FraudGultee
04-19 10:09 AM
Love your sense of humor (based on your handle)! :D
nice to see that post. believe me most people here lack it and i get flames and red just because of the handle :)
nice to see that post. believe me most people here lack it and i get flames and red just because of the handle :)
wallpaper vickie guerrero playboy. out
Raji
07-24 10:58 AM
gc28262
Nowhere in the posts have I disputed the credentials of those who work @ IV. Only expressed disappointment at the nature of the responses received. If credentials were in Q, it would be pointless raising any Qs at all. Qs are only asked of whom you trust to give a reliable answer. While the Core and indeed the Donors are dedicated and smart, many members here are as interested in following the progress being made by IV and yes smart enough to understand that every organisation has strategies which it may not wish to reveal � the Qs here are not about strategy, they are about updated information and increased awareness amongst those IV calls its base. If a free and open discussion about this is only to be cut short by a member being told pay or not be curious, then this is not really a public forum and this needs to be clarified at the very start.
Of course IV can continue to get rid of people it does not like raising Qs by putting them down, but this is not the greatest public relations exercise - especially with the population the group seeks to serve. This world is not a one size fits all and - there will always be people who pop into a forum for the occasional Query - if we answered them nicely, updated them on progress, they may themselves consider this a worthy cause, donate, update their profile and contribute as best as they can. Alternatively they may never become donors, but will at least ensourage others to visit IV, become members, and support the cause. But if we ask them to fulfil multiple conditions before showing empathy, we lose them forever. My personal hope is that IV will succeed in what it aims to achieve, though it would never be by itself - many other orgnisations supporting legal immigration will be part of any victory should it be achieved.
Nowhere in the posts have I disputed the credentials of those who work @ IV. Only expressed disappointment at the nature of the responses received. If credentials were in Q, it would be pointless raising any Qs at all. Qs are only asked of whom you trust to give a reliable answer. While the Core and indeed the Donors are dedicated and smart, many members here are as interested in following the progress being made by IV and yes smart enough to understand that every organisation has strategies which it may not wish to reveal � the Qs here are not about strategy, they are about updated information and increased awareness amongst those IV calls its base. If a free and open discussion about this is only to be cut short by a member being told pay or not be curious, then this is not really a public forum and this needs to be clarified at the very start.
Of course IV can continue to get rid of people it does not like raising Qs by putting them down, but this is not the greatest public relations exercise - especially with the population the group seeks to serve. This world is not a one size fits all and - there will always be people who pop into a forum for the occasional Query - if we answered them nicely, updated them on progress, they may themselves consider this a worthy cause, donate, update their profile and contribute as best as they can. Alternatively they may never become donors, but will at least ensourage others to visit IV, become members, and support the cause. But if we ask them to fulfil multiple conditions before showing empathy, we lose them forever. My personal hope is that IV will succeed in what it aims to achieve, though it would never be by itself - many other orgnisations supporting legal immigration will be part of any victory should it be achieved.
espoir
07-19 02:53 PM
I will continue to contribute to IV even I get my GC in few months (highly unlikely) until the goals of IV are met. Also salutations and big thanks to the spouses and families of IV core. Their contribution and sacrifice is unsung, but in my opinion their sacrifice of their loved ones time and spending all savings for good cause is remarkable in itself. A big applause to the families of IV core for being so understanding.
2011 lt;lt;vickie guerrero playboy
ilikekilo
05-26 05:01 PM
Salient features of Bill: S.1085
After analyzing this bill, I found the following:
1. This bill will recapture all those unused employment based visas (gcs) from 1997 till 2008 and it will add those recaptured visas to this year's employment based quota.
2. After the passage of this bill, any unused visas will rollover to the next year. So, no more wastage of visas as we go forward.
3. Per country limit will be increased from 7% to 10%, so more folks from over subscribed countries would be able to come under the normal yearly quota.
4. We will be able to avail the benefits of the recapture after 60 days of the passage of the bill. That means, if they are able to recapture 220,000 (approx) employment based visas, the employment based category will be able to use all those after 60 days of the passage of this bill. USCIS is pre-adjudicating all I485s pending and if this bill gets passed in say for eg by October 30, almost all (80%) in this community (who filed 485) would be able get their GCs in Jan and Feb of 2010.
What makes this bill much more interesting is:
1. This is not a bill targetting the issues of Employment based category - So there won't be a huge backlash against this in the name of the economy and recession. The provisions for the employment category are just one item in this bill.
2. Family based immigration reform has a wider range of support from all kinds of groups unlike Employment based immigration reform. Just search for this bill "Reuniting Families Act" in google news and you can identify all those organizations supporting this bill (they all have a news release).
Complete Text of this Bill:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:S.1085:
per this senators site it is 400K approx....
http://gillibrand.senate.gov/newsroom/press/release/?id=CC4C8961-BF60-4182-A3EC-E96BC338EE30
After analyzing this bill, I found the following:
1. This bill will recapture all those unused employment based visas (gcs) from 1997 till 2008 and it will add those recaptured visas to this year's employment based quota.
2. After the passage of this bill, any unused visas will rollover to the next year. So, no more wastage of visas as we go forward.
3. Per country limit will be increased from 7% to 10%, so more folks from over subscribed countries would be able to come under the normal yearly quota.
4. We will be able to avail the benefits of the recapture after 60 days of the passage of the bill. That means, if they are able to recapture 220,000 (approx) employment based visas, the employment based category will be able to use all those after 60 days of the passage of this bill. USCIS is pre-adjudicating all I485s pending and if this bill gets passed in say for eg by October 30, almost all (80%) in this community (who filed 485) would be able get their GCs in Jan and Feb of 2010.
What makes this bill much more interesting is:
1. This is not a bill targetting the issues of Employment based category - So there won't be a huge backlash against this in the name of the economy and recession. The provisions for the employment category are just one item in this bill.
2. Family based immigration reform has a wider range of support from all kinds of groups unlike Employment based immigration reform. Just search for this bill "Reuniting Families Act" in google news and you can identify all those organizations supporting this bill (they all have a news release).
Complete Text of this Bill:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:S.1085:
per this senators site it is 400K approx....
http://gillibrand.senate.gov/newsroom/press/release/?id=CC4C8961-BF60-4182-A3EC-E96BC338EE30
more...
Macaca
12-17 02:24 PM
From Investing in America, Making Things Worse (http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB119449088264586132.html) By Sen. Chuck Grassley (R., Iowa) | Wall Street Journal, Nov 8, 2007
I'm startled to learn that The Wall Street Journal seriously believes that an investment in American students will make things worse for U.S. businesses ("The Grassley Visa Tax," editorial, Nov. 2).
Your editorial asserts that the number of foreign workers on H-1B visas is so minimal that we shouldn't care if Americans are in fact displaced. I challenge the Journal to wave their labor force figures in the face of one of the hi-tech workers who have had to train their own replacement who is an H-1B visa holder. That's a smack in the face to the American worker and hardly an issue to take lightly.
I am committed to an effort to include additional H-1B reforms and increase the visa supply along with an increased investment to educate Americans. But, I strongly disagree that the only solution is to increase our reliance on foreign workers by raising the annual cap. Reforms to the program must be a top priority. Big business cannot continue to ignore the home-grown American talent who should be getting at least a good portion of these jobs.
From page 9 of Driving jobs and Innovation Offshore (http://www.nfap.com/pdf/071206study.pdf) The impact of high-skill Immigration Restrictions on America, National Foundation for American Policy (NFAP) Policy Brief, Dec 2007
The National Foundation for American Policy sent a letter to Senator Grassley�s office requesting a list of the names of �hi-tech workers who have had to train their own replacement who is an H-1B visa holder.�
To date we have not received such a list from Senator Grassley�s office.
I'm startled to learn that The Wall Street Journal seriously believes that an investment in American students will make things worse for U.S. businesses ("The Grassley Visa Tax," editorial, Nov. 2).
Your editorial asserts that the number of foreign workers on H-1B visas is so minimal that we shouldn't care if Americans are in fact displaced. I challenge the Journal to wave their labor force figures in the face of one of the hi-tech workers who have had to train their own replacement who is an H-1B visa holder. That's a smack in the face to the American worker and hardly an issue to take lightly.
I am committed to an effort to include additional H-1B reforms and increase the visa supply along with an increased investment to educate Americans. But, I strongly disagree that the only solution is to increase our reliance on foreign workers by raising the annual cap. Reforms to the program must be a top priority. Big business cannot continue to ignore the home-grown American talent who should be getting at least a good portion of these jobs.
From page 9 of Driving jobs and Innovation Offshore (http://www.nfap.com/pdf/071206study.pdf) The impact of high-skill Immigration Restrictions on America, National Foundation for American Policy (NFAP) Policy Brief, Dec 2007
The National Foundation for American Policy sent a letter to Senator Grassley�s office requesting a list of the names of �hi-tech workers who have had to train their own replacement who is an H-1B visa holder.�
To date we have not received such a list from Senator Grassley�s office.
pappu
10-17 10:05 AM
SA 3275. Mr. LEVIN submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill H.R. 3093, making appropriations for the Departments of Commerce and Justice, and Science, and Related Agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2008, and for other purposes; as follows:
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
SEC. __. ANNUAL REPORT ON DELAYED BACKGROUND CHECKS.
(a) In General.--Not later than 60 days after the end of each fiscal year, the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation shall submit a report to the congressional committees listed in subsection (b) that contains, with respect to the most recently completed fiscal year--
(1) a statistical analysis of the number of background checks processed and pending, including check requests in process at the time of the report and check requests that have been received but are not yet in process;
(2) the average time taken to complete each type of background check;
(3) a description of the efforts and progress made by the Director in addressing any delays in completing such background checks; and
(4) a description of the progress that has been made in automating files used in the name check process, including investigative files of the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
(b) Recipients.--The congressional committees listed in this subsection are--
(1) the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate;
(2) the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs of the Senate;
(3) the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives; and
(4) the Committee on Homeland Security of the House of Representati
This does not go far enough to solve the problem. A lot more work is needed to get an immediate fix to the problem.
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
SEC. __. ANNUAL REPORT ON DELAYED BACKGROUND CHECKS.
(a) In General.--Not later than 60 days after the end of each fiscal year, the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation shall submit a report to the congressional committees listed in subsection (b) that contains, with respect to the most recently completed fiscal year--
(1) a statistical analysis of the number of background checks processed and pending, including check requests in process at the time of the report and check requests that have been received but are not yet in process;
(2) the average time taken to complete each type of background check;
(3) a description of the efforts and progress made by the Director in addressing any delays in completing such background checks; and
(4) a description of the progress that has been made in automating files used in the name check process, including investigative files of the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
(b) Recipients.--The congressional committees listed in this subsection are--
(1) the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate;
(2) the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs of the Senate;
(3) the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives; and
(4) the Committee on Homeland Security of the House of Representati
This does not go far enough to solve the problem. A lot more work is needed to get an immediate fix to the problem.
more...
pmb76
07-17 09:55 PM
Thanks all. I read the petition and I think it is great work. Yes, we need to send messages like this as a group.
Allow me to quote from the petition:
"It is required by law to pay an H1-B a minimum of $40000. "
I'm not challenging anything here, but can someone please point to the source of this? Is this Federal?
Again, I'm not challenging this. I just would appreciate some pointers so that I can learn more.
Thanks again.
http://www.techlawjournal.com/cong106/h1b/hr4227ih.htm
Please read section 201
"(ii) is offering and will offer during the period of authorized employment to H-1B nonimmigrants wages that are at least equal to an annual salary of $40,000 (including cash bonuses and similar compensation), except if the employer is an institution of higher education (as defined in section 101(a) of the Higher Education Act of 1965) or a related or affiliated nonprofit entity, a nonprofit research organization, or a governmental research organization, and".
Allow me to quote from the petition:
"It is required by law to pay an H1-B a minimum of $40000. "
I'm not challenging anything here, but can someone please point to the source of this? Is this Federal?
Again, I'm not challenging this. I just would appreciate some pointers so that I can learn more.
Thanks again.
http://www.techlawjournal.com/cong106/h1b/hr4227ih.htm
Please read section 201
"(ii) is offering and will offer during the period of authorized employment to H-1B nonimmigrants wages that are at least equal to an annual salary of $40,000 (including cash bonuses and similar compensation), except if the employer is an institution of higher education (as defined in section 101(a) of the Higher Education Act of 1965) or a related or affiliated nonprofit entity, a nonprofit research organization, or a governmental research organization, and".
2010 hair vickie guerrero Download
stuckinmuck
05-24 01:38 PM
Does this amendment strictly apply to new H1B filings or will it also impact people with H1B and an approved I-140 but need to extend it due to retrogression?
Regarding the exodus, maybe that is their purpose. Maybe, they have enough
hi-tech workers and they don't need more. I guess we need to watch and wait and accept this as a reality.
Regarding the exodus, maybe that is their purpose. Maybe, they have enough
hi-tech workers and they don't need more. I guess we need to watch and wait and accept this as a reality.
more...
swamy
12-12 10:07 PM
Ultimately, whatever IV is able to accomplish will benefit the entire legal immigrant community, regardless of contributions/memberships. However, the need of the hour is to realize the opportunities we are missing because of lack of resources and hands in most cases.
cheers!
jazz
I dont think theres any doubt in the value iv is providing - selling it is the issue. I can be proved wrong in a month but the ongoing funding drive is kind of a ray of hope that people will be willing to give both time & money to help themselves and others.
cheers!
jazz
I dont think theres any doubt in the value iv is providing - selling it is the issue. I can be proved wrong in a month but the ongoing funding drive is kind of a ray of hope that people will be willing to give both time & money to help themselves and others.
hair vickie guerrero playboy.
americandesi
09-06 07:37 PM
On Aug 11, 2007 - I 140 Denied Due to Ability To Pay issues
Description for denial ( I have also attached the denial notice)->
They looked at years 2003 to 2006 history for I140 since PD is JAN 03.
* Reason 1 - Lower salary than specified in labor
Preferred Wage in labor - 78,750
W2(2003) - $76,850; W2(2004) - $75,638; W2(2005) - $31,652;
W2 for 2005 is less due to company merger. I have another W2 from new company for 2005. I moved to another company due to merger but lawyer continued GC throgh old employer since the both companies exists after the merger.
* Reason 2 - negative net income of the petitioner
2003 (-$537,841); 2004(-$445,493); 2005(-$527,298); 2006(Not Submitted);
* Reason 3 - 2003 and 2004 OK but net current assets are -ve in 2005
and my lawyer did not provide 2006 information
Acceptable Assets Aceptable Liabilities Net Current Assets
2003 $4,272,733 $3,789,359 $483,374
2004 $4,871,615 $4,660,879 $210,736
2005 $5,047,775 $6,494,111 ($1,446,336)
2006 ---- Not submitted [ Company has not filed taxes yet]
For 2006 they will be filing big loss.
Does anyone know any way out of this.
I am sorry to know that your I-140 application got denied after such a long wait.
Your application was denied not with a combination of
Reason 1 , 2 & 3, but each reason by itself was insufficient to prove ability to pay. Your employer should meet atleast one of these to prove "Ability to Pay".
It's deplorable that most attorney's don't educate small employers on meeting ability to pay even before filing the Labor Certification.
I would suggest that you appeal the case with supporting statements from a good CPA and in the meantime go for a fresh labor certification.
Description for denial ( I have also attached the denial notice)->
They looked at years 2003 to 2006 history for I140 since PD is JAN 03.
* Reason 1 - Lower salary than specified in labor
Preferred Wage in labor - 78,750
W2(2003) - $76,850; W2(2004) - $75,638; W2(2005) - $31,652;
W2 for 2005 is less due to company merger. I have another W2 from new company for 2005. I moved to another company due to merger but lawyer continued GC throgh old employer since the both companies exists after the merger.
* Reason 2 - negative net income of the petitioner
2003 (-$537,841); 2004(-$445,493); 2005(-$527,298); 2006(Not Submitted);
* Reason 3 - 2003 and 2004 OK but net current assets are -ve in 2005
and my lawyer did not provide 2006 information
Acceptable Assets Aceptable Liabilities Net Current Assets
2003 $4,272,733 $3,789,359 $483,374
2004 $4,871,615 $4,660,879 $210,736
2005 $5,047,775 $6,494,111 ($1,446,336)
2006 ---- Not submitted [ Company has not filed taxes yet]
For 2006 they will be filing big loss.
Does anyone know any way out of this.
I am sorry to know that your I-140 application got denied after such a long wait.
Your application was denied not with a combination of
Reason 1 , 2 & 3, but each reason by itself was insufficient to prove ability to pay. Your employer should meet atleast one of these to prove "Ability to Pay".
It's deplorable that most attorney's don't educate small employers on meeting ability to pay even before filing the Labor Certification.
I would suggest that you appeal the case with supporting statements from a good CPA and in the meantime go for a fresh labor certification.
more...
gsc999
07-11 01:44 AM
What do you guys think, should we get some flowers at the San Jose rally too and give them out to the supporters?
That will display continuity of thought with our flower campaign and weave that into the peaceful protest.
That will display continuity of thought with our flower campaign and weave that into the peaceful protest.
hot Consultant Vickie Guerrero
storm
08-24 07:32 PM
There you go! Thanks Immigration_Law!
more...
house Starring: Vickie Guerrero, Ted
kbsyed61
03-30 01:53 PM
There was another LUD for all three of us (Self, Wife and daughter). Also received a CRIS email for wife with an RFE. I hope this RFE is about her incomplete vaccination at the time of filing. Will post the RFE details when I receive them from attorney.
I have not done anything like applying for EAD, AP etc.
I have not done anything like applying for EAD, AP etc.
tattoo vickie guerrero playboy
waitin_toolong
07-17 03:12 PM
I applaud you for starting this effort but the petition needs correction, You are calling Lou Dobbs of lying but all the instances you quote are from Sen Tancredo . You may accuse Lou Dobbs of supporting these lies by letting them stand unchallenged not correcting them.
When we fight we should get our facts straight so that no one can point a finger at us.
I am saying all this at the risk of being ridiculed and abused by some of you. But before you do read the petition again and read my statement with cool head.
Victory will come to those who are righteous not impetuous
We need to document all the inaccuracies floating around and patiently with the backing of facts dismantle each and every one of them.
When we fight we should get our facts straight so that no one can point a finger at us.
I am saying all this at the risk of being ridiculed and abused by some of you. But before you do read the petition again and read my statement with cool head.
Victory will come to those who are righteous not impetuous
We need to document all the inaccuracies floating around and patiently with the backing of facts dismantle each and every one of them.
more...
pictures vickie guerrero playboy.
IamWithImmiVoice
01-14 03:48 PM
I am thinking of starting a google group for people who would like to send letters to USCIS/White House for our efforts. Not sure if we already have IV, if we really need another google group but the main aim for doing this is to send reminders to us to send letters and once in a while have discussions on what affect our efforts are having. Do you guys think its a good idea? I think I should start a poll for this
dresses hot Vickie Guerrero vickie guerrero playboy. star Vickie Guerrero, 42.
yetanotherguyinline
07-16 03:35 PM
Email sent.
Dear Sir or Madam:
I have been watching Lou Dobbs on CNN for a while and I am appalled by Mr Dobbs' hatred towards immigrants. He seems to twist or omit facts to suit his line of thought and at times states his opinion as absolute facts (most of which can be easily dis-proven by a 10 minute search on USCIS or dept of home land security websites). My friends and I are considering boycotting CNN if this sort of offensive programming goes on unchecked.
Regards,
Dear Sir or Madam:
I have been watching Lou Dobbs on CNN for a while and I am appalled by Mr Dobbs' hatred towards immigrants. He seems to twist or omit facts to suit his line of thought and at times states his opinion as absolute facts (most of which can be easily dis-proven by a 10 minute search on USCIS or dept of home land security websites). My friends and I are considering boycotting CNN if this sort of offensive programming goes on unchecked.
Regards,
more...
makeup Browse all: Vickie Guerrero
chanduv23
01-29 07:21 PM
I know a lot of people using pre approved labor certs waiting for GC. What happens to them? I think this rule will affect only those who are trying to do Labor substitution in future.
girlfriend vickie guerrero playboy. Vickie Guerrero fired her
roseball
08-27 11:47 AM
Based on this poll, can somebody predict EB3-I movement starting Oct'2008?
The dates moved from Apr'2001 to Nov'2001 last year when EB3-I didn't recieve any spillover. So what would be the movement when new year starts?
I am hoping atleast it will move forward and not backwards....
Dec 2001 is my guess. Hopefully, it will continue to move as the year progresses...
The dates moved from Apr'2001 to Nov'2001 last year when EB3-I didn't recieve any spillover. So what would be the movement when new year starts?
I am hoping atleast it will move forward and not backwards....
Dec 2001 is my guess. Hopefully, it will continue to move as the year progresses...
hairstyles w/ Vickie Guerrero vs WWE
arsh007
02-01 06:19 PM
I have worked for some of the big Indian IT companies including HCL Technologies and Satyam and can tell you all that these companies are the most screwed up companies in terms of bringing in H1 and L1s from India and paying them peanuts for salaries. For example Satyam and TCS here in St Louis have a large outsourcing deal with Citigroup. There are about 50-60 Satyam Engineers here on H1 and L1 visas being paid around $45,000 per month+Benefits which is just about the Labor prevailing wage in this area.
Talk about rotten Desi companies and even the bigger players are not far behind in trying to suppress wages for Engineers and bending rules in lots of instances to bring in a flood of L1s/H1s from India to work on onsite projects.
Talk about rotten Desi companies and even the bigger players are not far behind in trying to suppress wages for Engineers and bending rules in lots of instances to bring in a flood of L1s/H1s from India to work on onsite projects.
vin13
03-11 12:19 PM
It reminds me this story every time I visit IV.
Workers working with an export company which use to ship chickens from all over the world to US/Europe, were packing chickens from some Indian port. Each box was having some 50-70 chickens in it .
After loading them in, they were about to cover these boxes with the tops. The leader shouts to workers: " No need to put the tops. They wouldn't go any where "
Surprised with this order, one worker asks the leader 'Why'. The leader says : " These are Indian chickens. IF one tries to escape, other will pull its leg."
Good One :D
We should concentrate on taking actions. I believe taking a small step in action is better than talking big.
Workers working with an export company which use to ship chickens from all over the world to US/Europe, were packing chickens from some Indian port. Each box was having some 50-70 chickens in it .
After loading them in, they were about to cover these boxes with the tops. The leader shouts to workers: " No need to put the tops. They wouldn't go any where "
Surprised with this order, one worker asks the leader 'Why'. The leader says : " These are Indian chickens. IF one tries to escape, other will pull its leg."
Good One :D
We should concentrate on taking actions. I believe taking a small step in action is better than talking big.
puddonhead
07-30 08:51 AM
Hello IVians,
As we all await our GCs, I thot we can explore some investment vehicles.
Does anyone here have experience with commodity trading?
Can we trade in commodities on H1 or L1 status?
Is it too risky like forex trading?
Who are the online brokers offer commodity trading?
Is there a minimum account balance / trade required every month or so?
Pls share your experience. Thanks!
Commodity trading is probably the most "fundamental driven" (as opposed to being driven by chartists) out of all trading activities I have seen. So theoretically, you are at the least disadvantage in commodities market against the big guys if you know your fundamentals right.
However, the very reason there is less technical trading in that market - lack of liquidity - again works against the average Joe. The most liquid of them - the Crude Oil future in Nymex - has a minimum lot size of 10,000 barrels - worth about $60k now. Any smaller sized derivatives (think of miNY futures etc) - come with significant liquidity or transaction cost penalties.
All in all, I personally think that a rational investor should prefer a market with the following criteria:
1. As much liquidity as possible. A liquid market will make stop loss the least painful. If you are a rational investor - stop loss is your lifeline.
Commodities market is not very liquid. The most liquid market in the world is FX - followed by equities.
2. As little special advantages for the big guys as possible.
The worst offender here is FX. Since these things are not traded in a listed exchanges - the big guys don't have to publish anything other than the bid and ask prices. Talk about a transparent price discovery. :confused: . Commodities market - specially the electricity market - used to have a lot of the opacity which benefited the big guys a few years ago. Some of the recent regulations have done away with much of this. I have personally worked on creating some of these so called "Chinese walls" mandated by new regulations.
That's all of my 2 cents. :)
As we all await our GCs, I thot we can explore some investment vehicles.
Does anyone here have experience with commodity trading?
Can we trade in commodities on H1 or L1 status?
Is it too risky like forex trading?
Who are the online brokers offer commodity trading?
Is there a minimum account balance / trade required every month or so?
Pls share your experience. Thanks!
Commodity trading is probably the most "fundamental driven" (as opposed to being driven by chartists) out of all trading activities I have seen. So theoretically, you are at the least disadvantage in commodities market against the big guys if you know your fundamentals right.
However, the very reason there is less technical trading in that market - lack of liquidity - again works against the average Joe. The most liquid of them - the Crude Oil future in Nymex - has a minimum lot size of 10,000 barrels - worth about $60k now. Any smaller sized derivatives (think of miNY futures etc) - come with significant liquidity or transaction cost penalties.
All in all, I personally think that a rational investor should prefer a market with the following criteria:
1. As much liquidity as possible. A liquid market will make stop loss the least painful. If you are a rational investor - stop loss is your lifeline.
Commodities market is not very liquid. The most liquid market in the world is FX - followed by equities.
2. As little special advantages for the big guys as possible.
The worst offender here is FX. Since these things are not traded in a listed exchanges - the big guys don't have to publish anything other than the bid and ask prices. Talk about a transparent price discovery. :confused: . Commodities market - specially the electricity market - used to have a lot of the opacity which benefited the big guys a few years ago. Some of the recent regulations have done away with much of this. I have personally worked on creating some of these so called "Chinese walls" mandated by new regulations.
That's all of my 2 cents. :)
No comments:
Post a Comment