#best stocks for options trading 2021

[nicklloydnow]

“Last June, the Navy divers, operating under the cover of a widely publicized mid-summer NATO exercise known as BALTOPS 22, planted the remotely triggered explosives that, three months later, destroyed three of the four Nord Stream pipelines, according to a source with direct knowledge of the operational planning.

Two of the pipelines, which were known collectively as Nord Stream 1, had been providing Germany and much of Western Europe with cheap Russian natural gas for more than a decade. A second pair of pipelines, called Nord Stream 2, had been built but were not yet operational. Now, with Russian troops massing on the Ukrainian border and the bloodiest war in Europe since 1945 looming, President Joseph Biden saw the pipelines as a vehicle for Vladimir Putin to weaponize natural gas for his political and territorial ambitions.

(…)

Biden’s decision to sabotage the pipelines came after more than nine months of highly secret back and forth debate inside Washington’s national security community about how to best achieve that goal. For much of that time, the issue was not whether to do the mission, but how to get it done with no overt clue as to who was responsible.

There was a vital bureaucratic reason for relying on the graduates of the center’s hardcore diving school in Panama City. The divers were Navy only, and not members of America’s Special Operations Command, whose covert operations must be reported to Congress and briefed in advance to the Senate and House leadership—the so-called Gang of Eight. The Biden Administration was doing everything possible to avoid leaks as the planning took place late in 2021 and into the first months of 2022.

(…)

From its earliest days, Nord Stream 1 was seen by Washington and its anti-Russian NATO partners as a threat to western dominance. The holding company behind it, Nord Stream AG, was incorporated in Switzerland in 2005 in partnership with Gazprom, a publicly traded Russian company producing enormous profits for shareholders which is dominated by oligarchs known to be in the thrall of Putin. Gazprom controlled 51 percent of the company, with four European energy firms—one in France, one in the Netherlands and two in Germany—sharing the remaining 49 percent of stock, and having the right to control downstream sales of the inexpensive natural gas to local distributors in Germany and Western Europe. Gazprom’s profits were shared with the Russian government, and state gas and oil revenues were estimated in some years to amount to as much as 45 percent of Russia’s annual budget.

(…)

In December of 2021, two months before the first Russian tanks rolled into Ukraine, Jake Sullivan convened a meeting of a newly formed task force—men and women from the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the CIA, and the State and Treasury Departments—and asked for recommendations about how to respond to Putin’s impending invasion.

It would be the first of a series of top-secret meetings, in a secure room on a top floor of the Old Executive Office Building, adjacent to the White House, that was also the home of the President’s Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board (PFIAB). There was the usual back and forth chatter that eventually led to a crucial preliminary question: Would the recommendation forwarded by the group to the President be reversible—such as another layer of sanctions and currency restrictions—or irreversible—that is, kinetic actions, which could not be undone?

What became clear to participants, according to the source with direct knowledge of the process, is that Sullivan intended for the group to come up with a plan for the destruction of the two Nord Stream pipelines—and that he was delivering on the desires of the President.

Over the next several meetings, the participants debated options for an attack. The Navy proposed using a newly commissioned submarine to assault the pipeline directly. The Air Force discussed dropping bombs with delayed fuses that could be set off remotely. The CIA argued that whatever was done, it would have to be covert. Everyone involved understood the stakes. “This is not kiddie stuff,” the source said. If the attack were traceable to the United States, “It’s an act of war.”

(…)

What came next was stunning. On February 7, less than three weeks before the seemingly inevitable Russian invasion of Ukraine, Biden met in his White House office with German Chancellor Olaf Scholz, who, after some wobbling, was now firmly on the American team. At the press briefing that followed, Biden defiantly said, “If Russia invades . . . there will be no longer a Nord Stream 2. We will bring an end to it.”

Twenty days earlier, Undersecretary Nuland had delivered essentially the same message at a State Department briefing, with little press coverage. “I want to be very clear to you today,” she said in response to a question. “If Russia invades Ukraine, one way or another Nord Stream 2 will not move forward.”

Several of those involved in planning the pipeline mission were dismayed by what they viewed as indirect references to the attack.

“It was like putting an atomic bomb on the ground in Tokyo and telling the Japanese that we are going to detonate it,” the source said. “The plan was for the options to be executed post invasion and not advertised publicly. Biden simply didn’t get it or ignored it.”

Biden’s and Nuland’s indiscretion, if that is what it was, might have frustrated some of the planners. But it also created an opportunity. According to the source, some of the senior officials of the CIA determined that blowing up the pipeline “no longer could be considered a covert option because the President just announced that we knew how to do it.”

The plan to blow up Nord Stream 1 and 2 was suddenly downgraded from a covert operation requiring that Congress be informed to one that was deemed as a highly classified intelligence operation with U.S. military support. Under the law, the source explained, “There was no longer a legal requirement to report the operation to Congress. All they had to do now is just do it—but it still had to be secret. The Russians have superlative surveillance of the Baltic Sea.”

The Agency working group members had no direct contact with the White House, and were eager to find out if the President meant what he’d said—that is, if the mission was now a go. The source recalled, “Bill Burns comes back and says, ‘Do it.’”

(…)

In the past few years of East-West crisis, the U.S. military has vastly expanded its presence inside Norway, whose western border runs 1,400 miles along the north Atlantic Ocean and merges above the Arctic Circle with Russia. The Pentagon has created high paying jobs and contracts, amid some local controversy, by investing hundreds of millions of dollars to upgrade and expand American Navy and Air Force facilities in Norway. The new works included, most importantly, an advanced synthetic aperture radar far up north that was capable of penetrating deep into Russia and came online just as the American intelligence community lost access to a series of long-range listening sites inside China.

A newly refurbished American submarine base, which had been under construction for years, had become operational and more American submarines were now able to work closely with their Norwegian colleagues to monitor and spy on a major Russian nuclear redoubt 250 miles to the east, on the Kola Peninsula. America also has vastly expanded a Norwegian air base in the north and delivered to the Norwegian air force a fleet of Boeing-built P8 Poseidon patrol planes to bolster its long-range spying on all things Russia.

In return, the Norwegian government angered liberals and some moderates in its parliament last November by passing the Supplementary Defense Cooperation Agreement (SDCA). Under the new deal, the U.S. legal system would have jurisdiction in certain “agreed areas” in the North over American soldiers accused of crimes off base, as well as over those Norwegian citizens accused or suspected of interfering with the work at the base.

(…)

Back in Washington, planners knew they had to go to Norway. “They hated the Russians, and the Norwegian navy was full of superb sailors and divers who had generations of experience in highly profitable deep-sea oil and gas exploration,” the source said. They also could be trusted to keep the mission secret. (The Norwegians may have had other interests as well. The destruction of Nord Stream—if the Americans could pull it off—would allow Norway to sell vastly more of its own natural gas to Europe.)

(…)

The C4 attached to the pipelines would be triggered by a sonar buoy dropped by a plane on short notice, but the procedure involved the most advanced signal processing technology. Once in place, the delayed timing devices attached to any of the four pipelines could be accidentally triggered by the complex mix of ocean background noises throughout the heavily trafficked Baltic Sea—from near and distant ships, underwater drilling, seismic events, waves and even sea creatures. To avoid this, the sonar buoy, once in place, would emit a sequence of unique low frequency tonal sounds—much like those emitted by a flute or a piano—that would be recognized by the timing device and, after a pre-set hours of delay, trigger the explosives. (“You want a signal that is robust enough so that no other signal could accidentally send a pulse that detonated the explosives,” I was told by Dr. Theodore Postol, professor emeritus of science, technology and national security policy at MIT. Postol, who has served as the science adviser to the Pentagon’s Chief of Naval Operations, said the issue facing the group in Norway because of Biden’s delay was one of chance: “The longer the explosives are in the water the greater risk there would be of a random signal that would launch the bombs.”)

On September 26, 2022, a Norwegian Navy P8 surveillance plane made a seemingly routine flight and dropped a sonar buoy. The signal spread underwater, initially to Nord Stream 2 and then on to Nord Stream 1. A few hours later, the high-powered C4 explosives were triggered and three of the four pipelines were put out of commission. Within a few minutes, pools of methane gas that remained in the shuttered pipelines could be seen spreading on the water’s surface and the world learned that something irreversible had taken place.

FALLOUT

In the immediate aftermath of the pipeline bombing, the American media treated it like an unsolved mystery. Russia was repeatedly cited as a likely culprit, spurred on by calculated leaks from the White House—but without ever establishing a clear motive for such an act of self-sabotage, beyond simple retribution. A few months later, when it emerged that Russian authorities had been quietly getting estimates for the cost to repair the pipelines, the New York Times described the news as “complicating theories about who was behind” the attack. No major American newspaper dug into the earlier threats to the pipelines made by Biden and Undersecretary of State Nuland.

While it was never clear why Russia would seek to destroy its own lucrative pipeline, a more telling rationale for the President’s action came from Secretary of State Blinken.

Asked at a press conference last September about the consequences of the worsening energy crisis in Western Europe, Blinken described the moment as a potentially good one:

“It’s a tremendous opportunity to once and for all remove the dependence on Russian energy and thus to take away from Vladimir Putin the weaponization of energy as a means of advancing his imperial designs. That’s very significant and that offers tremendous strategic opportunity for the years to come, but meanwhile we’re determined to do everything we possibly can to make sure the consequences of all of this are not borne by citizens in our countries or, for that matter, around the world.”

(…)

The source had a much more streetwise view of Biden’s decision to sabotage more than 1500 miles of Gazprom pipeline as winter approached. “Well,” he said, speaking of the President, “I gotta admit the guy has a pair of balls. He said he was going to do it, and he did.”

Asked why he thought the Russians failed to respond, he said cynically, “Maybe they want the capability to do the same things the U.S. did.”

[tinygreys]

Fp markets

#Fp markets pro

#Fp markets plus

#Fp markets plus

It will be automatically deleted after 30 days of inactivityįor stockbroking accounts it gets a lot higher, minimum $1000, plus the IRESS monthly fee If you want to expand your research, and evaluate some options similar to this broker, you can consult the alternatives to FP Markets. The table below helps chart some of the main pros and cons in key broker areas. This starts at a low point of $1,000 up to $50,000 depending on your account type so may not be feasible for more casual traders. The minimum deposit on a stockbroking account here is also very high. That would certainly discourage less-experienced traders. The monthly fee you will encounter here is also high at $55 per month to use the IRESS/Viewpoint platform. Starting with downsides of the broker, if you are looking to use the IRESS platform you will find this is only available to Australian traders. Though it is costly to manage, the IRESS service also provides great depth for more experienced traders at FP Markets. This extensive selection is supported by a great low-fee environment that is ideal for the casual trader with no inactivity fee charged at all. Pros and Cons ProsĪt FP Markets, one of the major positives is the fact you will have a wealth of assets to choose from in trading. They are further secured by offering negative balance protection, segregated accounts, and ICF insurance coverage to EU traders. When it comes to physical presence, they do only have two offices internationally but continue to offer great service worldwide including in Australia where, as a high volume stock trader you can benefit from specific accounts and features for stockbroking. You will also find a wide variety of account types here to fit every need. To back up their trusted reputation the broker has won more than 30 awards over the years. With more than 10,000 assets and different execution methods available, FP Markets is perfect for a range of traders. ( 74-89% of retail CFD accounts lose money)įP Markets is both an ECN/STP and DMA broker with spreads from 0 pips, regulated by both CySEC, and ASIC and very well known for its IRESS stockbroking service (not available outside Australia) and its wide range of assets. This can help you see exactly what they have to offer. With that in mind, you can take advantage of an excellent demo account offered by FP Markets. There are many things to consider when starting out with a broker. Very well-regulated by CySEC, ASIC, and SVG.In this FP Markets review, the expert InvestinGoal team has taken a closer look at all the key features of the broker including trading platforms, costs, minimum deposits, and more. Among traders, FP Markets is renowned for the lightning-fast execution speeds they offer. Regulatory oversight comes from some of the most respected bodies in the industry with CySEC, ASIC, and SVG all available. Founded in 2005 the broker is also very well-regulated. The company's outstanding 24/7 multilingual service has been recognized by Investment Trends as home to some of the most content clients in the industry, having been awarded 'The Highest Overall Client Satisfaction Award,' five years running from Investment Trends.įP Markets has been awarded as the ' Global Forex Value Broker' in three consecutive years (2019, 2020, 2021) at the Global Forex Awards.įP Markets has been awarded the " Best Forex Trading Experience in the EU" at the Global Forex Awards 2021.FP Markets is an experienced Australian ECN broker.

#Fp markets pro

FP Markets is an Australian Regulated global Forex Broker with more than 17 years of industry experience.įP Markets offers highly competitive interbank Forex spreads available from 0.0 pips and leverage up to 500:1 on its pro account.ĭownload FP Markets' Mobile App and trade on the go across several powerful online platforms like MetaTrader4, MetaTrader5, WebTrader, and Iress.

[fxproptech]

Best Forex Prop Firms of 2024

Proprietary FX trading firms or Forex prop firms:-

Proprietary trading, or prop trading, is when financial firms or proprietary FX trading firms use their own money to trade currencies for profit. Often called Forex prop firms, these are firms that maintain a pool of professional traders who trade on behalf of the firm rather than with an individual’s own money.

This money, most of the time, comes as a profit-sharing scheme with the firm, according to an agreed Profit Sharing Scheme. Higher leverage is provided by the proprietary FX trading firms in comparison with retail trading accounts, what this actually does is that it allows traders to hold larger positions with less capital. Besides, it has strict risk management protocols that help ensure the conservation of the firm’s capital and minimize possible losses. The model hence allows firms to exploit the opportunities available in the market while incorporating the expertise from the professional traders.

Top forex prop firm

1) Topstep – A prop firm trading

Topstep, like many other prop trading firms, hires stocks, futures, and indices traders and provides capital, support, risk management strategies, and coaching to help them trade successfully. Traders are then rewarded using a robust profit split.

Profit split: 100% up to $5,000, then 80% afterwards.

Features:-

Free 14-days trial.

Group performance coaching sessions.

Private trading coach with professional coaches and AI coaching.

Keep the first $5,000 in profit and 80% afterward.

Support team.

Pay fees through PayPal, Mastercard, Visa, American Express, and Discover.

Pros:

According to the company’s website, it funded 8,389 accounts in 2021 for customers spread across 143 countries.

Leverage of up to 1:100.

Referral program.

Cons:

No bonuses from broker Equiti Capital.

The support service is just on weekends.

2) The 5%ers – A reliable prop firms

The 5ers is one of the oldest and most reliable prop firms in the industry.

The 5%ers let you trade forex, metals, and indices with a live account from day 1 without any need for trial accounts.

Features:

The fastest growth plan 

No time limit on trading

Traders use MetaTrader 5.

24/7 support

Bonuses

Pros:

Funding up to $4 million. Funding doubles after each milestone.

1:100 leverage on High stakes program

The first low-entry cost challenge when you pay upon success!

The fastest growth plan in the industry 

Compatible with all trading stylesGet account access within seconds

Profit split up to 100% plus bonuses and salary

MT5 platform available

They are traders themself, providing high-quality education

24/7 dedicated support

Cons:

Only 1:10 leverage on the Bootcamp program

3) The Trading Pit – Forex prop firm

The Trading Pit is a globally-recognized prop firm that follows a partnership model. After registering, you’ll need to complete a trading challenge presented by them. Depending on how well you do, you’ll be presented with numerous options.

Profit Split: Up to 80%

Features:

Fixed 10%

Simple and Fast Withdrawals

Multi-Lingual Support

Real-Time Statistics

A Wide range of payment options

Pros:

State-of-the-art trading systems

Free and paid educational tools available

High conversion rate

Dedicated Account Managers

Cons:

It’s a new firm with more than a year’s worth of experience.

4) Funded Trading Plus – Proprietary trading firm

Funded Trading Plus is a UK-based firm that provides an environment for its traders to partake in simulated trading, Similar to other prop-trading firms, you’ll need to pass an evaluation to become an FT+ Trader. The account sizes can range from $12,500 to $200,000. You can choose between the 1-phase evaluation and 2-phase evaluation process.

Profit Split: Up to 100%

Features:

Diverse Trading Options

Option to get instant funding

One-Phase and Two-Phase Evaluation type

Customizable trading programs

Pros:

Comprehensive Profit-split structure

Choose from a wide range of trading strategies

Excellent support, Most trusted in the industry

Double your account size after achieving 10% profit

Cons: 

Note: We allow overnight trading

No $5000 account

5) SurgeTrader – A standard prop trading firm

A standard prop trading account at SurgeTrader costs $25,000 for a profit split of 75:25, a profit target of 10%, daily loss of 4%, and a maximum trailing drawdown of 5%. This package costs $250.

Profit split: Up to 75%.

Features:

No monthly recurring fees.

There are no minimum trading days for account levels, ensuring you qualify for higher funding limits quickly.

Trade in any strategy that works for you.

Pros:

Up to 75% profit split.

Up to $1 million trading limit.

Non-recurring payments to qualify for a live-funded account.

1-step audition process.

10% profit targets without a period to achieve it.

Fast withdrawal processing.

Cons:

Short operating period for the company (started in 2021).

No positions are to be held during the weekend.

5% maximum drawdown, 1/10000 maximum open lots.

Low leverage – 10:1 forex, metals, indices, oil; 5:1 for stocks, and 2:1 for crypto.

6) Trade The Pool – Well known forex prop firm

It is powered by The5ers, a well-known and highly reputed online prop firm established in 2016. Trade The Pool lets traders like you use their strategies and experience to trade what you want!

Profit Split: Up to 80%

Features:

Free 14-day trial.

1 step programs  

Real-Time StatisticsTrade more than 12,000 Stocks & ETFs

Pros:

Excellent support, Most trusted in the industry

Free educational tools available

Referral program.

Simple and Fast Withdrawals

Cons:

Short operating period for the company (started in 2022).

7) FundedNext – A full-fledged proprietary fx trading platform

FundedNext happens to be a relatively new prop trading platform out there that caters to Forex traders across the globe. You are eligible for a 40% increase in your account balance every 4 months, provided you are consistent with your profitability.

Profit Split: Up To 90%

Profit split of 15% at the evaluation stage

Dedicated account manager assigned

Pros:

Compatible with all trading styles

Low commissions

Get account access within seconds

Trader-friendly leverage

Unlimited evaluation

Cons:

No weekend holding option for the Express model.

Fees: One-time fee starting at $99 for Evaluation model of funding and One-time fee starting at $119 for the Express model of funding.

8) FX2 Funding – A prop trading firm

FX2 Funding works in the same way most prop-trading firms do. FX2 also allows its traders to trade at their own pace.

Profit Split: 85%

Features:

Flexible account sizes

85% profit split

Flexible time frame

Pros:

High-profit split

Comprehensive guidelines on trading

Trade at your own pace

Trade using your preferred method

24/7 dedicated tech support

Cons:

FX2 Funding is new to the industry. It is hard to assess its reputation at such a nascent stage.

9) FTMO – A proprietary fx trading firm

FTMO lets people learn and discover their forex trading talents using the FTMO Challenge and Verification course,  As a trader, you get 90% of your profits earned from trading with the firm and its tools. Customers are also trained on how to manage trading risks.

Profit split: Up to 90%.

Features:

Maximum capital $400,000.

80:20 payout ratio. It adjusts to 90:10 when the FTMO account balance limit is increased.

Low spreads.

Pros:

Customers who include retail traders get access to MT4, MT5, and CTrader trading tools.

Customers are furnished with data coming from liquidity providers to simulate real market conditions for traders who aspire to make more money when trading.

The platform supports trading crypto as well as forex, indices, commodities, stocks, and bonds.

About seven payment methods are available, including bank transfer and Skill.

Cons:

Higher cost compared to other options.

You can’t hold trades over the market weekend close unless you use the swing trader challenge.

10) Lux Trading Firm – A funded trading

Lux Trading Firm hires career trading experts (forex, crypto, and other financial assets) and funds their accounts for up to $2.5 million. The highest stage 8 is for fund managers.

Profit split: Up to 65%.

Features:

Elite traders’club helps to boost one’s success rate.

Personal mentors and fees are advantageous for those who join the elite traders’ club.

Live trading rooms.

Pros:

Free trial.

High capital funding up to $2.5 million.

No time limit on targets.

Weekend holding allowed.

Evaluation is just one phase.

Cons:

Low leverage.

4% maximum relative drawdown and maximum loss limit.

11) Fidelcrest –  Proprietary trading entities

Fidelcrest prop trading firm finds, trains, and evaluates Forex, CFD, and other prop traders who can then earn profits and commissions by applying for the company’s capital. 

Profit split: Up to 90%.

Features:

Up to 90% profit split.

Can’t use robots.

Swing trading is accepted.

Pros:

The funding limit is $1 million.

High-profit split of up to 90%.

Get a bonus of up to 50% of profits earned in level 2 verification.

Other bonuses are available.

Trade multiple assets – CFDs, stocks, forex, and crypto. Withdraw via bank, PayPal, and other

Cons:

Step 2 is harder to overcome because the maximum loss is half that of step 1 yet the profit target is the same.

Evaluation is a two-phase and can take up to 90 days.

Long-term strategy trading is not favoured by the trading limit of 30 days.

Fewer education materials.

Conclusion

In general, a Forex prop firm is a company that evaluates a trader’s skills, usually via a trading challenge, and assigns its own trading capital for the trader to operate with. This approach represents an excellent way to start in Forex and financial trading for those who lack sufficient starting funds. Even for better-off traders, it remains a valuable path to improved risk management and self-control.

[forexreviewsbest]

TradeEU Global Trading Review: An Insider’s Perspective

Introduction

Since 2021, TradeEU Global has emerged as a leading CFD broker, gaining a strong reputation for its regulation by the Cyprus Securities and Exchange Commission. This regulatory oversight ensures a secure and transparent trading environment, bolstering trader confidence. TradeEU Global stands out with its user-friendly platform, competitive spreads, and a diverse range of financial instruments, catering to both novice and experienced traders. The broker also offers robust educational resources and customer support, further enhancing its appeal. These features collectively position TradeEU Global as a formidable player in the competitive CFD trading arena. In this review, we are going to explore the TradeEU Global review 2024.

Company Overview

TradeEU Global, operated by Titanedge Securities Ltd., offers clients an extensive trading spectrum with over 250 tradable assets across Forex, Indices, Metals, Stocks, and Cryptocurrencies. The platform's user-friendly interface and advanced trading tools available on the MT5 trading platform and a proprietary mobile app set it apart. These features cater to both novice and experienced traders, ensuring a seamless trading experience. TradeEU Global's commitment to providing a diverse range of assets and state-of-the-art tools underscores its position as a leading CFD broker in the industry​​.

Account Options

TradeEU Global offers three principal account types: Silver, Gold, and Platinum, each tailored to varying levels of trading expertise with distinct spreads and benefits. The Silver account features spreads starting at 2.5 pips, while the Platinum account offers spreads as low as 0.7 pips. All accounts provide 24/7 customer support, access to all trading platforms, and leverage of up to 1:30. Additionally, TradeEU Global offers a Demo Account, allowing users to practice trading in a risk-free environment. This diverse account offering ensures traders can choose an account that best suits their needs.

Trading Platforms

At the core of TradeEU Global's trading service is the MT5 platform, acknowledged for its powerful analytical tools and user-friendly nature.

Mobile Application

TradeEU Global's mobile application provides the ability to trade anywhere with a full trading experience, including market analysis tools, order execution, and account management.

Comprehensive Trading Experience

Both the MT5 platform and the mobile app ensure traders have access to advanced tools and features, making TradeEU Global a versatile and convenient choice for traders at all levels.

Fees, Spreads, and Commissions

TradeEU Global operates without charging commissions, generating revenue through competitive spreads on various instruments. The broker applies a unique inactivity fee and a one-time application fee of $50 for opening a new account. Deposits and withdrawals are free and straightforward, enhancing the overall trading experience. This fee structure is designed to provide transparency and simplicity while ensuring traders can efficiently manage their accounts without additional transaction costs.

Security and Regulation

In addition to being CySEC-regulated, TradeEU Global offers an exceptionally secure trading environment. The platform employs SSL encryption to safeguard data, maintains separate accounts for clients to protect their funds, and provides negative balance protection to prevent account deficits. These measures collectively ensure that clients' funds and personal information are well-protected against various risks. TradeEU Global's commitment to security reinforces its dedication to providing a trustworthy and reliable trading experience​​.

Educational and Support Resources

TradeEU Global provides a comprehensive range of educational materials to support new and amateur traders. These include a TradeEU Global Demo Account, allowing users to practice trading in a risk-free environment. Additionally, the platform offers economic calendars to track market events and a detailed glossary to help users understand and navigate the market effectively. These resources are designed to enhance trading skills and provide valuable insights, making it easier for traders to develop their strategies and make informed decisions.

Insider’s Verdict

From an insider's view, TradeEU Global appears to be a trustworthy platform, not only good for the rookie but also the professional traders. Among the strongest features of this broker are its regulatory framework, a wide variety of tradable assets, and advanced trading platforms. Adding more resources to the education sector and support for MT4 would increase its appeal to even more customers.

Therefore, TradeEU Global provides a solid trading experience with a robust regulatory backbone that makes it one of the viable choices for traders looking for secure and comprehensive trading conditions.

Conclusion

This  TradeEU Global Broker 2024 review revealed that TradeEU Global is one of the reliable and efficient trading platforms existing out there, offering a rich variety of assets with advanced trading tools. It suits both beginners and more advanced traders by providing strong security measures, very competitive spreads, and a user-friendly interface. Maybe it should provide some more educational resources. Nonetheless, with all the above-mentioned facts, TradeEU Global remains one of the finest CFD trading brands.

FAQs About TradeEU Global Broker

What account types does TradeEU Global offer?

TradeEU Global offers three types of accounts: Silver, Gold, and Platinum. These accounts provide a different trading experience and set of benefits.

Is TradeEU Global regulated? 

Yes, the activities of TradeEU Global are overseen by the Cyprus Securities and Exchange Commission, CySEC; hence, it assures a very protected and secure trading environment.

Which trading platforms does TradeEU Global offer? 

With TradeEU Global, the major platform in use is the sophisticated MetaTrader 5 (MT5) platform and a proprietary mobile app that can be used for trading all asset classes.

Can I trade in cryptocurrencies with TradeEU Global?

Yes, TradeEU Global enables trading in major cryptocurrencies such as Bitcoin, Ethereum, and Ripple.

What is the maximum leverage provided by TradeEU Global? 

TradeEU Global allows up to 1:30 leverage, precisely by the guidelines of regulatory bodies to balance opportunities with risk.

Does TradeEU Global offer a demo account? 

Yes, TradeEU Global does have a demo account with no time limit so that new traders can try out their strategies without any exposure to financial risk.

Does TradeEU Global charge any fees for depositing or withdrawing funds? 

No, there are no fees applicable either for deposits or withdrawals. Still, they charge an inactivity fee and a standard application fee.

What is the minimum spread that TradeEU Global has? 

The spreads are as low as 0.7 pips for Platinum account type accounts. Thus, making it quite competitive in its pricing for traders.

How to open an account with TradeEU Global? 

Opening an account with TradeEU Global involves visiting their website, filling in an online form, and sending all the necessary KYC documents for verification.

How does TradeEU Global ensure the safety of client funds? 

Security at TradeEU Global is administered in a number of ways: through SSL encryption, segregated accounts, and strict adherence to regulatory standards.

[christianlanden]

Bearbull Portfolio: A new buy just for the Isa window

Last week, this column played host to a duel between two investment heavyweights. In the red corner, Jeremy Grantham’s GMO, which in atypical fashion had just stated its “excitement” at the opportunity set across equities, especially in the boxes marked value, small-cap, and non-US. To the oft-bearish asset manager, today’s conditions present the “best relative asset allocation” options since the collapse of the Soviet Union. Fundamentals? Back with a bang.

In the blue shorts, we had Jonathan Ruffer, pondering the end of the equity era and a sustained period of painful de-leveraging, corporate fire-fighting and disenchanting returns ahead. Ruffer’s long-held investing maxim – to not lose money, rather than maximise returns – echoed loudly. Those fundamentals? A second-order priority to a deteriorating macroeconomic backdrop.

With 5 April and the window on my use-it-or-lose-it individual savings account (Isa) allowance fast approaching, I was suddenly foggy with indecision. The goal of the Bearbull Income Portfolio, as I recall, has always been to use equities to simultaneously grow capital and draw on (an ideally also growing) stream of dividends as a modest prop to day-to-day expenditures. On one reading, this might be a bona fide moment to double down. On another, is a much grander rethink due?

The portfolio’s recent run has been fair. In the past two-and-a-bit months, accumulated dividends and capital growth has pushed up its total value by a handy 3.5 per cent. A few one-time deadweights (GSK (GSK), Anglo American (AAL), Johnson Matthey (JMAT)) are looking sprightlier, while the funds-led engine I built at the end of 2023 has been doing the job set for it.

Then again, given the likelihood of a trundling performance from the UK economy, we might need to temper any GMO-inspired hopes for domestic equities. In truth, however, what keeps me up at night as much if not more than the portfolio’s holdings are the prospective returns on fixed income. My internal debate is less to do with the dominant stocks-versus-bond narrative about relative value – given that this usually compares a pricey US equity market and high-yielding Treasuries – but a more humdrum British fretting around the various opportunities in gilts.

It is the thought of that sweet spot of modest income and capital growth (not winning exactly, but decidedly not losing money) that is so hard to ignore. More power to Ruffer.

Especially tempting are those five-year gilt issues, sold when interest rates were improbably low in 2020 and 2021, and still trading at a discount to par. Though their coupons are slight, this merely creates a cash flow timing issue, which is manageable; hold to maturity, and the eventual climb to redemption prices should offer a real return almost free of risk and entirely free of capital gains tax. I could be done with Isa fretting, and company monitoring, all in one go.

If I’m honest, becoming an amateur bond watcher would probably be my preference to investing with Ruffer. That’s not because I think I’d do a better job (though their fees would give me a head start). Rather – judging both by his comments and the rather flat performance of the Ruffer Total Return fund since a new market paradigm started to emerge three years ago – it’s not wholly clear whether the end-of-the-equities-era thesis makes obvious winners out of other asset classes. If inflation proves sticky, those real gilt returns might prove rather unreal.

So, I’m going to leave Ruffer’s warning semi-unheeded. Or rather, I’m going to take the middle way between his sticky inflation call and GMO’s rosy base-case return to lower interest rates.

[lindaboggers]

Bearbull Portfolio: A new buy just for the Isa window

Last week, this column played host to a duel between two investment heavyweights. In the red corner, Jeremy Grantham’s GMO, which in atypical fashion had just stated its “excitement” at the opportunity set across equities, especially in the boxes marked value, small-cap, and non-US. To the oft-bearish asset manager, today’s conditions present the “best relative asset allocation” options since the collapse of the Soviet Union. Fundamentals? Back with a bang.

In the blue shorts, we had Jonathan Ruffer, pondering the end of the equity era and a sustained period of painful de-leveraging, corporate fire-fighting and disenchanting returns ahead. Ruffer’s long-held investing maxim – to not lose money, rather than maximise returns – echoed loudly. Those fundamentals? A second-order priority to a deteriorating macroeconomic backdrop.

With 5 April and the window on my use-it-or-lose-it individual savings account (Isa) allowance fast approaching, I was suddenly foggy with indecision. The goal of the Bearbull Income Portfolio, as I recall, has always been to use equities to simultaneously grow capital and draw on (an ideally also growing) stream of dividends as a modest prop to day-to-day expenditures. On one reading, this might be a bona fide moment to double down. On another, is a much grander rethink due?

The portfolio’s recent run has been fair. In the past two-and-a-bit months, accumulated dividends and capital growth has pushed up its total value by a handy 3.5 per cent. A few one-time deadweights (GSK (GSK), Anglo American (AAL), Johnson Matthey (JMAT)) are looking sprightlier, while the funds-led engine I built at the end of 2023 has been doing the job set for it.

Then again, given the likelihood of a trundling performance from the UK economy, we might need to temper any GMO-inspired hopes for domestic equities. In truth, however, what keeps me up at night as much if not more than the portfolio’s holdings are the prospective returns on fixed income. My internal debate is less to do with the dominant stocks-versus-bond narrative about relative value – given that this usually compares a pricey US equity market and high-yielding Treasuries – but a more humdrum British fretting around the various opportunities in gilts.

It is the thought of that sweet spot of modest income and capital growth (not winning exactly, but decidedly not losing money) that is so hard to ignore. More power to Ruffer.

Especially tempting are those five-year gilt issues, sold when interest rates were improbably low in 2020 and 2021, and still trading at a discount to par. Though their coupons are slight, this merely creates a cash flow timing issue, which is manageable; hold to maturity, and the eventual climb to redemption prices should offer a real return almost free of risk and entirely free of capital gains tax. I could be done with Isa fretting, and company monitoring, all in one go.

If I’m honest, becoming an amateur bond watcher would probably be my preference to investing with Ruffer. That’s not because I think I’d do a better job (though their fees would give me a head start). Rather – judging both by his comments and the rather flat performance of the Ruffer Total Return fund since a new market paradigm started to emerge three years ago – it’s not wholly clear whether the end-of-the-equities-era thesis makes obvious winners out of other asset classes. If inflation proves sticky, those real gilt returns might prove rather unreal.

So, I’m going to leave Ruffer’s warning semi-unheeded. Or rather, I’m going to take the middle way between his sticky inflation call and GMO’s rosy base-case return to lower interest rates.

[georgeschuylerfinance]

Bearbull Portfolio: A new buy just for the Isa window

Last week, this column played host to a duel between two investment heavyweights. In the red corner, Jeremy Grantham’s GMO, which in atypical fashion had just stated its “excitement” at the opportunity set across equities, especially in the boxes marked value, small-cap, and non-US. To the oft-bearish asset manager, today’s conditions present the “best relative asset allocation” options since the collapse of the Soviet Union. Fundamentals? Back with a bang.

In the blue shorts, we had Jonathan Ruffer, pondering the end of the equity era and a sustained period of painful de-leveraging, corporate fire-fighting and disenchanting returns ahead. Ruffer’s long-held investing maxim – to not lose money, rather than maximise returns – echoed loudly. Those fundamentals? A second-order priority to a deteriorating macroeconomic backdrop.

With 5 April and the window on my use-it-or-lose-it individual savings account (Isa) allowance fast approaching, I was suddenly foggy with indecision. The goal of the Bearbull Income Portfolio, as I recall, has always been to use equities to simultaneously grow capital and draw on (an ideally also growing) stream of dividends as a modest prop to day-to-day expenditures. On one reading, this might be a bona fide moment to double down. On another, is a much grander rethink due?

The portfolio’s recent run has been fair. In the past two-and-a-bit months, accumulated dividends and capital growth has pushed up its total value by a handy 3.5 per cent. A few one-time deadweights (GSK (GSK), Anglo American (AAL), Johnson Matthey (JMAT)) are looking sprightlier, while the funds-led engine I built at the end of 2023 has been doing the job set for it.

Then again, given the likelihood of a trundling performance from the UK economy, we might need to temper any GMO-inspired hopes for domestic equities. In truth, however, what keeps me up at night as much if not more than the portfolio’s holdings are the prospective returns on fixed income. My internal debate is less to do with the dominant stocks-versus-bond narrative about relative value – given that this usually compares a pricey US equity market and high-yielding Treasuries – but a more humdrum British fretting around the various opportunities in gilts.

It is the thought of that sweet spot of modest income and capital growth (not winning exactly, but decidedly not losing money) that is so hard to ignore. More power to Ruffer.

Especially tempting are those five-year gilt issues, sold when interest rates were improbably low in 2020 and 2021, and still trading at a discount to par. Though their coupons are slight, this merely creates a cash flow timing issue, which is manageable; hold to maturity, and the eventual climb to redemption prices should offer a real return almost free of risk and entirely free of capital gains tax. I could be done with Isa fretting, and company monitoring, all in one go.

If I’m honest, becoming an amateur bond watcher would probably be my preference to investing with Ruffer. That’s not because I think I’d do a better job (though their fees would give me a head start). Rather – judging both by his comments and the rather flat performance of the Ruffer Total Return fund since a new market paradigm started to emerge three years ago – it’s not wholly clear whether the end-of-the-equities-era thesis makes obvious winners out of other asset classes. If inflation proves sticky, those real gilt returns might prove rather unreal.

So, I’m going to leave Ruffer’s warning semi-unheeded. Or rather, I’m going to take the middle way between his sticky inflation call and GMO’s rosy base-case return to lower interest rates.

[saltygardenerlove]

Bearbull Portfolio: A new buy just for the Isa window

Last week, this column played host to a duel between two investment heavyweights. In the red corner, Jeremy Grantham’s GMO, which in atypical fashion had just stated its “excitement” at the opportunity set across equities, especially in the boxes marked value, small-cap, and non-US. To the oft-bearish asset manager, today’s conditions present the “best relative asset allocation” options since the collapse of the Soviet Union. Fundamentals? Back with a bang.

In the blue shorts, we had Jonathan Ruffer, pondering the end of the equity era and a sustained period of painful de-leveraging, corporate fire-fighting and disenchanting returns ahead. Ruffer’s long-held investing maxim – to not lose money, rather than maximise returns – echoed loudly. Those fundamentals? A second-order priority to a deteriorating macroeconomic backdrop.

With 5 April and the window on my use-it-or-lose-it individual savings account (Isa) allowance fast approaching, I was suddenly foggy with indecision. The goal of the Bearbull Income Portfolio, as I recall, has always been to use equities to simultaneously grow capital and draw on (an ideally also growing) stream of dividends as a modest prop to day-to-day expenditures. On one reading, this might be a bona fide moment to double down. On another, is a much grander rethink due?

The portfolio’s recent run has been fair. In the past two-and-a-bit months, accumulated dividends and capital growth has pushed up its total value by a handy 3.5 per cent. A few one-time deadweights (GSK (GSK), Anglo American (AAL), Johnson Matthey (JMAT)) are looking sprightlier, while the funds-led engine I built at the end of 2023 has been doing the job set for it.

Then again, given the likelihood of a trundling performance from the UK economy, we might need to temper any GMO-inspired hopes for domestic equities. In truth, however, what keeps me up at night as much if not more than the portfolio’s holdings are the prospective returns on fixed income. My internal debate is less to do with the dominant stocks-versus-bond narrative about relative value – given that this usually compares a pricey US equity market and high-yielding Treasuries – but a more humdrum British fretting around the various opportunities in gilts.

It is the thought of that sweet spot of modest income and capital growth (not winning exactly, but decidedly not losing money) that is so hard to ignore. More power to Ruffer.

Especially tempting are those five-year gilt issues, sold when interest rates were improbably low in 2020 and 2021, and still trading at a discount to par. Though their coupons are slight, this merely creates a cash flow timing issue, which is manageable; hold to maturity, and the eventual climb to redemption prices should offer a real return almost free of risk and entirely free of capital gains tax. I could be done with Isa fretting, and company monitoring, all in one go.

If I’m honest, becoming an amateur bond watcher would probably be my preference to investing with Ruffer. That’s not because I think I’d do a better job (though their fees would give me a head start). Rather – judging both by his comments and the rather flat performance of the Ruffer Total Return fund since a new market paradigm started to emerge three years ago – it’s not wholly clear whether the end-of-the-equities-era thesis makes obvious winners out of other asset classes. If inflation proves sticky, those real gilt returns might prove rather unreal.

So, I’m going to leave Ruffer’s warning semi-unheeded. Or rather, I’m going to take the middle way between his sticky inflation call and GMO’s rosy base-case return to lower interest rates.

[bertrhert]

Bearbull Portfolio: A new buy just for the Isa window

Last week, this column played host to a duel between two investment heavyweights. In the red corner, Jeremy Grantham’s GMO, which in atypical fashion had just stated its “excitement” at the opportunity set across equities, especially in the boxes marked value, small-cap, and non-US. To the oft-bearish asset manager, today’s conditions present the “best relative asset allocation” options since the collapse of the Soviet Union. Fundamentals? Back with a bang.

In the blue shorts, we had Jonathan Ruffer, pondering the end of the equity era and a sustained period of painful de-leveraging, corporate fire-fighting and disenchanting returns ahead. Ruffer’s long-held investing maxim – to not lose money, rather than maximise returns – echoed loudly. Those fundamentals? A second-order priority to a deteriorating macroeconomic backdrop.

With 5 April and the window on my use-it-or-lose-it individual savings account (Isa) allowance fast approaching, I was suddenly foggy with indecision. The goal of the Bearbull Income Portfolio, as I recall, has always been to use equities to simultaneously grow capital and draw on (an ideally also growing) stream of dividends as a modest prop to day-to-day expenditures. On one reading, this might be a bona fide moment to double down. On another, is a much grander rethink due?

The portfolio’s recent run has been fair. In the past two-and-a-bit months, accumulated dividends and capital growth has pushed up its total value by a handy 3.5 per cent. A few one-time deadweights (GSK (GSK), Anglo American (AAL), Johnson Matthey (JMAT)) are looking sprightlier, while the funds-led engine I built at the end of 2023 has been doing the job set for it.

Then again, given the likelihood of a trundling performance from the UK economy, we might need to temper any GMO-inspired hopes for domestic equities. In truth, however, what keeps me up at night as much if not more than the portfolio’s holdings are the prospective returns on fixed income. My internal debate is less to do with the dominant stocks-versus-bond narrative about relative value – given that this usually compares a pricey US equity market and high-yielding Treasuries – but a more humdrum British fretting around the various opportunities in gilts.

It is the thought of that sweet spot of modest income and capital growth (not winning exactly, but decidedly not losing money) that is so hard to ignore. More power to Ruffer.

Especially tempting are those five-year gilt issues, sold when interest rates were improbably low in 2020 and 2021, and still trading at a discount to par. Though their coupons are slight, this merely creates a cash flow timing issue, which is manageable; hold to maturity, and the eventual climb to redemption prices should offer a real return almost free of risk and entirely free of capital gains tax. I could be done with Isa fretting, and company monitoring, all in one go.

If I’m honest, becoming an amateur bond watcher would probably be my preference to investing with Ruffer. That’s not because I think I’d do a better job (though their fees would give me a head start). Rather – judging both by his comments and the rather flat performance of the Ruffer Total Return fund since a new market paradigm started to emerge three years ago – it’s not wholly clear whether the end-of-the-equities-era thesis makes obvious winners out of other asset classes. If inflation proves sticky, those real gilt returns might prove rather unreal.

So, I’m going to leave Ruffer’s warning semi-unheeded. Or rather, I’m going to take the middle way between his sticky inflation call and GMO’s rosy base-case return to lower interest rates.

[craigmyersfinance]

Bearbull Portfolio: A new buy just for the Isa window

Last week, this column played host to a duel between two investment heavyweights. In the red corner, Jeremy Grantham’s GMO, which in atypical fashion had just stated its “excitement” at the opportunity set across equities, especially in the boxes marked value, small-cap, and non-US. To the oft-bearish asset manager, today’s conditions present the “best relative asset allocation” options since the collapse of the Soviet Union. Fundamentals? Back with a bang.

In the blue shorts, we had Jonathan Ruffer, pondering the end of the equity era and a sustained period of painful de-leveraging, corporate fire-fighting and disenchanting returns ahead. Ruffer’s long-held investing maxim – to not lose money, rather than maximise returns – echoed loudly. Those fundamentals? A second-order priority to a deteriorating macroeconomic backdrop.

With 5 April and the window on my use-it-or-lose-it individual savings account (Isa) allowance fast approaching, I was suddenly foggy with indecision. The goal of the Bearbull Income Portfolio, as I recall, has always been to use equities to simultaneously grow capital and draw on (an ideally also growing) stream of dividends as a modest prop to day-to-day expenditures. On one reading, this might be a bona fide moment to double down. On another, is a much grander rethink due?

The portfolio’s recent run has been fair. In the past two-and-a-bit months, accumulated dividends and capital growth has pushed up its total value by a handy 3.5 per cent. A few one-time deadweights (GSK (GSK), Anglo American (AAL), Johnson Matthey (JMAT)) are looking sprightlier, while the funds-led engine I built at the end of 2023 has been doing the job set for it.

Then again, given the likelihood of a trundling performance from the UK economy, we might need to temper any GMO-inspired hopes for domestic equities. In truth, however, what keeps me up at night as much if not more than the portfolio’s holdings are the prospective returns on fixed income. My internal debate is less to do with the dominant stocks-versus-bond narrative about relative value – given that this usually compares a pricey US equity market and high-yielding Treasuries – but a more humdrum British fretting around the various opportunities in gilts.

It is the thought of that sweet spot of modest income and capital growth (not winning exactly, but decidedly not losing money) that is so hard to ignore. More power to Ruffer.

Especially tempting are those five-year gilt issues, sold when interest rates were improbably low in 2020 and 2021, and still trading at a discount to par. Though their coupons are slight, this merely creates a cash flow timing issue, which is manageable; hold to maturity, and the eventual climb to redemption prices should offer a real return almost free of risk and entirely free of capital gains tax. I could be done with Isa fretting, and company monitoring, all in one go.

If I’m honest, becoming an amateur bond watcher would probably be my preference to investing with Ruffer. That’s not because I think I’d do a better job (though their fees would give me a head start). Rather – judging both by his comments and the rather flat performance of the Ruffer Total Return fund since a new market paradigm started to emerge three years ago – it’s not wholly clear whether the end-of-the-equities-era thesis makes obvious winners out of other asset classes. If inflation proves sticky, those real gilt returns might prove rather unreal.

So, I’m going to leave Ruffer’s warning semi-unheeded. Or rather, I’m going to take the middle way between his sticky inflation call and GMO’s rosy base-case return to lower interest rates.

[optionperks]

Sensex, Nifty Rally Recoup Nearly Half Of Tuesday's Rout: Market Wrap

India's equity gauges staged a recovery on Wednesday as they recovered most of the losses incurred by the worst market crash in four years in the previous session. The surge came after the National Democratic Alliance pledged support to form a government for the third term. The NSE Nifty 50 closed 688.95 points higher, or 3.15%, at 22,573.45, while the S&P BSE Sensex ended 2,303.1 points up, or 3.2%, at 74,382. Intraday, the Nifty rose as much as 3.59% to 22,670.4, the highest intraday rise since Feb. 1, 2021, while the Sensex advanced 3.41% to 74,534.8. The market capitalisation of Nifty 50 companies rose by Rs 5.3 lakh crore during trade. After opening at Rs 83.46, the Indian rupee strengthened 15 paise to Rs 83.37 against the US dollar. The yield on the 10-year bond was trading flat at 7.03%. The stock volatility gauge, India VIX—which rose over 50% during poll counting—fell over 30% to 18.6 during the session.

The Indian markets exhibited a spirited recovery driven by broad-based buying across sectors, as political stability appears assured, according to Vinod Nair, head of research at Geojit Financial Services Ltd. "However, attention will remain on the formation of the government and the forthcoming RBI policy meeting."

To get more updates on option trading and check optionperks's best features option strategy builder and option index executor

[dreamilykawaiibasement]

Bearbull Portfolio: A new buy just for the Isa window

Last week, this column played host to a duel between two investment heavyweights. In the red corner, Jeremy Grantham’s GMO, which in atypical fashion had just stated its “excitement” at the opportunity set across equities, especially in the boxes marked value, small-cap, and non-US. To the oft-bearish asset manager, today’s conditions present the “best relative asset allocation” options since the collapse of the Soviet Union. Fundamentals? Back with a bang.

In the blue shorts, we had Jonathan Ruffer, pondering the end of the equity era and a sustained period of painful de-leveraging, corporate fire-fighting and disenchanting returns ahead. Ruffer’s long-held investing maxim – to not lose money, rather than maximise returns – echoed loudly. Those fundamentals? A second-order priority to a deteriorating macroeconomic backdrop.

With 5 April and the window on my use-it-or-lose-it individual savings account (Isa) allowance fast approaching, I was suddenly foggy with indecision. The goal of the Bearbull Income Portfolio, as I recall, has always been to use equities to simultaneously grow capital and draw on (an ideally also growing) stream of dividends as a modest prop to day-to-day expenditures. On one reading, this might be a bona fide moment to double down. On another, is a much grander rethink due?

The portfolio’s recent run has been fair. In the past two-and-a-bit months, accumulated dividends and capital growth has pushed up its total value by a handy 3.5 per cent. A few one-time deadweights (GSK (GSK), Anglo American (AAL), Johnson Matthey (JMAT)) are looking sprightlier, while the funds-led engine I built at the end of 2023 has been doing the job set for it.

Then again, given the likelihood of a trundling performance from the UK economy, we might need to temper any GMO-inspired hopes for domestic equities. In truth, however, what keeps me up at night as much if not more than the portfolio’s holdings are the prospective returns on fixed income. My internal debate is less to do with the dominant stocks-versus-bond narrative about relative value – given that this usually compares a pricey US equity market and high-yielding Treasuries – but a more humdrum British fretting around the various opportunities in gilts.

It is the thought of that sweet spot of modest income and capital growth (not winning exactly, but decidedly not losing money) that is so hard to ignore. More power to Ruffer.

Especially tempting are those five-year gilt issues, sold when interest rates were improbably low in 2020 and 2021, and still trading at a discount to par. Though their coupons are slight, this merely creates a cash flow timing issue, which is manageable; hold to maturity, and the eventual climb to redemption prices should offer a real return almost free of risk and entirely free of capital gains tax. I could be done with Isa fretting, and company monitoring, all in one go.

If I’m honest, becoming an amateur bond watcher would probably be my preference to investing with Ruffer. That’s not because I think I’d do a better job (though their fees would give me a head start). Rather – judging both by his comments and the rather flat performance of the Ruffer Total Return fund since a new market paradigm started to emerge three years ago – it’s not wholly clear whether the end-of-the-equities-era thesis makes obvious winners out of other asset classes. If inflation proves sticky, those real gilt returns might prove rather unreal.

So, I’m going to leave Ruffer’s warning semi-unheeded. Or rather, I’m going to take the middle way between his sticky inflation call and GMO’s rosy base-case return to lower interest rates.

[brianway23]

Bearbull Portfolio: A new buy just for the Isa window

Last week, this column played host to a duel between two investment heavyweights. In the red corner, Jeremy Grantham’s GMO, which in atypical fashion had just stated its “excitement” at the opportunity set across equities, especially in the boxes marked value, small-cap, and non-US. To the oft-bearish asset manager, today’s conditions present the “best relative asset allocation” options since the collapse of the Soviet Union. Fundamentals? Back with a bang.

In the blue shorts, we had Jonathan Ruffer, pondering the end of the equity era and a sustained period of painful de-leveraging, corporate fire-fighting and disenchanting returns ahead. Ruffer’s long-held investing maxim – to not lose money, rather than maximise returns – echoed loudly. Those fundamentals? A second-order priority to a deteriorating macroeconomic backdrop.

With 5 April and the window on my use-it-or-lose-it individual savings account (Isa) allowance fast approaching, I was suddenly foggy with indecision. The goal of the Bearbull Income Portfolio, as I recall, has always been to use equities to simultaneously grow capital and draw on (an ideally also growing) stream of dividends as a modest prop to day-to-day expenditures. On one reading, this might be a bona fide moment to double down. On another, is a much grander rethink due?

The portfolio’s recent run has been fair. In the past two-and-a-bit months, accumulated dividends and capital growth has pushed up its total value by a handy 3.5 per cent. A few one-time deadweights (GSK (GSK), Anglo American (AAL), Johnson Matthey (JMAT)) are looking sprightlier, while the funds-led engine I built at the end of 2023 has been doing the job set for it.

Then again, given the likelihood of a trundling performance from the UK economy, we might need to temper any GMO-inspired hopes for domestic equities. In truth, however, what keeps me up at night as much if not more than the portfolio’s holdings are the prospective returns on fixed income. My internal debate is less to do with the dominant stocks-versus-bond narrative about relative value – given that this usually compares a pricey US equity market and high-yielding Treasuries – but a more humdrum British fretting around the various opportunities in gilts.

It is the thought of that sweet spot of modest income and capital growth (not winning exactly, but decidedly not losing money) that is so hard to ignore. More power to Ruffer.

Especially tempting are those five-year gilt issues, sold when interest rates were improbably low in 2020 and 2021, and still trading at a discount to par. Though their coupons are slight, this merely creates a cash flow timing issue, which is manageable; hold to maturity, and the eventual climb to redemption prices should offer a real return almost free of risk and entirely free of capital gains tax. I could be done with Isa fretting, and company monitoring, all in one go.

If I’m honest, becoming an amateur bond watcher would probably be my preference to investing with Ruffer. That’s not because I think I’d do a better job (though their fees would give me a head start). Rather – judging both by his comments and the rather flat performance of the Ruffer Total Return fund since a new market paradigm started to emerge three years ago – it’s not wholly clear whether the end-of-the-equities-era thesis makes obvious winners out of other asset classes. If inflation proves sticky, those real gilt returns might prove rather unreal.

So, I’m going to leave Ruffer’s warning semi-unheeded. Or rather, I’m going to take the middle way between his sticky inflation call and GMO’s rosy base-case return to lower interest rates.

[movieblogreview]

Bearbull Portfolio: A new buy just for the Isa window

Last week, this column played host to a duel between two investment heavyweights. In the red corner, Jeremy Grantham’s GMO, which in atypical fashion had just stated its “excitement” at the opportunity set across equities, especially in the boxes marked value, small-cap, and non-US. To the oft-bearish asset manager, today’s conditions present the “best relative asset allocation” options since the collapse of the Soviet Union. Fundamentals? Back with a bang.

In the blue shorts, we had Jonathan Ruffer, pondering the end of the equity era and a sustained period of painful de-leveraging, corporate fire-fighting and disenchanting returns ahead. Ruffer’s long-held investing maxim – to not lose money, rather than maximise returns – echoed loudly. Those fundamentals? A second-order priority to a deteriorating macroeconomic backdrop.

With 5 April and the window on my use-it-or-lose-it individual savings account (Isa) allowance fast approaching, I was suddenly foggy with indecision. The goal of the Bearbull Income Portfolio, as I recall, has always been to use equities to simultaneously grow capital and draw on (an ideally also growing) stream of dividends as a modest prop to day-to-day expenditures. On one reading, this might be a bona fide moment to double down. On another, is a much grander rethink due?

The portfolio’s recent run has been fair. In the past two-and-a-bit months, accumulated dividends and capital growth has pushed up its total value by a handy 3.5 per cent. A few one-time deadweights (GSK (GSK), Anglo American (AAL), Johnson Matthey (JMAT)) are looking sprightlier, while the funds-led engine I built at the end of 2023 has been doing the job set for it.

Then again, given the likelihood of a trundling performance from the UK economy, we might need to temper any GMO-inspired hopes for domestic equities. In truth, however, what keeps me up at night as much if not more than the portfolio’s holdings are the prospective returns on fixed income. My internal debate is less to do with the dominant stocks-versus-bond narrative about relative value – given that this usually compares a pricey US equity market and high-yielding Treasuries – but a more humdrum British fretting around the various opportunities in gilts.

It is the thought of that sweet spot of modest income and capital growth (not winning exactly, but decidedly not losing money) that is so hard to ignore. More power to Ruffer.

Especially tempting are those five-year gilt issues, sold when interest rates were improbably low in 2020 and 2021, and still trading at a discount to par. Though their coupons are slight, this merely creates a cash flow timing issue, which is manageable; hold to maturity, and the eventual climb to redemption prices should offer a real return almost free of risk and entirely free of capital gains tax. I could be done with Isa fretting, and company monitoring, all in one go.

If I’m honest, becoming an amateur bond watcher would probably be my preference to investing with Ruffer. That’s not because I think I’d do a better job (though their fees would give me a head start). Rather – judging both by his comments and the rather flat performance of the Ruffer Total Return fund since a new market paradigm started to emerge three years ago – it’s not wholly clear whether the end-of-the-equities-era thesis makes obvious winners out of other asset classes. If inflation proves sticky, those real gilt returns might prove rather unreal.

So, I’m going to leave Ruffer’s warning semi-unheeded. Or rather, I’m going to take the middle way between his sticky inflation call and GMO’s rosy base-case return to lower interest rates.

[yourfinancestu]

Bearbull Portfolio: A new buy just for the Isa window

Last week, this column played host to a duel between two investment heavyweights. In the red corner, Jeremy Grantham’s GMO, which in atypical fashion had just stated its “excitement” at the opportunity set across equities, especially in the boxes marked value, small-cap, and non-US. To the oft-bearish asset manager, today’s conditions present the “best relative asset allocation” options since the collapse of the Soviet Union. Fundamentals? Back with a bang.

In the blue shorts, we had Jonathan Ruffer, pondering the end of the equity era and a sustained period of painful de-leveraging, corporate fire-fighting and disenchanting returns ahead. Ruffer’s long-held investing maxim – to not lose money, rather than maximise returns – echoed loudly. Those fundamentals? A second-order priority to a deteriorating macroeconomic backdrop.

With 5 April and the window on my use-it-or-lose-it individual savings account (Isa) allowance fast approaching, I was suddenly foggy with indecision. The goal of the Bearbull Income Portfolio, as I recall, has always been to use equities to simultaneously grow capital and draw on (an ideally also growing) stream of dividends as a modest prop to day-to-day expenditures. On one reading, this might be a bona fide moment to double down. On another, is a much grander rethink due?

The portfolio’s recent run has been fair. In the past two-and-a-bit months, accumulated dividends and capital growth has pushed up its total value by a handy 3.5 per cent. A few one-time deadweights (GSK (GSK), Anglo American (AAL), Johnson Matthey (JMAT)) are looking sprightlier, while the funds-led engine I built at the end of 2023 has been doing the job set for it.

Then again, given the likelihood of a trundling performance from the UK economy, we might need to temper any GMO-inspired hopes for domestic equities. In truth, however, what keeps me up at night as much if not more than the portfolio’s holdings are the prospective returns on fixed income. My internal debate is less to do with the dominant stocks-versus-bond narrative about relative value – given that this usually compares a pricey US equity market and high-yielding Treasuries – but a more humdrum British fretting around the various opportunities in gilts.

It is the thought of that sweet spot of modest income and capital growth (not winning exactly, but decidedly not losing money) that is so hard to ignore. More power to Ruffer.

Especially tempting are those five-year gilt issues, sold when interest rates were improbably low in 2020 and 2021, and still trading at a discount to par. Though their coupons are slight, this merely creates a cash flow timing issue, which is manageable; hold to maturity, and the eventual climb to redemption prices should offer a real return almost free of risk and entirely free of capital gains tax. I could be done with Isa fretting, and company monitoring, all in one go.

If I’m honest, becoming an amateur bond watcher would probably be my preference to investing with Ruffer. That’s not because I think I’d do a better job (though their fees would give me a head start). Rather – judging both by his comments and the rather flat performance of the Ruffer Total Return fund since a new market paradigm started to emerge three years ago – it’s not wholly clear whether the end-of-the-equities-era thesis makes obvious winners out of other asset classes. If inflation proves sticky, those real gilt returns might prove rather unreal.

So, I’m going to leave Ruffer’s warning semi-unheeded. Or rather, I’m going to take the middle way between his sticky inflation call and GMO’s rosy base-case return to lower interest rates.

[edwardredwould]

Bearbull Portfolio: A new buy just for the Isa window

Last week, this column played host to a duel between two investment heavyweights. In the red corner, Jeremy Grantham’s GMO, which in atypical fashion had just stated its “excitement” at the opportunity set across equities, especially in the boxes marked value, small-cap, and non-US. To the oft-bearish asset manager, today’s conditions present the “best relative asset allocation” options since the collapse of the Soviet Union. Fundamentals? Back with a bang.

In the blue shorts, we had Jonathan Ruffer, pondering the end of the equity era and a sustained period of painful de-leveraging, corporate fire-fighting and disenchanting returns ahead. Ruffer’s long-held investing maxim – to not lose money, rather than maximise returns – echoed loudly. Those fundamentals? A second-order priority to a deteriorating macroeconomic backdrop.

With 5 April and the window on my use-it-or-lose-it individual savings account (Isa) allowance fast approaching, I was suddenly foggy with indecision. The goal of the Bearbull Income Portfolio, as I recall, has always been to use equities to simultaneously grow capital and draw on (an ideally also growing) stream of dividends as a modest prop to day-to-day expenditures. On one reading, this might be a bona fide moment to double down. On another, is a much grander rethink due?

The portfolio’s recent run has been fair. In the past two-and-a-bit months, accumulated dividends and capital growth has pushed up its total value by a handy 3.5 per cent. A few one-time deadweights (GSK (GSK), Anglo American (AAL), Johnson Matthey (JMAT)) are looking sprightlier, while the funds-led engine I built at the end of 2023 has been doing the job set for it.

Then again, given the likelihood of a trundling performance from the UK economy, we might need to temper any GMO-inspired hopes for domestic equities. In truth, however, what keeps me up at night as much if not more than the portfolio’s holdings are the prospective returns on fixed income. My internal debate is less to do with the dominant stocks-versus-bond narrative about relative value – given that this usually compares a pricey US equity market and high-yielding Treasuries – but a more humdrum British fretting around the various opportunities in gilts.

It is the thought of that sweet spot of modest income and capital growth (not winning exactly, but decidedly not losing money) that is so hard to ignore. More power to Ruffer.

Especially tempting are those five-year gilt issues, sold when interest rates were improbably low in 2020 and 2021, and still trading at a discount to par. Though their coupons are slight, this merely creates a cash flow timing issue, which is manageable; hold to maturity, and the eventual climb to redemption prices should offer a real return almost free of risk and entirely free of capital gains tax. I could be done with Isa fretting, and company monitoring, all in one go.

If I’m honest, becoming an amateur bond watcher would probably be my preference to investing with Ruffer. That’s not because I think I’d do a better job (though their fees would give me a head start). Rather – judging both by his comments and the rather flat performance of the Ruffer Total Return fund since a new market paradigm started to emerge three years ago – it’s not wholly clear whether the end-of-the-equities-era thesis makes obvious winners out of other asset classes. If inflation proves sticky, those real gilt returns might prove rather unreal.

So, I’m going to leave Ruffer’s warning semi-unheeded. Or rather, I’m going to take the middle way between his sticky inflation call and GMO’s rosy base-case return to lower interest rates.