank is expected to continue raising rates into next year, a shift that will eventually impact the relative value of the yen, which now sits at decade-lows against most major currencies. Low rates have made the Japanese yen very attractive as a source of cheap financing in recent years, but such a model could quickly disappear if the BoJ keeps closing the gap between the yen and the dollar. #Platinum #Inflation #JPY
Silver is rallying once again this morning, touching $66 per ounce early in the Asian session. The white metal is not alone. Platinum has pushed aggressively higher over the past four sessions and judging by this morning’s performance, today will likely be the fifth. Platinum is currently challenging $1,900 at the time of writing and if it rises much higher will match prices not seen since 2008. The metal still has a long way to go before notching a new record high, which stands near $2,300 per ounce, but given the surge in silver so far this year, traders will understandably be entertaining such a possibility. Palladium is also looking at its fifth consecutive day in the green, and is now reaching over $1,650 per ounce. Despite a minor loss yesterday, gold still managed to close above $4,300 per ounce, and remains comfortable above that threshold as of this morning, but attentions are focused elsewhere for the time being. Crude oil prices fell to fresh multi-year lows on Tuesday. Futures for the Brent Crude benchmark were briefly pushed below $59 per barrel yesterday, while West Texas Intermediate futures were trading under $55 at one point. Such prices have not been seen since 2021 and reflect a global supply glut that has been building for much of the year. Since April, OPEC+ has continued to ramp up production, rapidly unwinding years of output cuts that had previously buoyed crude oil prices. The simple fact of the matter is that supply is outpacing consumption and this dynamic is unlikely to change in the near future. No one wants to reduce production, because no one wants to cede market share to their competitors. As peace talks between Russia and Ukraine continue to see progress, the probability of Russian oil re-entering the market increases – something that OPEC is painfully aware of. Should the sanctions against Russia be lifted in earnest, the additional player in worldwide oil markets could force prices down even further as different parties attempt to wrestle market share from one another. #Oil #Silver #Platinum
A stock split is exactly what it sounds like. A company splits its stock by increasing the number of outstanding shares, while decreasing the price of each one. A share may be divided into two, three, ten or more, with the cost of acquiring one share adjusting accordingly. The total market capitalisation of the company remains unchanged. Companies tend to perform stock splits when their share prices are high. Nvidia (NVDA) completed a 10-to-1 split in June 2024, at which time the company was trading at $1,200 per share. Following the split, each share was divided into ten shares, each worth $120. Nothing fundamental about the stock changed, merely a change of numbers. Companies can go through multiple rounds of stock splits. In fact, since going public in 1999, Nvidia has completed six separate stock splits, dividing one share at launch into a total of 480 shares today. The chipmaker is by no means an outlier; Home Depot and McDonald’s have undergone 13 and 12 stock splits respectively in their time. Stock splits have been around for a long time. The first examples, according to modern definitions of such, date back to 1916. American Can and American Tobacco both performed a stock split that year, following the same reasoning still used to this day: to make their shares more accessible to the average investor. Over a century later, the trend is still going strong, and by and large follows the same logic. The argument is that acquiring a share is more difficult for an average investor if the price tag is too high. Many stocks had a large barrier to entry because of this, which excluded a number of buyers. Even among those who could afford to buy higher-priced stocks, the perception that the company represents some kind of luxury good can deter some investors. By bringing their price down to more reasonable levels, the shares become more available, thereby expanding the potential pool of buyers. Moreover, a greater number of lower-priced shares results in greater liquidity, which may narrow the bid-ask spread, making life easier for buyers and sellers alike. Things changed considerably in late 2019, when Robinhood introduced fractional trading to its customers, allowing people to buy fractions of a share in a given company. Other competing platforms quickly implemented similar solutions, and over the past five years fractional trading has become widely available. As a result, the process of splitting a stock now makes a lot less sense than it once did. This begs the question of why Nvidia bothered to do one last year. If investors are free to buy only a fraction of a share, what is the point of a stock split? The answer is in fact mostly psychological. On a basic level, if a company is undergoing a stock split, or even thinking about one, it is because their share price has appreciated significantly in recent times, which is an obvious selling point for the stock itself, one that may potentially attract new investors. Such a factor certainly plays a role, but there is also a much deeper element at play: the notion of perceived affordability. As an aside, stock splits can also go the other way, consolidating a large number of shares into fewer, reducing the amount of shares outstanding. Such events are known as reverse stock splits, and typically occur when a company is in trouble. While a regular stock split is good publicity, a reverse stock split is generally a red flag. If a stock continuously underperforms, its share price may fall below the minimum price requirement of the exchange, meaning the stock will get delisted if stays too low for too long. For example, the New York Stock Exchange maintains a strict $1 price threshold, below which the associated company will eventually receive a deficiency notice. One of the most famous examples of a reverse stock split is the shipping company DryShips Inc (DRYS), which completed no fewer than eight such operations between 2016 and 2017. The company performed split after split in an attempt to counter the stock’s shockingly bad performance, desperately trying to remain listed on the stock exchange. The successive consolidations made for a combined reverse stock split of 1-to-11,760,000 shares. At one point, the company was facing ten separate class-action investor lawsuits, with accusations ranging from stock manipulation to violating American securities laws. For reasons that have nothing to do with logic, investors are more comfortable investing in assets when they lie within a specific price range. A high price tag can scare people away because they think that it is a sign that something is overvalued. The assumption is that an asset worth $1,000 must be overvalued compared to one that is only worth $3, and therefore the latter is a better investment. Such an argument is obviously nonsensical because it ignores the market cap of the company. Sticking with chip manufacturers, let us compare Nvidia (NVDA) and Advanced Micro Devices (AMD). Nvidia has a share price of $177; AMD has a share price of $217. Is AMD “worth” more than Nvidia? Of course not, because Nvidia has over 24 billion shares outstanding, granting the company a market cap of $4 trillion, whereas AMD has just 1.6 billion shares outstanding, granting the company a market cap of $350 billion. Most people in investment circles are obviously aware of how market cap works and why investing in assets based on price alone is silly. But a small part of our brain sees the high price tag and gets skittish. Multiply that niggling feeling by the millions of people who subconsciously experience it, and suddenly there is a very real, tangible effect. The same phenomenon is arguably more pronounced in cryptocurrencies, which, to put it mildly, has its fair share of inexperienced market participants. People flock to “lower priced” coins for no other reason than the price tag, blissfully unaware of the concept of market capitalisation. To each their own. The point is, companies are wise to this effect. Companies will initiate stock splits in order to bring their share price right down to the sweet spot, whether they publicly admit it or not. Many cryptocurrencies are guilty of the same. There are costs associated with performing a stock split, including legal fees and administrative work, so the fact that companies will pursue such ventures, despite the cost of doing so, points to the lucrative nature of these operations. A stock split attracts a lot of attention. A share price going up so much that the company has to undergo a split? What is not to like? The hype surrounding such an event does indeed typically result in a surge of interest, and a rise in price. Such effects are meticulously monitored and studied, with many believing the $30 to $300 range being ideal in terms of optics for potential buyers. $1,000 price tags put people off just as much as sub-$1 prices. Interestingly, the acceptable range appears to vary by region, with different parts of the world preferring different price bands. If investors acted purely on logic, the price of a stock or crypto would not matter at all – market cap would be all that mattered. Unfortunately, we are not as clever as we think. Perception matters more than we would like to admit. With that said, some stocks are completely immune to such notions, such as Berkshire Hathaway, whose class A shares have never undergone a single stock split since their initial listing in 1988. BRK.A hit a share price of over $800,000 earlier in the year. That is not a decimal point. Eight hundred thousand dollars per share. The argument that markets are irrational is one that needs little justification; it is obvious for all to see. Stock markets, and financial markets in general, are a collection of human emotions. As the saying goes: “Markets can remain irrational longer than you can remain solvent.” The quote is attributed to John Maynard Keynes, renowned economist, who despite his expertise, lost significant amounts of money in the 1920s. Keynes would eventually learn his lesson, pivoting his bets towards much longer time frame plays. He would go on to run the endowment for King’s College, Cambridge, consistently beating the market, year after year, for over two decades. Reality usually catches up; it just takes a while.
US stocks took a turn for the worse last Friday, as an increasing number of investors shied away from big tech companies. The tech-heavy Nasdaq Composite index shed 1.7%, while the S&P 500 lost 1.1% and the Dow Jones closed 0.5% in the red – the further removed from tech stocks, the lesser the damage. Many companies associated with the artificial intelligence space suffered on Friday, including Oracle (ORCL), which fell another 4.5% after incurring a double-digit loss the day prior. Fellow chipmakers Nvidia (NVDA) and Advanced Micro Devices (AMD) lost 3.3% and 4.8% respectively, while Broadcom (AVGO) plummeted over 11% following its latest earnings report, which failed to meet investors’ sky-high expectations regarding the company’s sales outlook. Despite the heavy selloff, the poor performance in technology stocks appears somewhat contained, with broader markets remaining relatively unaffected. There is a growing sentiment that AI valuations are overblown, and this has manifested in a pivot towards other sectors, as evidenced by the fact that the Dow gained over 1% last week, while the S&P 500 and Nasdaq both closed in the red. Gold continued to push higher last Friday, reaching highs over $4,350 before settling a hair’s breadth below $4,300. The precious metal started the week strongly this morning, rising back towards $4,340 in the early Asian session. Silver traders finally took some profit last week, lowering the white metal to a $61.91 weekly close, but the bid has once again returned as of this morning. The spotlight may turn elsewhere this week, this time to platinum, which is currently challenging $1,800 – a price not seen since 2011. Traders have a lot to keep an eye on this week. Tomorrow, the Bureau of Labor Statistics will publish a special NFP report, which will include nonfarm payroll figures for both October and November, granting the publication additional weight. However, the report will only feature unemployment stats for November, because the household survey data was not collected in October due to the government shutdown. Tuesday and Wednesday will then provide back-to-back retail sales for October and November, while Thursday will see the publication of the latest CPI figures. The backlog is rapidly being cleared. Moving away from the United States, this week will also see three major central bank decisions. On Thursday, the Bank of England is expected to enact a rate cut of its own, lowering the interest rate on the Pound to 3.75% from 4% currently. Later in the day, the European Central Bank will in all likelihood hold rates on the Euro steady at 2.15%. Finally, the most anticipated decision of the week lies with the Bank of Japan, which, in the early hours of Friday morning, will probably increase rates on the Yen to 0.75% from 0.5% at present. The shift to higher rates could be acutely far-reaching because low borrowing costs on the Japanese Yen have long been a source of cheap credit to markets around the world. The unwinding of such could have a detrimental impact on a number of markets, particularly those susceptible to low liquidity conditions, such as cryptocurrencies. To put the adjustment in context, rates on the Yen have not been as high as 0.75% since 1995. Despite the looming threat, the Yen does not appear to be making any strong moves, while Japanese bond yields have increased steadily for many months already, suggesting the rebalancing is somewhat priced in. Time will tell. #Gold #Silver #AVGO #NFP
