Connect with us

Uncategorized

Cross margin and isolated margin in crypto trading, explained

Cross margin uses whole balance, and isolated margin allocates specific collateral for each trade, encouraging diversification.

Published

on

Cross margin uses whole balance, and isolated margin allocates specific collateral for each trade, encouraging diversification.

Cross margin vs. isolated margin: Key differences

In contrast to isolated margin, which offers greater control and diversification but necessitates more active management, cross-margin trading simplifies risk management while increasing overall risk.

Cross-margin trading offers streamlined risk management but may expose the entire account to significant losses because it uses the whole account balance as collateral for all positions. Isolated margin, on the other hand, allows traders to assign particular amounts of collateral to individual positions, giving them precise risk control and facilitating diversification.

Cross margining can cause holdings to be prematurely liquidated in volatile markets, whereas isolated margin reduces the possibility of one position’s losses affecting others. Additionally, isolated margin offers more flexible alternatives for leverage, albeit with increased complexity in managing multiple positions and collateral allocations.

Here’s a quick summary of the differences between cross and isolated margins:

Cross margin vs. Isolated margin

The decision between cross and isolated margin ultimately depends upon one’s level of risk tolerance, trading approach and diversification objectives.

Pros and cons of isolated margin

Isolated margin trading provides for precise risk control and diversification, but it also necessitates careful monitoring of trading positions and may require more funds than cross-margin trading.

Isolated margin trading allows traders to precisely manage risk by enabling them to assign particular collateral amounts to individual transactions. This granularity lowers the possibility that one trade can negatively impact others by ensuring that losses are restricted to the collateral supplied to each trade.

Additionally, isolated margin trading encourages efficient diversification by allowing traders to distribute their assets across various positions and assets, reducing the danger of concentration.

The isolated margin trading strategy does have some complexities, though, particularly for traders with numerous open transactions. Managing collateral for multiple positions can be difficult and may require constant attention. Additionally, compared to cross-margin trading, where the total account amount acts as collateral for all positions, allocating collateral individually may require more money.

Insufficient collateral for any particular position may lead to margin calls or partial position closures, necessitating constant monitoring and precise risk management; thus, traders must remain watchful. Isolated margin provides customized risk management, but meticulous position handling and monitoring are necessary.

Pros and cons of cross margin

Cross-margin trading simplifies risk management but poses the risk of substantial losses by using the entire account balance as collateral.

On the positive side, cross-margining makes risk management straightforward by using the full account amount as collateral and may help restrict individual holdings from being prematurely liquidated.

It also provides the opportunity for higher profits due to greater leverage. However, every trade involving the entire account balance could result in huge losses or account liquidation. Furthermore, the lack of granularity in risk control and the possibility of margin calls can make it challenging to implement precise risk management strategies and diversify effectively.

In addition, because traders could be unwilling to invest their whole account balance in several positions, cross-margining may hinder diversification and expose them to concentrated risk. For instance, if a trader invests their whole account balance in a single, extremely volatile cryptocurrency and that particular asset experiences a significant price drop, the trader’s entire account balance could be wiped out, illustrating the risk of not diversifying across different assets or positions.

What is an isolated margin in crypto trading?

In the world of cryptocurrencies, isolated margin trading is a risk management strategy where traders allocate a certain amount of collateral to each individual position they open.

In addition to protecting other positions and the overall account balance from potential losses in any one trade, this method enables exact control over the risk involved with each trade. A set amount of collateral backs each position, and only the collateral assigned to that particular position is at risk if a trade goes against the trader.

By isolating the risk, losses from one position are prevented from spreading to other holdings or the account’s total balance. Leverage is still allowed with isolated margin, but traders can fine-tune the leverage for each position, enabling a more personalized risk management strategy.

In isolated margin trading, it is essential to carefully manage position sizes and collateral allocation to avoid overleveraging or underfunding positions and protect the trader’s entire portfolio. Additionally, certain exchanges may put margin calls in place that require traders to increase their collateral or modify their position size if losses reach a specified threshold.

How isolated margin is used in crypto trading

To understand how isolated margin works in crypto trading, let’s say Alice chooses to engage in isolated margin trading and maintains a trading account with $10,000. She wishes to trade Ether (ETH) and BTC separately, each with a distinct and isolated margin.

She sets aside $2,000 as a reserve in her account and allocates $5,000 as collateral for her BTC trade and $3,000 for her ETH trade. This strategy separates her BTC and ETH positions from one another, limiting any potential losses to the assigned collateral for each trade.

If the price of Bitcoin falls while her BTC position is open, for example, her losses are limited to the $5,000 set up as collateral for that trade. Losses in one trade won’t have an impact on her other positions because she hasn’t touched the $3,000 set aside for the ETH position. This fine-grained control over risk enables Alice to handle each trade on her own.

Even if the BTC position has losses that are greater than the $5,000 in collateral, a margin call wouldn’t be issued and her ETH trade wouldn’t be impacted. An isolated margin allows Alice to proactively manage risks and protect her entire portfolio, thanks to the specific collateral allocation for each position. However, careful risk management and position size monitoring are essential for ensuring a balanced and secure trading approach.

Related: Day trading vs. long-term cryptocurrency hodling: Benefits and drawbacks

What is cross margin in crypto trading?

Cross-margin trading is a risk management tactic in cryptocurrency trading whereby traders utilize the whole balance of their accounts as collateral for their open positions.

Using account balance as collateral implies that the entire amount of the account is at risk in order to cover future trading losses. Cross margining makes higher leverage possible, allowing traders to open larger positions with less money. It bears more risk but prevents individual position liquidation by acting as a buffer with the account balance.

To reduce risk, margin calls may be made, and traders must carefully monitor their positions and put stop-loss orders in place to limit losses. For seasoned traders, cross margining is a potent strategy, but it should be utilized with caution and a solid risk management plan. Novices and those with little prior trading experience should completely understand the platform’s margin rules and policies.

How cross margin is used in crypto trading

To understand how cross-margin trading works, let’s consider a scenario where Bob, a trader, chooses cross margining as his risk management strategy with $10,000 in his account. This trading strategy involves using the whole balance of his account as security for open trades.

Bob chooses to go long when Bitcoin (BTC) is trading at $40,000 per BTC and buys 2 BTC using 10x leverage, giving him control over a 20 BTC position. However, it is important to note that he is using the first $10,000 as collateral.

Fortunately, the price of Bitcoin soars to $45,000 per BTC, making his 2 BTC worth $90,000. Bob chooses to lock in his profits and sell his two BTC at this higher price. As a result, he ends up with $100,000 in his account — $10,000 at the start plus the $90,000 profit.

However, if the price of Bitcoin had dropped significantly, let’s say to $35,000 per BTC, Bob’s 2 BTC position would now be worth $70,000. Sadly, in this instance, Bob’s account balance would not be enough to offset the losses brought on by the declining price.

The position would have been secured with his initial $10,000 in collateral, but he would now have an unrealized loss of $30,000 (the difference between the purchase price of $40,000 and the current value of $35,000 per BTC). Bob would be in a precarious situation with no more money in his account.

In many cryptocurrency trading platforms, a margin call could happen if the losses are greater than the available collateral. A margin call is a request made by the exchange or broker that the trader deposits more money to offset losses or shrink the size of their position. To prevent future losses, the exchange might automatically close a portion of Bob’s position if he couldn’t fulfill the margin call requirements.

Read More

Continue Reading

Uncategorized

February Employment Situation

By Paul Gomme and Peter Rupert The establishment data from the BLS showed a 275,000 increase in payroll employment for February, outpacing the 230,000…

Published

on

By Paul Gomme and Peter Rupert

The establishment data from the BLS showed a 275,000 increase in payroll employment for February, outpacing the 230,000 average over the previous 12 months. The payroll data for January and December were revised down by a total of 167,000. The private sector added 223,000 new jobs, the largest gain since May of last year.

Temporary help services employment continues a steep decline after a sharp post-pandemic rise.

Average hours of work increased from 34.2 to 34.3. The increase, along with the 223,000 private employment increase led to a hefty increase in total hours of 5.6% at an annualized rate, also the largest increase since May of last year.

The establishment report, once again, beat “expectations;” the WSJ survey of economists was 198,000. Other than the downward revisions, mentioned above, another bit of negative news was a smallish increase in wage growth, from $34.52 to $34.57.

The household survey shows that the labor force increased 150,000, a drop in employment of 184,000 and an increase in the number of unemployed persons of 334,000. The labor force participation rate held steady at 62.5, the employment to population ratio decreased from 60.2 to 60.1 and the unemployment rate increased from 3.66 to 3.86. Remember that the unemployment rate is the number of unemployed relative to the labor force (the number employed plus the number unemployed). Consequently, the unemployment rate can go up if the number of unemployed rises holding fixed the labor force, or if the labor force shrinks holding the number unemployed unchanged. An increase in the unemployment rate is not necessarily a bad thing: it may reflect a strong labor market drawing “marginally attached” individuals from outside the labor force. Indeed, there was a 96,000 decline in those workers.

Earlier in the week, the BLS announced JOLTS (Job Openings and Labor Turnover Survey) data for January. There isn’t much to report here as the job openings changed little at 8.9 million, the number of hires and total separations were little changed at 5.7 million and 5.3 million, respectively.

As has been the case for the last couple of years, the number of job openings remains higher than the number of unemployed persons.

Also earlier in the week the BLS announced that productivity increased 3.2% in the 4th quarter with output rising 3.5% and hours of work rising 0.3%.

The bottom line is that the labor market continues its surprisingly (to some) strong performance, once again proving stronger than many had expected. This strength makes it difficult to justify any interest rate cuts soon, particularly given the recent inflation spike.

Read More

Continue Reading

Uncategorized

Mortgage rates fall as labor market normalizes

Jobless claims show an expanding economy. We will only be in a recession once jobless claims exceed 323,000 on a four-week moving average.

Published

on

Everyone was waiting to see if this week’s jobs report would send mortgage rates higher, which is what happened last month. Instead, the 10-year yield had a muted response after the headline number beat estimates, but we have negative job revisions from previous months. The Federal Reserve’s fear of wage growth spiraling out of control hasn’t materialized for over two years now and the unemployment rate ticked up to 3.9%. For now, we can say the labor market isn’t tight anymore, but it’s also not breaking.

The key labor data line in this expansion is the weekly jobless claims report. Jobless claims show an expanding economy that has not lost jobs yet. We will only be in a recession once jobless claims exceed 323,000 on a four-week moving average.

From the Fed: In the week ended March 2, initial claims for unemployment insurance benefits were flat, at 217,000. The four-week moving average declined slightly by 750, to 212,250


Below is an explanation of how we got here with the labor market, which all started during COVID-19.

1. I wrote the COVID-19 recovery model on April 7, 2020, and retired it on Dec. 9, 2020. By that time, the upfront recovery phase was done, and I needed to model out when we would get the jobs lost back.

2. Early in the labor market recovery, when we saw weaker job reports, I doubled and tripled down on my assertion that job openings would get to 10 million in this recovery. Job openings rose as high as to 12 million and are currently over 9 million. Even with the massive miss on a job report in May 2021, I didn’t waver.

Currently, the jobs openings, quit percentage and hires data are below pre-COVID-19 levels, which means the labor market isn’t as tight as it once was, and this is why the employment cost index has been slowing data to move along the quits percentage.  

2-US_Job_Quits_Rate-1-2

3. I wrote that we should get back all the jobs lost to COVID-19 by September of 2022. At the time this would be a speedy labor market recovery, and it happened on schedule, too

Total employment data

4. This is the key one for right now: If COVID-19 hadn’t happened, we would have between 157 million and 159 million jobs today, which would have been in line with the job growth rate in February 2020. Today, we are at 157,808,000. This is important because job growth should be cooling down now. We are more in line with where the labor market should be when averaging 140K-165K monthly. So for now, the fact that we aren’t trending between 140K-165K means we still have a bit more recovery kick left before we get down to those levels. 




From BLS: Total nonfarm payroll employment rose by 275,000 in February, and the unemployment rate increased to 3.9 percent, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. Job gains occurred in health care, in government, in food services and drinking places, in social assistance, and in transportation and warehousing.

Here are the jobs that were created and lost in the previous month:

IMG_5092

In this jobs report, the unemployment rate for education levels looks like this:

  • Less than a high school diploma: 6.1%
  • High school graduate and no college: 4.2%
  • Some college or associate degree: 3.1%
  • Bachelor’s degree or higher: 2.2%
IMG_5093_320f22

Today’s report has continued the trend of the labor data beating my expectations, only because I am looking for the jobs data to slow down to a level of 140K-165K, which hasn’t happened yet. I wouldn’t categorize the labor market as being tight anymore because of the quits ratio and the hires data in the job openings report. This also shows itself in the employment cost index as well. These are key data lines for the Fed and the reason we are going to see three rate cuts this year.

Read More

Continue Reading

Uncategorized

Inside The Most Ridiculous Jobs Report In History: Record 1.2 Million Immigrant Jobs Added In One Month

Inside The Most Ridiculous Jobs Report In History: Record 1.2 Million Immigrant Jobs Added In One Month

Last month we though that the January…

Published

on

Inside The Most Ridiculous Jobs Report In History: Record 1.2 Million Immigrant Jobs Added In One Month

Last month we though that the January jobs report was the "most ridiculous in recent history" but, boy, were we wrong because this morning the Biden department of goalseeked propaganda (aka BLS) published the February jobs report, and holy crap was that something else. Even Goebbels would blush. 

What happened? Let's take a closer look.

On the surface, it was (almost) another blockbuster jobs report, certainly one which nobody expected, or rather just one bank out of 76 expected. Starting at the top, the BLS reported that in February the US unexpectedly added 275K jobs, with just one research analyst (from Dai-Ichi Research) expecting a higher number.

Some context: after last month's record 4-sigma beat, today's print was "only" 3 sigma higher than estimates. Needless to say, two multiple sigma beats in a row used to only happen in the USSR... and now in the US, apparently.

Before we go any further, a quick note on what last month we said was "the most ridiculous jobs report in recent history": it appears the BLS read our comments and decided to stop beclowing itself. It did that by slashing last month's ridiculous print by over a third, and revising what was originally reported as a massive 353K beat to just 229K,  a 124K revision, which was the biggest one-month negative revision in two years!

Of course, that does not mean that this month's jobs print won't be revised lower: it will be, and not just that month but every other month until the November election because that's the only tool left in the Biden admin's box: pretend the economic and jobs are strong, then revise them sharply lower the next month, something we pointed out first last summer and which has not failed to disappoint once.

To be fair, not every aspect of the jobs report was stellar (after all, the BLS had to give it some vague credibility). Take the unemployment rate, after flatlining between 3.4% and 3.8% for two years - and thus denying expectations from Sahm's Rule that a recession may have already started - in February the unemployment rate unexpectedly jumped to 3.9%, the highest since February 2022 (with Black unemployment spiking by 0.3% to 5.6%, an indicator which the Biden admin will quickly slam as widespread economic racism or something).

And then there were average hourly earnings, which after surging 0.6% MoM in January (since revised to 0.5%) and spooking markets that wage growth is so hot, the Fed will have no choice but to delay cuts, in February the number tumbled to just 0.1%, the lowest in two years...

... for one simple reason: last month's average wage surge had nothing to do with actual wages, and everything to do with the BLS estimate of hours worked (which is the denominator in the average wage calculation) which last month tumbled to just 34.1 (we were led to believe) the lowest since the covid pandemic...

... but has since been revised higher while the February print rose even more, to 34.3, hence why the latest average wage data was once again a product not of wages going up, but of how long Americans worked in any weekly period, in this case higher from 34.1 to 34.3, an increase which has a major impact on the average calculation.

While the above data points were examples of some latent weakness in the latest report, perhaps meant to give it a sheen of veracity, it was everything else in the report that was a problem starting with the BLS's latest choice of seasonal adjustments (after last month's wholesale revision), which have gone from merely laughable to full clownshow, as the following comparison between the monthly change in BLS and ADP payrolls shows. The trend is clear: the Biden admin numbers are now clearly rising even as the impartial ADP (which directly logs employment numbers at the company level and is far more accurate), shows an accelerating slowdown.

But it's more than just the Biden admin hanging its "success" on seasonal adjustments: when one digs deeper inside the jobs report, all sorts of ugly things emerge... such as the growing unprecedented divergence between the Establishment (payrolls) survey and much more accurate Household (actual employment) survey. To wit, while in January the BLS claims 275K payrolls were added, the Household survey found that the number of actually employed workers dropped for the third straight month (and 4 in the past 5), this time by 184K (from 161.152K to 160.968K).

This means that while the Payrolls series hits new all time highs every month since December 2020 (when according to the BLS the US had its last month of payrolls losses), the level of Employment has not budged in the past year. Worse, as shown in the chart below, such a gaping divergence has opened between the two series in the past 4 years, that the number of Employed workers would need to soar by 9 million (!) to catch up to what Payrolls claims is the employment situation.

There's more: shifting from a quantitative to a qualitative assessment, reveals just how ugly the composition of "new jobs" has been. Consider this: the BLS reports that in February 2024, the US had 132.9 million full-time jobs and 27.9 million part-time jobs. Well, that's great... until you look back one year and find that in February 2023 the US had 133.2 million full-time jobs, or more than it does one year later! And yes, all the job growth since then has been in part-time jobs, which have increased by 921K since February 2023 (from 27.020 million to 27.941 million).

Here is a summary of the labor composition in the past year: all the new jobs have been part-time jobs!

But wait there's even more, because now that the primary season is over and we enter the heart of election season and political talking points will be thrown around left and right, especially in the context of the immigration crisis created intentionally by the Biden administration which is hoping to import millions of new Democratic voters (maybe the US can hold the presidential election in Honduras or Guatemala, after all it is their citizens that will be illegally casting the key votes in November), what we find is that in February, the number of native-born workers tumbled again, sliding by a massive 560K to just 129.807 million. Add to this the December data, and we get a near-record 2.4 million plunge in native-born workers in just the past 3 months (only the covid crash was worse)!

The offset? A record 1.2 million foreign-born (read immigrants, both legal and illegal but mostly illegal) workers added in February!

Said otherwise, not only has all job creation in the past 6 years has been exclusively for foreign-born workers...

Source: St Louis Fed FRED Native Born and Foreign Born

... but there has been zero job-creation for native born workers since June 2018!

This is a huge issue - especially at a time of an illegal alien flood at the southwest border...

... and is about to become a huge political scandal, because once the inevitable recession finally hits, there will be millions of furious unemployed Americans demanding a more accurate explanation for what happened - i.e., the illegal immigration floodgates that were opened by the Biden admin.

Which is also why Biden's handlers will do everything in their power to insure there is no official recession before November... and why after the election is over, all economic hell will finally break loose. Until then, however, expect the jobs numbers to get even more ridiculous.

Tyler Durden Fri, 03/08/2024 - 13:30

Read More

Continue Reading

Trending