Đọc thêm về RADEX MARKETS
Bitcoin enjoyed a thunderous rally on Monday, blasting over $86,000 per coin and matching prices not seen since January. The original cryptocurrency is now almost in the green for the year, having erased most of the losses incurred over the last nine months. The wider crypto sphere likewise saw explosive inflows of capital, prompting Bitwise CIO Matt Hougan to declare that crypto winter was ‘over’. Hougan went on to state that both the SEC and CFTC were the most ‘pro-crypto […] in the history of the US’ and that the failure of the Clarity Act to pass through Congress may in fact pave the way for ‘stronger pro-crypto regulation’. Music to the ears of market participants who have had absolutely nothing to celebrate since the crypto sector peaked back in October 2025, only to nose-dive into a brutal 50% correction during the following winter months. While prices have a long way to go before new records start being broken, particularly in the altcoin market, early signs of thawing are a sight for sore eyes. There has also been a sizeable rotation back into semiconductor stocks early this week, following the explosive launch of Meta’s Muse AI agent. Meta Platforms (META) gained 11% on Monday after third-party tracking data pointed to overwhelming demand for its new product, which also helped to restore confidence in the wider AI trade. A number of semiconductor companies have rallied hard so far this week, including AMD, which shot up 10% on Monday to establish a fresh record high, introducing the chipmaker into the $1 trillion market cap club. AMD recently announced a 10% price increase for AI accelerators, consumer GPUs, and motherboard chipsets in Q4, further showcasing resilient demand in the sector. Arm Holdings (ARM), Intel (INTC) and Qualcomm (QCOM) also outperformed, rising 21%, 14% and 12% respectively since the last weekly close. The strength in chip stocks was enough to push the Nasdaq Composite to back-to-back record highs, finally breaking the prior all-time high established back in early June. Presidents Trump and Xi are scheduled to meet later today for a series of talks, one of which will focus on artificial intelligence. In particular, the two leaders are considering launching a formal notification system that would warn one another about safety incidents that could potentially threaten national security. Trade will also feature heavily on the agenda, as the current truce on tariffs is set to expire on the 10th of November. Iran will undoubtedly come up in conversation, as the conflict prepares to enter its eighth month. Speaking of which, it now appears as though some tangible progress is being made, as Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi met with US Special Envoy Steve Witkoff for a face-to-face meeting at the UN General Assembly in New York. An initial framework to reopen the Strait of Hormuz emerged as a result of the private talks, while the Iranian delegation confirmed having ‘full authority’ to revive diplomacy. On the other hand, Trump threatened to ‘annihilate’ Iran if it refused to strike a deal, leaving spectators as befuddled as ever. Crude oil prices have fallen modestly since this time last week, from $108 per barrel last Tuesday to $98 late last night. West Texas Intermediate meanwhile broke below $90 per barrel yesterday – the large spread between the two benchmarks reflecting the risk and transport premia affecting seaborne contracts. #BTC #CRYPTO #META About the Author Lawrence J. came from a strong technical and engineering background before pivoting into a more financial role later on in his career. Always interested in international finance, Lawrence is experienced in both traditional markets as well as the emerging crypto markets. He now serves as the financial writer for RADEX MARKETS. 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.
Orders of Very Large Crude Carriers (VLCCs) have surged to a 25-year high in 2026, as global ship owners rush to commission new supertankers. With three months to go before the end of the year, 217 VLCCs have already been ordered so far, which is more than double the 93 total orders in 2025. With price tags for new vessels running at around $130 million apiece, the total order volume is rapidly approaching $30 billion, demonstrating how desperate shipping companies are to secure more freight capacity. The backlog in shipping yards around the world has now reached over 250 ships – the largest number since before the 2008 financial crisis. The spike in demand for oil tankers may seem counterintuitive given the unwillingness of vessels to go anywhere near the Strait of Hormuz, but the ongoing conflict in the Middle East is in fact the major catalyst behind the recent surge in VLCC orders. With Gulf deliveries proving to be unreliable, buyers in Europe and Asia have been forced seek out alternative sources of crude oil and substitute shipping routes via which to secure them. The Atlantic Basin has stepped up to the task. Shipments from the US Gulf Coast to Asia have seen massive increases in volume over the last few months, with US exports hitting consecutive monthly records throughout the second quarter of this year. Brazil, Guyana, Venezuela and parts of West Africa have likewise seen a huge surge in demand for their precious resources. The obvious problem is that for buyers in Asia in particular, these Atlantic oil fields are much further away, adding thousands of kilometres to the normal shipping routes. A typical journey from the southern loading terminals in Iraq, through the Persian Gulf, across the Indian Ocean, through the Malacca Strait and up to Japan is around 6,600 nautical miles. A typical VLCC maxes out at around 15 knots on a good day, meaning a one-way trip on such a route would take about 20 days, including loading, customs and everything else. In contrast, a tanker setting out from the US Gulf Coast would have to cover 15,000 nautical miles to reach the same destination, which could take well over 45 days. Sticking with Japan as an example, the island nation consumes about 3 million barrels of oil per day. Modern supertankers carry up to 2 million barrels, meaning a full shipment is only enough to provide 16 hours of fuel. Japan therefore needs a constant stream of tankers arriving at its shores every single day in order to maintain a steady supply of energy and petroleum products. This is where adding additional distance to the supply chain creates problems. Most nations around the world require a never-ending chain of supertankers in order to function, but the longer the chain becomes, the more ships are required to complete it. The inescapable mathematical problem is that doubling the distance doubles the necessary number of ships. This is why orders have skyrocketed. Shipping routes are now thousands of nautical miles longer than they used to be, and shipping companies do not have large enough fleets to fill the gap. The lack of available ships has sent the cost of chartering a VLCC through the roof – more than tripling according to some reports – awarding ship owners the massive amounts of cash necessary to expand their fleets. The sudden windfall is also allowing shipping conglomerates to prematurely retire some of their older tankers in favour of more modern, fuel-efficient ships that comply with stricter environmental regulations. The crucial aspect of all of this is that Very Large Crude Carriers take several years to build and are designed to operate for 20-25 years. This means that the people commissioning these vessels are expecting them to still be active in the 2050s. These companies do not spend billions of dollars on a whim. If the conflict surrounding Iran is destined to be short-lived, then why the colossal investment in new ships? The decision makers at the top seem to be anticipating a permanent change in the way the global oil trade functions. The major oil producers of the past may not be those of the future. The landscape has already changed significantly due to the fracking boom in the Permian Basin, turning the United States into a net exporter of crude oil almost overnight. As a result of the recent change of leadership in Caracas, countless billions of dollars are now waiting to be deployed on new developments in the largely untapped oil fields of Venezuela. Brazil now produces 4.5 million barrels per day, rivalling Iraqi output even before recent hostilities curbed production. Guyana is another miraculous story, going from precisely zero barrels in 2019 to almost 1 million BPD in 2026. From small island nations in the Caribbean to huge territories on the west coast of Africa, the region is buzzing with activity. Over the next two decades, virtually all global crude extraction growth is expected to occur in the Atlantic Basin. Shipping companies are positioning themselves accordingly. About the Author Lawrence J. came from a strong technical and engineering background before pivoting into a more financial role later on in his career. Always interested in international finance, Lawrence is experienced in both traditional markets as well as the emerging crypto markets. He now serves as the financial writer for RADEX MARKETS. 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.
There were no surprises in any of the central bank decisions last week, as the Federal Reserve, Bank of England and Bank of Japan all acted in line with expectations. Rates on the US dollar and the yen are now 25-bps higher than they were a week ago, while rates on the pound have remained steady. The major talking point that emerged from the trio of verdicts is just how hawkish the FOMC turned out to be, with all 12 members voting unanimously in favour of a hike. The collective reasoning behind the decision was equally unified; stubborn inflation, robust economic growth and geopolitical risk all played their part, leaving the committee with no other option than to bolster the interest rate on the greenback. Crucially, last Wednesday’s ‘dot plot’ revealed that the majority of Fed officials predict another rate hike before the end of the year, completely negating previous expectations. Foreign exchange markets were quick to adjust, immediately crushing the pound and the euro to multi-week lows against the dollar and sending the DXY north of 100 points. Two decisions to go in 2026, and interest rate traders are beginning to lean towards another 25-bps hike as early as October. The hawkishness of the Fed was matched by the dovishness of the Bank of Japan, whose decision was split 7-2, with two members urging patience and electing to keep rates fixed at 1%. Governor Ueda also refused to outline a specific timeline for future rate hikes, leaving markets with less confidence that such will be forthcoming. The yen fell hard after the decision, with USDJPY briefly spiking back up to 158 before retreating somewhat by the daily close. The difference in approach suggests that the interest rate gap between the two currencies is here to stay and will continue to put pressure on the yen throughout this year and into the next. The US Senate’s failure to move forward on the Clarity Act, coupled with the rate hike on the US dollar, turned into the perfect ‘sell the rumour, buy the news’ event for cryptocurrencies late last week. Bitcoin pumped straight back to $81,000 on Friday after strong institutional money flooded into ETFs during the lull in prices, squeezing short positions in the process. The bigger news is that the lack of progress in Congress has provoked the CFTC into advancing new rules of its own, in the form of two pre-rule packages entitled ‘Regulation Crypto Asset Transactions’ and ‘Regulation Crypto Asset Markets’. The two submissions are parallel to the SEC’s ‘Regulation Crypto Assets’ proposal, currently open to public comment. The sudden alignment between the two supposedly independent bodies is no coincidence. The synchronised nature of the actions undertaken by the SEC and CFTC suggests that there is some serious weight being thrown around behind the scenes. Influential forces clearly want something done, and they want it done fast. Very little on the economic calendar in terms of tangible data publications this coming week. The Swiss National Bank is scheduled to deliver its verdict on the Swiss Franc on Thursday, with no change expected, while durable goods orders in the US may raise an eyebrow or two the following day. The big event of the week is the Trump-Xi summit in Washington D.C., set to begin on Wednesday. The meeting between the two presidents will feature a consortium of notable CEOs from the tech sector, including Elon Muck, Tim Cook, Jeff Bezos, Jensen Huang, Sam Altman and Michael Dell. As made obvious by the guest list, artificial intelligence and chip manufacturing will form the central pillar of deliberations, although the unending quagmire in the Middle East will certainly be discussed, as will the ongoing trade dispute between the US and China. Worth noting that Japanese markets will remain closed until Thursday this week, while Chinese markets will close a day early on Friday in observance of Mid-Autumn Festival. #BITCOIN #TRUMP #XI
The lead trader’s profile page is glowing green, and the return curve looks almost too beautiful to question. Yet most stories you hear from actual copiers seem to involve disappointing returns or outright losses, making it difficult to know which side to believe. This article looks beyond the glossy statistics and uses real research data to examine how many copy traders make money, why a profitable leader can still leave followers losing, and which factors ultimately determine your returns. Along the way, we will separate realistic expectations from the sort of marketing promises that deserve a very wide berth. Copy trading can be profitable, but it is not guaranteed income, the outcome depends mainly on who you copy, how you control risk and what costs you pay. In one 90-day study of more than 100,000 copier outcomes, only 48.48% finished profitably, so copy trading should be treated as an investment requiring proper homework rather than a shortcut to effortless money. Ready to see real lead traders in action? Explore RM Social at Radex Markets today. Explore RM Social Copy trading can be profitable, but not everyone makes money and it is certainly not effortless income, the result depends on who you copy, how you control risk and the costs you pay. The system automates order placement, but it does not automate good judgement. Selecting a capable lead trader, choosing an appropriate copy ratio and deciding when the risk has become unacceptable remain your responsibility. So, how many people actually profit from copy trading, and how much can they realistically make? The data provides a revealing answer. This section answers the two questions that matter most: how many copiers make money, and what can profitable copiers reasonably expect to earn? We will start with the available data before looking at realistic return expectations. Copy trading success rates are best examined with data, not flattering adjectives or a carefully chosen screenshot. These figures come from different samples and should not be blended into a single universal success rate. The 90-day copy-trading results relate to more than 100,000 outcomes observed across crypto exchanges, while the AMF, FCA and ESMA figures cover losses among retail forex and CFD clients more generally. Even so, they point in broadly the same direction: retail trading losses are common, while the observed copy-trading outcomes were divided roughly half and half. Perhaps the most revealing finding is that 97% of lead traders were green, yet only 43.61% produced positive returns for their followers. For this reason, the useful question is not simply “Can copy trading be profitable?” but “Under what conditions does copy trading become profitable for the person actually doing the copying?” There is no fixed amount you can realistically make from copy trading because returns depend heavily on the lead trader’s strategy and the amount of risk taken to produce them. A steep return curve may look impressive, but it often conceals equally steep drawdowns, aggressive leverage or concentrated positions. The sensible approach is to treat copy trading as a volatile investment rather than a dependable monthly salary. Any copy-trading signal that promises a fixed monthly return is a definite red flag. Consider a copier who starts with £10,000: The lead trader generates a 10% gross return:£10,000 × 10% = £1,000 gross profit The platform or lead trader charges a 20% profit share:£1,000 × 20% = £200 Spreads accumulated across the copied trades cost £150:£1,000 − £200 − £150 = £650 net profit The copier’s actual net return is therefore:£650 ÷ £10,000 × 100 = 6.5% In this example, the lead trader’s headline return is 10%, but the copier keeps only 6.5% after profit sharing and spread costs. That 3.5-percentage-point difference is easy to overlook when the glossy profile page is doing most of the talking. The right expectation does not come from the attractive slope of a lead trader’s return curve. It comes from calculating the strategy’s expectancy yourself, which turns the rather vague idea of “realistic returns” into a usable number. Expectancy = (Win rate × Average win) − (Loss rate × Average loss) − Costs per trade Suppose a lead trader’s profile shows the following results: First, calculate the expectancy before costs: (55% × £60) − (45% × £40) = £33 − £18 = £15 gross expectancy per trade Next, estimate the profit-share deduction: £15 × 20% = £3 per trade Now add the average spread cost: £3 + £2.50 = £5.50 total estimated costs per trade Deduct those costs from the gross expectancy: £15 − £5.50 = £9.50 net expectancy per trade Finally, multiply the result by the trader’s average monthly activity: £9.50 × 18 trades = £171 expected net profit per month On a £10,000 account, that equals an estimated monthly return of 1.71%. This is a statistical expectation across a sufficiently large number of trades, not a promise that every month will produce £171, markets have never been particularly interested in keeping our spreadsheets tidy. Only follow a trader when the calculated expectancy is positive and comfortably clears the costs. If the result is negative, do not follow them, no matter how impressive the return curve looks. The most striking gap in the earlier data is that 97% of lead traders were profitable themselves, yet fewer than half delivered positive returns to their copiers. Before deciding whether copy trading is profitable, it helps to understand what actually moves the money in your account. The lead trader’s strategy directly determines the general shape of your returns and drawdowns. A disciplined trader using controlled position sizes will produce a very different risk profile from someone using extreme leverage to chase short-term gains. Pick the wrong person, and very little else you do will rescue the result. Read more：Trading Styles: Which One Suits UK Traders? Your copied order is always one step behind the lead trader’s original execution. In a fast-moving market, your entry may be several points worse, even if the delay lasts only a fraction of a second. Each difference looks minor in isolation, but repeated slippage can gradually grind away a strategy’s thinner profits. Read more：What is slippage and how to avoid it in trading A lead trader with a large account may have enough free margin to absorb a deep drawdown without abandoning the strategy. If you replicate the same position sizes with considerably less capital, that routine drawdown for them could become a margin-call or wipeout-level event for you. Copying the trades without matching the risk proportionally is where many followers come unstuck. Copy-trading costs can include ordinary spreads, spread mark-ups, commissions, overnight financing and a share of any profit produced. These deductions create a gap between the return displayed by the leader and the amount that eventually reaches your account. By the time the gross profit becomes your net result, a marginally profitable strategy may already be sitting on the edge of a loss. Read more：What are swap fees and how are they calculated in forex trading? Copiers frequently join after an exceptional winning run and leave during the lowest point of the next drawdown. In other words, they buy the performance peak and sell the emotional bottom, a remarkably reliable way to damage an otherwise profitable strategy. What affects the final result is often not the lead trader’s hand, but your own. The same lead trader can perform very differently as market conditions change. A trend-following strategy may thrive when prices move decisively but struggle through a slow, range-bound period, while a mean-reversion strategy can experience the opposite result. Past conditions are not guaranteed to continue, so past performance cannot tell you exactly what comes next. Read more：FOREX NEWS Every one of these six factors has a practical countermeasure, and those countermeasures form the basis of the next section. Every factor discussed above has a practical countermeasure. Two people can copy the same lead trader and finish with completely different results; the difference often lies in the habits below. Read more：RM Social Choosing the right lead trader matters more than any setting you adjust afterwards. Look for a trading history that covers at least one full cycle of favourable and difficult market conditions, a maximum drawdown you could genuinely tolerate, and clear information about the strategy, instruments and leverage used. Returns matter, of course, but they should never be viewed without the risk taken to produce them. Warning signs include: A flawless-looking profile may simply mean that the risk has not revealed itself yet. Do not place all your copy-trading capital behind one person. Consider spreading it across two or three lead traders whose strategies are genuinely different, for example, a longer-term trend trader and a shorter-term range trader operating in separate markets. This reduces the chance that one failing strategy will drag down the entire account. Following three traders who all make similar EUR/USD trades is duplication, not diversification. A stop-copy limit is the maximum amount you will allow one lead trader to lose before your account stops replicating their positions. Set this limit before copying begins, when you are thinking clearly, rather than halfway through a drawdown when optimism and panic are taking turns at the controls. For example, you might stop copying after that allocation falls by 8%, provided this sits within your overall risk plan. The purpose is to turn the worst-case outcome into a bearable number instead of allowing losses to bleed indefinitely. Read more：10 Forex risk management tips every trader should know Calculate the spread mark-ups, profit-share percentage, commissions and overnight financing charges before assessing a trader’s performance. Apply those costs to the historical results or expectancy calculation to estimate what might actually reach your account. Costs are certain; returns are not. If you cannot understand how a copy-trading product charges you, do not use it until you can. Adjust the copy ratio so the leader’s risk is reproduced proportionally rather than copied blindly. If a leader risks £500 from a £50,000 account, that is 1%; a copier with £5,000 would need to risk around £50 to maintain the same percentage exposure. Copying the full £500 position would place 10% of the smaller account at risk on the same trade. For this reason, check both the monetary position size and its percentage impact on your own capital. Judge a copy-trading strategy over quarters rather than reacting to every profitable or losing day. Review it once a week at a fixed time, checking drawdown, exposure, costs and whether the trader is still following the strategy you originally selected. Outside that review, allow the strategy to operate unless it reaches your predetermined loss limit or shows clear style drift. Repeatedly leaving during drawdowns and returning after winning runs recreates one of the main reasons copiers underperform. Read more：10 Signs of Overtrading and How to Avoid It Even when you choose carefully, size positions sensibly and control your losses, copy trading still has structural limitations. Knowing those limits keeps expectations honest, so there is little value in dressing them up. These limits are not reasons to avoid copy trading; they are why the earlier profit factors and success-rate practices matter, treat copy trading as an investment you manage, not an account you simply hand over. The final practical checks begin after you press the copy button. These operational details can appear minor at first, but they have a habit of becoming expensive when ignored. Build these five checks into your routine, and the data, profitability factors and practical safeguards covered above have a much better chance of working in your favour. Yes, you can make money through copy trading, but profits are never guaranteed. When the copied trades win, you win; when they lose, the losses also reach your account. Your final result depends on who you choose, how you control risk and how much you pay in costs. There is no guaranteed amount, although successful strategies are sometimes quoted as producing annual returns of 10% to 30%. Return curves substantially above this range usually involve greater leverage, volatility or drawdown risk. Copy trading is as risky as the strategy you choose, the lead trader’s drawdown becomes your drawdown, while unsuitable position sizing and fees can make it worse. Setting a loss limit and spreading capital across genuinely different strategies are the main ways to cap the potential damage. No trading style is inherently the most profitable because results depend on skill, risk management and positive mathematical expectancy. Copy trading is no different: calculate the net expectancy before discussing potential profit. When the lead trader loses, you lose in proportion to your copy ratio, and that loss appears in your own account. This is precisely why stop-copy limits and spreading capital across more than one suitable strategy are important. Copy trading itself is a legitimate and widely used service, and regulators including ESMA publish specific supervisory guidance for firms providing it. Scams are more likely to appear through unregulated platforms and personal signal groups promising fixed or guaranteed returns, so check the provider’s regulatory status and treat “guaranteed profit” language as a warning. Copy trading can be a useful entry-level observation tool because it allows beginners to watch real strategies operate in live markets. However, choosing traders purely by returns and failing to set a loss limit are two common mistakes, so learn the risk-management basics before committing capital. The available data does not support the idea that copy trading is an easy route to dependable income. Wider retail forex and CFD studies show that most accounts lose money, while the copy-trading sample examined here divided copier outcomes roughly half and half. Six major factors, from lead trader quality and slippage to costs and changing market conditions, move the result, while the risk-management practices you apply can help decide which half you end up in. The main rule is simple: whether copy trading pays does not sit in the leader’s return curve. It sits in your three jobs, choosing the right person, controlling your own risk and understanding every cost before committing capital. After 15 years around the markets, I would put it this way: treat copy trading as an investment you actively manage, not a bet you hand over to somebody else and hope for the best. Lee W. is a seasoned professional trader with over 10 years of experience. Passionate about sharing valuable expertise and unique market insights, Lee W. now serves as an external and independent market analyst for RADEX MARKETS. 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.
European natural gas soared past €80 per megawatt-hour this week, matching prices last seen following the outbreak of the Russia-Ukraine conflict back in 2022. Front month Dutch Title Transfer Facility (TTF) futures rose as high as €83 on Wednesday morning before pulling back to the high €70 range. To put the figure into perspective, natural gas started the year at €28 per MWh, meaning prices have almost tripled over the last nine months. The staggering rise in gas costs serves as a reminder that petroleum is not the only vital resource being throttled as a result of the conflict surrounding Iran; crude oil prices are ‘only’ up 70% in comparison. To make matters worse, Europe is heading into winter with some of the lowest reserves of natural gas observed in many years. Storage facilities are currently less than 70% full, compared to an average of 85% over the last five years. The paradoxical aspect of the rise in natural gas prices is that Europe buys very little from the Middle East. In fact, as of 2026, over a quarter of all gas imports arrive from the United States. In the United States, natural gas trades at around $2.90 per million British thermal units (MMBtu), which equates to roughly $9.50 per MWh, or €8.20 in the common currency. This means that Europeans are paying ten times as much for natural gas than consumers in the US. Europe used to rely on cheap Russian gas, transported via pipeline, which accounted for 40% of the continent’s needs. This figure has since dropped to around 10% following the war in Ukraine. Domestically, Norway still produces a sizeable chunk of the required input, supplying around a third of Europe’s natural gas, via thousands of kilometres of underwater pipelines. The problem lies with the rest of the required deliveries. To make up for the shortfall, Europe has resorted to importing Liquified Natural Gas (LNG) from various parts of the world, but mostly from the US. As the name implies, LNG is simply natural gas that has been liquified by supercooling the product to -162 °C. This makes LNG far more difficult from a logistical point of view. Rather than sending gas through a pipeline, LNG is transported on extremely specialised vessels that maintain ultra-low temperatures, to facilities that then vaporise the liquid back into gaseous form when needed. Liquifying natural gas reduces the volume by a factor of 600, which is the only reason transporting it by ship is economically viable to begin with. Such delivery mechanisms are expensive, but the bigger issue is that LNG is a global market, and one of the major producers happens to be locked behind the Strait of Hormuz. Qatar, as tiny a country as it is, typically accounted for 20% of the world’s LNG exports. As of today, those exports have all but vanished. Customers in Asia used to account for around 90% of all of Qatar’s exports, but with those now unreachable, the East has turned to the US and other parts of the world. The additional competition between buyers is pushing prices higher, and Europe is being hit the hardest of all. The rise in international gas prices is having a disproportionate impact on Europe because the continent is vulnerable to global spot markets. Far Eastern nations secure most of their gas deliveries by way of fixed, long-term contracts, isolating them from day-to-day fluctuations. Europe does not have this luxury and is essentially in a bidding war for every remaining LNG tanker out there. The likes of Japan and South Korea also have alternative options, such as coal-fired power plants, which are largely non-existent in Europe today. Many European buyers assumed the Iran conflict would be over by now, but the cold winter months are fast approaching and reserves are low. The situation is causing some degree of panic-buying on the European continent, hence the surge in Dutch TTF futures in recent weeks. #GAS #Europe #LNG #Iran
A rectangle pattern is a consolidation in which price is held between two horizontal lines, support underneath and resistance above. You have almost certainly traded through one without naming it. The market stops trending, starts drifting sideways, and the same two levels keep rejecting price for weeks. That is where the trouble starts. The chart looks flat, but you cannot tell whether it qualifies as a rectangle or is simply noise. When the break finally comes you hesitate, and on the occasions you do take it, price snaps straight back into the range and stops you out. Most educational pages stop at the definition and leave you there. This article goes further in four directions: a checklist you can tick off to confirm the pattern, three ways to trade it with the entry rule written down to the candle, the target calculation carried all the way through with real numbers, and the published hit rates so you know what the pattern is actually worth. A rectangle pattern is a consolidation range in which price has touched horizontal support and resistance at least twice on each side, and it normally acts as a trend continuation pattern. The mainstream approach is to enter in the direction of the break once a candle has closed beyond the boundary, with the target projected from the height of the range. False breakouts are the main risk, which is why closing prices and volume are used to filter them. Open your trading account today with Radex Markets. A rectangle pattern is a period of sideways movement in which price is contained between two horizontal, parallel boundaries, with buyers and sellers briefly in balance and neither able to force a direction. It almost always appears after a directional move, which is why it is classed as a continuation pattern, although a break against the prior trend turns the same shape into a reversal. The mechanism is simpler than the name suggests. A trend runs, participants who are already positioned start taking profit, new participants step in against them, and for a while the two flows cancel out. The market is digesting the move it has just made and waiting to choose its next direction. For this reason a rectangle is better read as a pause with a decision at the end of it than as a signal in its own right. Read more：Forex Technical Analysis: A Step-by-Step Beginner's Guide There are only two readings of a rectangle, and which one applies depends entirely on the trend that walked into it. The table below sets the two side by side. Here is what the bearish version looks like without a chart in front of you. Sterling had been falling for six weeks, then settled into a band between 1.2418 and 1.2562 on the daily. Support was tested three times, resistance twice, and each rejection left an upper wick rather than a close beyond the line. On the ninth week a daily candle closed at 1.2394, below the floor of the range, and the decline resumed from there. A bullish rectangle is a pause inside an uptrend. Price stalls, moves sideways between the two levels, and the advance resumes once a candle closes above the upper boundary. The prior trend has to exist before the label applies, and that is the part most traders skip. A range that appears out of a directionless market is a range, not a bullish rectangle. A bearish rectangle is the same structure inside a downtrend, with the decline resuming once price closes below the lower boundary. The reading rules mirror the bullish case exactly, direction reversed. In practice the bearish version tends to resolve faster, because falling markets are usually the more impatient of the two. The two boundaries are not lines you draw by eye and hope for. The lower one is a demand area where buyers keep stepping in, the upper one is a supply area where sellers keep offering, and price travelling between them is supply and demand temporarily in balance. That explains why the same level gets tested again and again. Orders accumulate there. Traders who missed the first bounce leave resting bids at the same price, and traders who were caught long near the ceiling leave orders to exit at the same price on the way back up. The level holds because people remember it. It also explains why a longer range often produces a more energetic break. The more weeks the boundary survives, the more orders pile up behind it, and the more stops sit just beyond it. When the level finally gives way, the move is fed by both the new positions and the old ones being closed. As a result, the same boundary frequently flips role afterwards, with broken resistance holding as support on the way back down. That flip is exactly what the retest entry below relies on. One warning that belongs here rather than later: some moves beyond a boundary exist specifically to trigger those resting stops before price returns inside the range. Read more：Breakout trading strategy in forex: how to trade successfully Get the label wrong and every number that follows is wrong with it. A rectangle is most often confused with flags, channels and triangles, and three axes separate them. Each confusion carries its own cost. Read a flag as a rectangle and you overstate the target, because a flag measures from the pole and not from the box. Read a channel as a rectangle and you draw horizontal lines across boundaries that are actually sloping, so your levels drift out of position as the week goes on. Read a converging triangle as a rectangle and you sit waiting for touches at equal width that are never going to arrive, because the range is narrowing by design. Strip the labels away and a rectangle is simply a box range. What distinguishes it is that the boundaries are horizontal and hold the same width from the first touch to the last. Read more：Bull flag pattern: A practical guide for forex traders Identification runs off a checklist you can tick, not off feel. Work down the six items below and the pattern either qualifies or it does not. Run the list against a real case. The euro fell from a July high of 1.1276 and then stopped, spending the next nine weeks between 1.0642 and 1.0818 on the daily chart. Support took three separate tests, resistance four, and on each of those seven occasions price reversed within the band rather than closing outside it. The boundaries were drawn across the closing prices at the extremes, not the wicks, which is why they sat flat rather than fanning outwards. Two edge cases decide the marginal calls. Consolidation that lasts less than three weeks belongs to the flag family, while the rectangles worth trading tend to develop over months. And a level touched only once is not a boundary, it is a single reaction; without the second touch there is nothing to say the level means anything to anyone else. Read more：How to Read Forex Charts for Traders Three approaches share the same pattern and divide the work between them. The mainstream one enters in the direction of the break, the conservative one waits for the break and then a retest of the boundary, and trading inside the box is only worth considering when the range is wide enough to pay for itself. Each is set out below against the same three items, so you can read across and pick the one that matches how you actually trade. Entry condition: a closing price beyond the boundary. A wick that pokes through and pulls back is not a break, and treating it as one is the single most common way traders lose money on this pattern. Stop: on the far side of the boundary, or just inside the line, with a volatility buffer added so that ordinary noise cannot reach it. Suits: breaks that run in the same direction as the trend that walked into the range, read on the daily chart first. Entry condition: wait for the confirmed break, then for price to return to the old boundary and hold it. This is the supply-and-demand flip described above, with broken resistance acting as support. Stop: below the low of the retest. Suits: traders who would rather not chase and will take a tighter stop in exchange for a worse fill. The cost is real and worth stating plainly, because strong breaks frequently never retest at all, and this approach will sit out a share of the moves it correctly identified. Entry condition: sell near the ceiling, buy near the floor, and take the swing back across the box. Three preconditions are non-negotiable. The range has to be tall enough that the distance to the opposite boundary comfortably covers the spread and the stop. Both boundaries must already have been touched at least twice, so you are trading a level rather than a guess. And no major data release should be due inside your holding period. This is at its most dangerous late in the life of a rectangle, when the break can arrive on any candle, so the false-breakout rules below apply here even more than they do to the other two approaches. One case, carried from the first touch to the closed trade. The euro range described in the identification section is the one used throughout, so the numbers below follow on from it rather than starting again. Before the example, one adjustment. The volume expansion that stock-market teaching leans on does not exist in spot forex, because there is no central exchange totalling the shares traded. What the platform shows you is tick volume, a count of price changes rather than of contracts. It is useful for comparing activity on one candle against another on the same chart, and useless for comparing magnitude with anything else. Tick volume is the number of price updates recorded in a given period, used in spot forex as a proxy for activity because no centralised trade volume exists. It shows relative participation on the same chart, not the number of units traded. Take the euro range described earlier. Through the nine weeks inside the box, daily tick volume averaged around 11,400 ticks per session, drifting lower as the range matured. The candle that closed above 1.0818 printed 27,600 ticks, roughly 2.4 times the range average, and it had the body to match: a 96-pip daily range with a 78-pip body, closing in the top fifth of its own range. Activity, direction and close all agreed. Compare that with the attempt three weeks earlier. Price closed a few points above the same boundary on tick volume of 12,100, barely 1.06 times the average, with a 24-pip body and a long upper wick. Within three sessions it was back inside the range. Nothing about the price action said fail; the participation did. For this reason, treat volume as a confirmation rather than a requirement. The close beyond the boundary still ranks first, and a break on unremarkable volume is still a break. Volume simply changes how much room you give it. Every page on this subject gives you the formula. Very few carry it through to a number you could actually place an order on, so here is the same trade taken to its arithmetic. Height = 1.0818 − 1.0642 = 0.0176, or 176 pips Target = breakout close 1.0836 + 0.0176 = 1.1012 Stop = 1.0782, placed 36 pips below the old resistance at 1.0818 Risk = 1.0836 − 1.0782 = 54 pips Reward = 1.1012 − 1.0836 = 176 pips Risk to reward = 176 ÷ 54 = 3.3 to 1 Two refinements matter more than the arithmetic. The first is partial exits: taking part of the position off around the halfway mark, near 1.0924 in this case, converts an open trade into a realised gain and a free option on the rest. The second is invalidation. The moment price closes back inside the rectangle, the measured move is void; the structure that justified the target no longer exists, and holding for it is hope rather than analysis. One framing correction to finish. The projected height is a minimum objective, not a forecast. Published testing on rectangle bottoms found an average gain far larger than the measured move itself, which tells you the projection is where the pattern stops making promises, not where the move stops. Honestly: the rectangle is one of the better-performing continuation patterns in published testing, but the hit rate varies by direction and by conditions, and the single high win rate quoted around the web does not exist. The figures below come from Thomas Bulkowski's large-sample work on chart patterns. Read those numbers with the sample in mind. They were measured on equities, not currencies, so treat them as directional guidance for forex rather than transferable percentages. Two findings do carry across in principle: breaks that run with the prior trend are markedly more reliable than breaks against it, and daily-chart patterns hold up better than the same shape on a five-minute chart, where a single institutional order can manufacture the break. What separates these figures from the high win rates circulating online is that they have a sample size and a date attached. Which leaves the trades that miss. Most of them are false breakouts, and they are handled by rules written in advance rather than by judgement in the moment. Timing matters as much as the rules. Thin sessions and the hour either side of a major data release produce the highest share of false breaks, which is the practical reason the volume row sits on the identification checklist at all. It can be either. A bullish rectangle forms when price consolidates during an uptrend and a bearish rectangle forms in a downtrend, and the direction of the break confirms which one you were looking at. The two variants are set out side by side above. It is primarily a trend continuation pattern, formed after an impulsive move while the market digests it. It acts as a reversal in the cases where price breaks against the prior trend rather than with it. Use the measured move: the target is the breakout price plus the height of the rectangle for a bullish break, or minus that height for a bearish one. In the worked example above, a 176-pip box projected from a breakout at 1.0836 gives 1.1012. Treat it as a minimum objective rather than a forecast. For a bullish breakout, place the stop slightly below the support level or just inside the broken resistance; for a bearish breakout, slightly above resistance. Add a volatility buffer in both cases rather than resting the stop exactly on the line. A confirmed break usually resumes the prior trend and runs towards the measured target, sometimes after a retest of the boundary it just cleared. A false break snaps back into the range instead, which is the signal to exit rather than to wait. A rectangle's support and resistance are horizontal, so the range keeps the same width throughout. A channel's boundaries are parallel but sloping, running with the trend rather than flat against it. The order of work does not change. Identify the pattern against the checklist, wait for a break confirmed on the close, project the target from the height of the box, and hold the false-breakout rules you decided on before the candle printed. The published numbers favour the trader who waits for confirmation, not the one who anticipates it. That is the whole edge in this pattern. A useful next step: open your own charts, find three historical rectangles, and tick each one off against the six checkpoints. The ones that fail the list are usually the ones that would have cost you money. 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:
