ข่าวฟอเร็กซ์

The 2008 financial crisis indiscriminately tore through the global economy like a hurricane, leaving few areas of the world unscathed. Europe and the United States were among the hardest hit, with both economic powerhouses losing around 5% of their respective gross domestic product in the initial hit. Unfortunately for Europe, this is where similarities end. As everyone emerged from the wreckage, some economic regions underwent robust growth spurts, while others were left in the dust. Taking 2009 as a starting point, comparing the growth figures of the United States and those of the European Union puts the economic recovery of both blocs in stark contrast. In nominal USD terms, US GDP grew from $14.5 trillion in 2009 to 30.8 trillion in 2025. Figures courtesy of the IMF. A 112% gain. On the other side of the Atlantic, the story is very different. Since 2009, the European Union has lost the United Kingdom and gained Croatia. To maintain consistency, we will exclude both of these countries from the figures. From this point onwards, the European Union, or EU, refers to the remaining 26 countries. In nominal USD terms, the European Union had a GDP of $14.8 trillion in 2009, putting it neck-and-neck with the United States. Sixteen years later, European GDP had risen to just $21.1 trillion, meaning the EU economy is now only two-thirds the size of the US. Accounting for inflation, the US grew by 42% between 2009 and 2025, while the EU shrank by 4% over the same time frame. Of course, people will be quick to point out that comparing growth figures in dollars makes no sense given that European GDP is not priced in USD, and they would have a point. The euro has fallen significantly against the dollar since 2009, making the above figures look worse. Eurozone countries currently contribute 85% of European Union GDP, making the common currency a reasonable benchmark for looking at EU growth. In euros, the European Union grew 76% in nominal terms, which equates to 23% growth in real terms. Even when accounting for exchange rates, American growth was almost double that observed in Europe. The argument in favour of judging EU growth in euros is not necessarily very sound either. Exchange rates fluctuate because of real-world dynamics. The euro has fallen against the dollar for many of the same reasons that US growth surpassed EU growth. The European Central Bank maintained low rates on the euro in order to support a more fragile economic recovery, something that the Fed did not have to do to the same extent. The Eurozone debt crisis also affected exchange rates by causing major selloffs in the euro. If using USD exclusively is unfair, so too is using a full exchange rate correction. The truth lies somewhere in the middle. Either way, the undeniable fact of the matter is that US growth has eclipsed EU growth since the financial crisis. Comparing GDP per capita does not help the European case much. The EU population has grown by 3% since 2009, whereas the US population has grown by around 13%. The difference does indeed dilute the American share of wealth generation, although not enough to make much of a dent. Per capita growth is still much higher in the United States, just not quite by the same degree as the aggregate figure would suggest. Looking deeper into the structure of the EU, the picture becomes even more troubling. Eastern European countries are growing faster than their Western European counterparts, as would be expected. The problem is that when analysing the more established contingent of the EU, the “big four” of Germany, France, Spain and Italy, growth rates are even less impressive. Between 2009 and 2025, the big four grew 30% in nominal USD terms, or 60% in nominal euro terms. Accounting for inflation, this translates to -13% in real USD growth and 12% in real euro growth. A reminder that the US grew by 42% in comparison. The last batch of figures exposes the vast chasm between the two regions. The story cannot be interpreted in any other way. There are no excuses left. Western Europe dropped the ball. Europe knows this, which is why the EU commissioned a strategic document to address such concerns, which resulted in *The Future of European Competitiveness* in September 2024. The findings are commonly referred to as the Draghi report, named after the former Italian Prime Minister who authored it. The report is freely available for anyone to read and contains some absolutely scathing statements in the opening pages. The second paragraph brutally establishes the following: *“Europe’s households have paid the price in foregone living standards. On a per capita basis, real disposable income has grown almost twice as much in the US as in the EU since 2000.”* These words were not spat from the mouth of a vindictive external critic; they come from a former president of the European Central Bank. In equally succinct terms, the report immediately identifies the source of European complacency: “the safety of the US security umbrella freed up defence budgets to spend on other priorities”. The problem with European stability is that it is entirely dependent on foreign powers: natural gas from Russia, crude oil from the Middle East, international shipping lanes policed by the US Navy and 100,000 American troops stationed across the continent. The lack of energy security is simply unacceptable, a vulnerability unbecoming of any supposed global power. Stability is far from the only problem. While Mr Draghi highlights the need to increase security and reduce foreign dependencies, he spells out two other major areas of concern. The first is European electricity prices, which are 2-3 times higher than in the US. Natural gas prices are even more egregious, often subject to a 4-to-5-fold premium. This discrepancy is partly explained by the differences in natural resources, but not entirely. As the report points out, common energy market rules are a major contributor to higher prices, as are carbon taxes. Such obstacles could be dismantled with relative ease should EU leaders demonstrate the willingness to do so. The final area of concern is harder to address. There is now a colossal innovation gap between the US and the EU. The world’s largest technology companies are overwhelmingly based in the United States. The seven largest US tech companies, commonly called the magnificent seven, are twenty times bigger than the seven largest European companies. They also generate ten times more revenue. Of the top 50 tech companies, around 35 are based in the United States, while only 4 are based in Europe. European companies do not have a seat at the big tech table; they are not even in the room; they are outside the building, cleaning the windows. ASML is the notable exception. The funding element is self-reinforcing. Far more capital washes around the American tech scene compared to its European complement and the US continues to spend more proportionally, meaning the investment gap is only going to widen. Europe largely missed out on the digital revolution led by the internet and the productivity gains it brought. Words from the Draghi report once again. The difference in outcome is no accident. The European regulatory landscape is more difficult to navigate; taxation is more punitive; funding is harder to secure. All these points could be developed further but it may be more efficient to view each one as merely a symptom of the European mindset. One side of the Atlantic seeks to build; the other seeks to manage. One side tries to innovate; the other tries to regulate. One side acts; the other side reacts, often glacially. The pioneering spirit is gone. Decades of stagnation have produced a crippling attitude of learned helplessness. Governance has been reduced to managed decline. Genuine leadership has not been observed in a generation. The continent has accepted its fate and is resigned to bow out with what remaining dignity it can muster. The UK was excluded from the above figures for consistency, but Britain absolutely falls into the same bracket. Ending on a perfectly illustrative example, let us turn to the tragic case of Marshall Aerospace. Marshall Aerospace was founded in 1909 in Cambridge and is mostly known for its long-standing expertise in maintaining and repairing the Lockheed Martin C-130 Hercules plane. A few weeks ago, the company announced that it was exploring options for its long-term future, which may include selling the business. The UK government recently abandoned its fleet of C-130s, heavily denting Marshall’s future prospects. While the company has expanded into the drone sector, with promising results, Marshall Aerospace is currently sitting on vast tracts of land, ready to be snapped up by housing development firms. Plans to relocate to another area in England were under consideration for a while, but have since collapsed due to budget concerns. As of the time of writing, the company is for sale. The loss of a 117-year-old aerospace titan is being treated as a property development opportunity. In all likelihood, an American giant such as Lockheed or Raytheon will swoop in and relocate the entire operation to somewhere in the US. The process is far from uncommon. In 2022, Meggitt Ltd, an aerospace sub-systems company based in Coventry, was acquired by Parker-Hannifin, a manufacturing firm from Ohio. The same year, Ultra Electronics, a company specialising in military sonar was acquired by Cobham, which was itself bought by American private equity firm Advent International in 2020. Last month, Senior PLC agreed to a £1.4 billion takeover by Tinicum and Blackstone, a California-based industrial specialist and an investment management company based in New York, respectively. The deal is expected to go ahead tomorrow. The tragedy of losing companies such as Marshall Aerospace is not purely financial. The loss of jobs, apprenticeships and skills will be felt for many years. Even more importantly, such losses chip away at a nation’s ability to act independently. Europe’s loss, America’s gain. The budget gap, in both the public and private sectors, means that US firms can snap up foreign assets with minimal pain to their books, further consolidating power and influence. The US defence budget topped $1 trillion this year, dwarfing all other nations on Earth. A defence budget is not merely for buying tanks and bullets; it finances entire sub-industries, each providing jobs, supply chains, as well as research and development funds. As a side note, Amazon’s R&D costs were over $100 billion last year, surpassing most European defence budgets. Innovation rarely comes from the public sector these days. Development moved away from universities and confidential government-funded labs to corporations that often have more weight than entire nation states. From NASA to SpaceX. From DARPA to the magnificent seven. With money comes power; with power comes influence. If Elon Musk makes a decision on content moderation via the Starlink satellite constellation, it affects more people than any bill or law ever could. Once again, private companies moving abroad results in more than just a loss of money, it results in a loss of influence. An argument could be made that the observed consolidation of power relates less to national sovereignty and more to an emerging neo-feudalism, but in the immediate term, the visible economic shift more than adequately tells the tale. When playing the board game “Risk”, there comes a turn when it becomes obvious that one of the players has won. The remainder of the game is simply an exercise in cleaning up the board. We have reached that time.

Most traders come to breakout trading for one reason: they want to be in at the start of a move instead of chasing it halfway through. A range ends, price leaves it, and a new trend begins from that point. What usually happens instead is that price pokes through the level, the entry fills, the stop is taken two candles later, and only then does the real move get going without them. Done with the right rules, breakout trading does deliver what it promises. The entry is a line and a close, the risk is defined before the order is placed, and a correct entry can carry the whole first leg of a new trend. This guide gives you the method that makes that outcome the normal one: what a breakout is and where it happens, how to confirm one on the close, five strategies including a fully worked break and retest, four checks for the entry point, and the four signs that a breakout is about to fail. Breakout trading means entering when price closes above resistance or below support, aiming to catch the first leg of the trend that follows the end of a range. The dividing line is not whether price touched the level but whether it closed beyond it, and most false breakouts are filtered out at that one check. Practise the close rule on live prices before you risk a pip. Breakout trading is a strategy that enters a position when price moves beyond a support or resistance level that has been holding it, with the aim of riding the move that follows. Markets spend most of their time inside ranges, drifting between a ceiling and a floor while buyers and sellers argue over value. A breakout is the moment that argument ends, and breakout trading is a way of entering at that transition rather than in the middle of a trend that is already running. A bullish breakout is a close above resistance, and it says that buyers have absorbed everything sellers were offering at the ceiling. A bearish breakout is a close below support, and it says the same about sellers at the floor. The direction of the break sets the direction of the trade. What makes the approach friendly to a disciplined trader is the shape of its outcomes. The entry rule is a line and a close, losing trades tend to reveal themselves within a few candles, and a winning trade can carry an entire leg of a new trend. Traders who can accept several small losses in a row for one large gain tend to get on with it; traders who need to be right most of the time do not. A breakout needs something to break. Levels that carry weight are the ones where price has already turned at least twice: a prior swing high or low, a round number such as 1.2800 on GBP/USD, the ceiling and floor of a consolidation, or the boundaries of a chart pattern. A line drawn through a single touch has no breakout, only noise crossing it. The four structures below produce most of the breakouts a forex trader will see, and each comes with its own natural stop location: How to identify and measure each of those patterns has its own guide. This article picks up at the point where price has already left the structure and the question is how to enter. Read more: Rectangle Pattern: How to Identify, Trade and Set Targets The first confirmation is the closing price, not the intraday price. On whichever timeframe you trade, the candle has to close beyond the level. A wick that pokes through and a close that settles back inside is not a breakout, whatever it looked like for twenty minutes. Picture EUR/USD on the hourly chart with resistance at 1.0862 that has held three times over two days. At 10:40 London time price pushes 14 pips above it and every breakout order in the book gets filled. The hourly candle then closes at 1.0855, back inside. Over the next two hours the pair sells off 38 pips, taking out every stop that was placed just under the old resistance. A trader who waited for the close was never in that trade. A trader who acted on the poke paid for the lesson. Once the close has qualified the break, indicators can add weight. Momentum is the first question, and the RSI answers it by showing whether the strength behind the move has kept up with price: The RSI cannot tell you whether the level itself was meaningful, so it never replaces the close. Direction is the second question, and a moving average answers it by showing whether the break is going with the broader flow or against it: A moving average lags by design, so a break that crosses it is simply undecided rather than wrong. Participation is the third question, and here forex charts differ from the textbook. MT4 and MT5 show tick volume, a count of price updates rather than money traded, so it can support a breakout but never confirm one on its own: Tick volume is the number of price updates recorded during a candle on a forex platform. It is used in place of traded volume because the decentralised currency market publishes no consolidated figure for how much was actually bought and sold. For a trader in the UK, the session matters as much as any indicator. The hour around the 08:00 London open and the afternoon overlap with New York carry the deepest liquidity of the day, so a break printed then has real participation behind it. A break during Asian hours is often a thin market drifting through a level with nobody there to defend it, and it is routinely reversed when London arrives. The practical habit is to note an Asian-session break, leave it alone, and see whether the first London hour holds the new side of the level. The five strategies below differ in two things: what structure the breakout comes from and at what point you enter. The earlier the entry, the more of the move you catch and the more often a false breakout catches you. Each one is described the same way, with the structure, the entry condition, the stop and the first target. A range counts as a range once price has turned at least twice at the ceiling and twice at the floor. The entry is a close above the upper edge for a long or below the lower edge for a short. The stop goes back inside the range, beyond the most recent swing inside it, and the first target projects the height of the range from the breakout point. Trading back and forth inside the range while it holds is a different strategy with different rules, and it is not what this article covers. Breakout traders wait for the range to end. Inside an established trend, price pauses to consolidate and then breaks out in the direction of that trend. Of the five entries this one has the highest probability, because the broader flow was already on your side before the break happened. The entry is the close beyond the consolidation, the stop goes on the far side of it, and the first target is the length of the previous impulse leg. The reason many experienced traders prefer this version is simple to state: the trend has already answered the direction question, so the only thing left to judge is timing. Read more: Trend Trading Strategies: How to Use Indicators with Examples After a breakout, price often returns to the level it just broke. Old resistance is tested as new support, and if it holds without a close back inside the range, that hold is the entry. The stop can sit just under the retest low, which is far tighter than any stop placed on the breakout candle itself. Worked through on an illustrative GBP/USD four-hour chart, with the figures kept internally consistent so the arithmetic can be followed: Range ceiling: 1.2764, range floor: 1.2673, range height: 91 pips Breakout candle closes at 1.2789, 25 pips above the ceiling Two candles later price returns to 1.2768, holds above the old ceiling, and the next candle closes at 1.2783 Entry: 1.2783. Stop: 1.2749, below the retest low of 1.2758 with a 9 pip buffer. Risk: 34 pips First target: 1.2764 plus 91 = 1.2855. Reward: 72 pips. Reward-to-risk: 72 divided by 34 = 2.12 to 1 Position: 0.4 lots, worth about £3.12 per pip. Money at risk: 34 x 3.12 = £106, which is 1.3 per cent of an £8,000 account If the target is reached: 72 x 3.12 = £225 Now the failure branch, on the same setup. Price holds at the retest, the entry fills at 1.2783, and three candles later the four-hour close prints 1.2757, back inside the range. The premise has failed before the stop is touched, so the position is closed at the next open around 1.2754. That is a loss of 29 pips, roughly £90, instead of the full 34 pips. The same range produced both outcomes, and the difference was a rule set before the entry rather than anything about the setup. One honest caveat: the retest does not always come. A strong breakout can run from the level without looking back, and chasing it means entering higher with the same target and a stop that now sits far below. The reward-to-risk collapses. Let those go and wait for the next range. Take the high and low of the quiet hours before the London open, typically from 04:00 to 08:00 UK time, and treat them as a range. When a candle on the fifteen-minute or hourly chart closes beyond either side, enter in that direction. The stop goes on the far side of the pre-open range and the first target projects the range height. The appeal for a UK-based trader is timing: the breakout arrives at the start of the working day, when liquidity is deepest and you are awake to manage it. The limit is range width. On a morning when the pre-open range on GBP/USD is already 50 or 60 pips wide, the stop distance eats the reward and the setup is better left alone. Read more: Best time to trade forex: When to enter the market during the day A trendline drawn under rising lows or over falling highs needs at least three touches before it means anything. A close on the other side of it says the rhythm of the trend has been interrupted. The stop goes on the far side of the breakout candle and the first target is the nearest horizontal support or resistance, because a sloping line gives no natural measured move. This is the entry with the highest failure rate of the five. A trendline break is often a trend slowing down rather than turning, and price can drift sideways across the line for hours without reversing. Read it together with a horizontal level, and treat the sloping line alone as a warning rather than a trigger. Knowing where breakouts happen is half the job. The entry itself is pinned down by four checks, and the trade is taken only when all four agree: In practice the first and third checks are the ones most traders refuse to relax, and the fourth is the one they bend on most often. Consider EUR/USD breaking a daily resistance at 1.0910 with a strong four-hour close during the London afternoon while the daily chart is already rising. All four line up, and that is the kind of break worth taking on the breakout candle itself. The same close at 02:00 UK time with the daily chart flat is a retest-only trade at best. A false breakout is price pushing through a key level, drawing breakout orders in, and then closing back inside the range. It is not an accident. Stops and breakout entries cluster just beyond obvious levels, and the market moves to where the orders are before it moves where it was going. The signs that a break is about to fail are consistent: The handling rule is fixed and it is the same one used in the worked example: a close back inside the range ends the trade, without waiting for the stop. A second false break at the same level ends any interest in that setup, because a level that has trapped traders twice is being used for exactly that purpose. The judgements above collapse into a short sequence, and it is followed in the same order every time: Stay on the major pairs and trade the London session or the London and New York overlap. Enough liquidity is what makes a breakout clean instead of jagged. Draw the range or the key level before anything happens, with at least two touches on it. A line found at the moment of the breakout is a line found to justify the trade. Wait for the candle on your timeframe to close beyond the level. An intraday poke is information, not an action. Choose one entry, on the breakout candle or on the retest, and put the stop where the premise of the trade fails, which is back inside the range. Read more: What is a stop-loss order and how to set it Take part of the position off at the first target and trail the rest behind the structure the market builds. A close back inside the range closes everything, whatever the stop says. Yes, on one condition: you accept a modest win rate and make your money from reward-to-risk and discipline rather than from being right often. Breakout trading is popular for reasons that have little to do with hit rate and a lot to do with how well it suits a trader who follows rules: The price of those advantages is the win rate and the false breakouts that produce it. So the honest answer is that breakout trading suits traders who can wait for the close and sit through a run of small losses, and the next section is about keeping that run affordable. Cost belongs in the same calculation. Spreads widen at the moment of a break and around data releases, and a stop set tight against the level can be taken out by the spread alone while the chart price never reaches it. Read more: 10 Forex risk management tips every trader should know It is a good strategy for a trader who waits for the close and accepts a modest win rate paired with a high reward-to-risk. It is a poor strategy for anyone who needs to be right on most trades, because false breakouts are built into the method. A breakout is price closing through a support or resistance level that had previously held it. It usually marks the end of a range and the start of a new move, and the close rather than the intraday high or low is what qualifies it. False breakouts are far fewer from the one-hour chart upwards, and the four-hour and daily are the most reliable for a trader who cannot watch the screen all day. The five-minute and fifteen-minute charts can be traded, but they carry many more false signals, and the four signs in the false breakout section apply to every one of them. Look at the close rather than the intraday price, look for follow-through in the two or three candles after the break, and look at which session it happened in. A break that closes beyond the level, extends, and prints during London or the New York overlap is a breakout; a long wick, a flat aftermath or an Asian-hours print are the signs of a fakeout. The rules are clear enough for a starting trader to follow, which is why it is often taught early. The most common beginner failure is entering before the close, so practise retest entries only on a demo account until waiting for the close is a habit. The step-by-step guide for beginners covers the groundwork that comes before any strategy. Breakouts only happen at levels that matter, the close is the confirmation, the five strategies differ in structure and timing, the entry point is pinned by four checks, and a false breakout announces itself in four ways. Put it to work on the next range you see. Mark the ceiling and the floor before price gets there. Wait for a candle to close beyond the level on your timeframe, then check the daily chart for a bigger level sitting just beyond it and note which session you are in. If the close is there, the path is clear and London is open, take the entry on the break or on the retest and put the stop back inside the range. If any one of those three is missing, leave it and wait for the next one. The trades that hurt in breakout trading are rarely the ones that failed cleanly. They are the ones taken on a poke through the level, with the stop just under it, in a thin session. Removing those three habits does more for the results than any indicator ever will. 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:

Markets have been relatively mellow so far this week, as the US and Iran appear to be making progress on reaching an agreement to end the ongoing conflict. The blockade remains in place but Secretary of State Marco Rubio declared yesterday that the main military operation against Iran was over. Oil prices remain elevated, with Brent Crude trading for $108 and WTI hovering around $100 per barrel. The lull in hostilities has buoyed precious metals, lifting gold to $4,650 this morning while silver rose confidently above $75 per ounce. The S&P 500 and Nasdaq Composite both closed at record highs yesterday, following which Advanced Micro Devices (AMD) reported its first quarter results, beating expectations and sending the stock soaring in aftermarket trading. Crypto markets are suddenly more optimistic than they have been in months. The recent compromise in the wording of the Clarity Act would allow crypto platforms to offer rewards to customers based on activity and network usage, but would not permit completely passive forms of yield comparable to interest on bank deposits. For months, representatives from the banking sector have fought against any form of stablecoin reward, but their voices may now be falling on deaf ears. Senators Tillis and Alsobrooks, from the Senate Banking Committee, issued a joint statement yesterday that clarified the matter, adding “some in the banking industry may not want either of these things to happen, and we respectfully agree to disagree”. The fight might not be over just yet however, with a number of bank trade groups stepping forward on Monday to say that the recent verdict fell short of their desired outcome. On the other side of the debate, Coinbase CPO Faryar Shirzad expressed satisfaction, claiming that crypto companies “protected what matters — the ability for Americans to earn rewards, based on real usage of crypto platforms and networks”. Bitcoin has risen steadily so far this week, climbing back above $81,000 for the first time since January. Cryptocurrencies as a whole are in the red for the year, but the shift in sentiment surrounding the Clarity Act is noteworthy. After months of disappointing price action and boredom, traders are keen for any catalyst to jolt crypto markets back into action. #AMD #BITCOIN #IRAN

The relationship between stock markets and forex is based on global capital flows and investor sentiment. When investors move money into or out of equities, currencies react almost immediately. In simple terms: This is why experienced traders don’t look at forex in isolation; they watch equities, bonds, and macro data together. If you’re only watching charts without understanding the bigger picture, you’re effectively trading with one eye closed. At its core, forex is not just about currencies, it’s about global money movement, and stock markets are one of the biggest drivers of that movement. The term “market correlation” refers to how two financial markets move in relation to each other. In forex trading, stock markets influence currencies through three key mechanisms. When investors buy stocks in a country, they must first convert their money into that country’s currency. For example: This creates demand for the currency, pushing its value higher. Now flip the scenario: This is why forex often moves before or during stock market shifts - not after. Risk sentiment is the overall mood of the market: Currencies behave differently depending on this mood. This is one of the most important concepts in forex trading - and one that beginners often underestimate. Stock markets move based on expectations of: These same factors also drive forex markets. For example: However, it’s rarely that simple (we’ll get to that later). When stock markets are rising, it usually signals: In trading terms, this is known as a risk-on environment. Currencies That Tend to Rise: These are often referred to as “risk currencies” because they perform well when investors are willing to take risks. Currencies That Tend to Fall: These are known as safe haven currencies, which investors typically avoid during optimistic periods. When stocks are rising: This is known as the carry trade, and it plays a major role in forex movements during bullish stock markets. After the global financial crisis: Forex reaction: This is a classic example of stocks rising - risk currencies strengthening - safe havens weakening. Now let’s talk about the part traders really care about—because this is where the biggest moves happen. A stock market crash triggers: This leads to what’s known as: Flight to safety (or flight to quality) Safe Haven Currencies Surge: Risk Currencies Collapse: During a crash: Here’s a key insight many beginners miss: During a crash, markets don’t just chase safety - they chase liquidity. And the most liquid currency in the world is the US Dollar. Let’s ground this in reality with real-world events. This is the textbook example. What happened: Forex reaction: Key takeaway: When stocks crash hard, forex reacts even harder. What happened: Forex reaction: Interestingly: This reinforced the idea that USD is the ultimate safe haven in global crises. What happened: Forex reaction: This shows that interest rates can amplify stock–forex relationships. Risk-on and risk-off are the backbone of this entire topic. Forex behaviour: Forex behaviour: Some pairs are particularly sensitive to stock market movements. This pair is one of the best indicators of risk sentiment. Now let’s turn this into something tradable. Trade idea: Stock market opens often drive forex volatility. Watch how equities behave in the first hour—this often sets the tone for forex. Before entering a trade: If both align - higher probability trade. During major selloffs: Opportunities: But also, higher risk - this is not for beginners. Here’s where many traders get caught out. The relationship between stocks and forex is not always consistent. You might see: This can happen if: This is why blindly following correlations is dangerous. Let’s bring this forward. With algorithmic trading and AI: In global crises: Geopolitical tensions, inflation shocks, and rate changes will continue to create: Traders who understand: Will have a significant advantage. If there’s one takeaway from this entire guide, it’s this: Stock markets show confidence. Forex markets show capital flow. When stocks rise: When stocks fall: And if you learn to read both together? You move from reacting to markets… to anticipating them. As I write this article the bank of England is warning about the stock markets being too high and expects stock markets around the world to fall as share prices do not reflect the many risks facing the global economy. The language is notable, they did not say they expect a stock market crash, but they expect a pullback on the stock market, food for thought. Most beginner traders watch only forex charts. Professional traders watch: Because forex isn’t just a market; it’s the result of everything else happening in the global economy.

As of this morning, Project Freedom is now in effect in the waters of the Persian Gulf. Late last night, President Trump announced new measures to ensure the safety of ships transiting through the Strait of Hormuz, which include escorting neutral ships in and out of the strategic passage. Many ships have been left stranded as a result of the ongoing hostilities and the recent announcement seeks to address the matter. The operation will run parallel to the US naval blockade already in place and, according to Central Command, will include over 100 sea and land-based aircraft, unmanned platforms and 15 thousand service members. Financial markets have begrudgingly awarded a nod of approval so far, with crude oil prices falling early in the Asian session. The Brent Crude benchmark is currently oscillating around $108 per barrel, while WTI contracts are trading for around $101 after seeing lows of $99 per barrel earlier in the day. Asian stock markets were cautiously optimistic as trading got underway, with South Korean and Taiwanese indices hitting record highs, while the Nikkei 225 remains closed due to a national holiday. Last week was a huge one for quarterly earnings, with five of the magnificent seven reporting their latest financial wins and losses. While results were generally strong across the board, the ensuing fallout in stock performance tells a different story. Google was the uncontested winner, with shares in Alphabet (GOOG) surging 10% last Thursday, crowning the company’s best month in decades. Alphabet rose 33% in April, adding over a trillion dollars to its market capitalisation, and is the best performer of the year among the tech giant roster. Apple (AAPL) also saw a decent rally last Friday, following the publication of its own report card, raising 3.2% by the daily close. On the other end of the spectrum, Microsoft (MSFT) and META saw dismal losses, the former shedding 3.9% and the latter collapsing 8.6% last Thursday. The colossal flows of capital flooding into AI projects have not spooked markets just yet, but the connection between spending and revenue is beginning to play on the minds of many investors, particularly when looking at Meta’s spending habits. Both the S&P 500 and Nasdaq Composite indices closed out the week at record highs, as technology stocks continue to dominate market movements. A significant breakthrough occurred late last week in the cryptocurrency sphere. For months, there has been a raging debate between crypto companies and US banks regarding the former’s ability to provide yield on deposits. Companies such as Coinbase currently offer their users rewards for holding stablecoins but this is something that traditional banks have challenged. Last Friday, Senators Thom Tillis and Angela Alsobrooks appeared to have negotiated a compromise, the gist of which would be to ban yield on stablecoin deposits but allow companies to pay out rewards based on platform or network activity. A number of crypto companies already implement such practices, for example by giving traders the option to pay reduced fees via a token native to the exchange. The contention surrounding stablecoin yield has held up the Clarity Act for months, but the latest concession may finally remove the final roadblock, potentially paving the way for the act to be written into law, possibly as early as this month. The Tokyo Stock Exchange is currently enjoying an extended break due to Japan’s Golden Week, which will not see markets reopen until Thursday. May Day in China will likewise see Chinese exchanges shuttered until Wednesday, while the London Stock Exchange will also remain closed today, leaving markets with very little liquidity this morning. Tomorrow morning the Reserve Bank of Australia is expected yet again to raise rates on the Aussie dollar, this time to 4.35%. US home sales and the ISM services PMI follow later in the day, along with the latest JOLT survey. The mid-week has very little to offer, but Friday will deliver April non-farm payrolls, with expectations sitting at 73k new jobs. The earnings calendar is much quieter this week, with the exception of Palantir (PLTR) on Monday and Advanced Micro Devices (AMD) on Tuesday. For now, gazes are once again returning to the Middle East. #PROJECTFREEDOM #CLARITY #GOOG

No one saw this one coming. Yesterday morning, state media announced that the United Arab Emirates will withdraw from the Organisation of the Petroleum Exporting Countries as early as Friday. By the same token, the nation will likewise abandon its seat at OPEC+. Abu Dhabi, one of the emirates in question, has been a member of OPEC since 1967, meaning its membership within the oil cartel predates the unification of the UAE as we know it. The Emirates have long been a major producer of oil, locally and globally, and now account for around 3 million barrels per day. The entire reason for the existence of OPEC is to allow the organisation to limit the production quotas of its member states in order to control the floor on crude oil prices. The cartel has seen its influence wane somewhat in recent years due to the massive surge in production in the United States, but the latest move marks a much more abrupt decline in OPEC’s power and reach. The UAE is recognised as having significant spare capacity and will now most likely increase its production of oil moving forward, possibly doubling its current output with the next two years. The timing of the move is no accident, with the conflict in Iran being the obvious major catalyst. The UAE has criticised other local powers for offering very little resistance to Iran’s drone and missile strikes over the last two months and the country’s relationship with Saudi Arabia has soured in recent times. The Emirates have expressed an openness to lower oil prices, which coincides with America’s, and particularly President Trump’s stance on such matters. Brent Crude contracts are currently trading for $111 per barrel while WTI is hovering around the $99 mark. Confidence surrounding OpenAI continued to waver yesterday after the company missed sales and user targets, according to a report from the Wall Street Journal. The startup is also facing an ongoing lawsuit by Elon Musk, who has accused OpenAI of abandoning its original nonprofit mission and seeks the removal of CEO Sam Altman from the company’s board. Shares in Oracle (ORCL), a partner of OpenAI, fell 4% yesterday as markets digested the report. The development is perhaps not the best timed, arriving just ahead of quarterly earnings from major tech companies later today, including Alphabet (GOOG), Microsoft (MSFT), Amazon (AMZN) and META. The Nasdaq Composite index shed 0.9% on Tuesday, while the S&P 500 fared slightly better with a 0.5% loss and the Dow Jones closed close to flat on the day. Questions are once again being asked about a potential bubble in the artificial intelligence sector, but for now the money remains on the table. #OPEC #UAE #OPENAI