According to AMT, the participants who can really move the market - those who actually take delivery of all those bushels of grain and barrels of oil - aren't primarily using the market for speculation, but for exchange. So if they are in general agreement about a price zone, they just go about their business. And if speculators try to push price too far from that zone, they get slapped back.
I also think this is a good way to think about it. There are different labels we can assign to it, and different ways to think about it. "The most actively traded price(s)," or "the price(s) at which the most volume transacted" are pretty objective and leave little room for debate as to meaning.
A well-known MP advocate uses the term "the most fair price" when referring to the traditionally-labelled POC (or VPOC as the case may be). I like this way of thinking about the auction, in terms of fairness, because it helps to really bring to life the competitive nature of markets, both in the trading world and in real life.
When my favorite ice cream, which is normally $5.99 per half gallon, goes on sale to $3.49 per half gallon, I am lucky to get it, because by the time I get to the store the supply, which is not great at those prices, has been depleted. The price is unfairly low (at an advantage to the shopper, and a disadvantage to the grocery store). The margin for the ice cream was cut in half, and the grocery store cannot afford to continue a sale like this on an ongoing basis, so the prices will be raised back to the more established fair value of $5.99. $5.99 is not exciting for buyers, because it's not a great deal for them, nor is it exciting for the grocery store, since it's the normal price. It's considered a fair value, since that's the price that most units are sold at. Compared to the volume purchased at $5.99, the volume purchased at $3.49 is definitely less. If it greater, then the normal, fair value in the mind of the consumer would be $3.49, not $5.99.
Competition for low prices by buyers will either lead to prices being raised because there is not enough supply at the low prices, or the lower prices will persist, in which case supply is outweighing demand. At that moment, the prices which were previously considered low begin to be perceived as more fair, and this is where the perception of value shifts ($3.29 gasoline is not so bad when you were paying $3.69 all last year, right?).
Value, fairness... it's all part of the market auction and it's the perception of this that makes AMT an appealing way to model markets.
The following 7 users say Thank You to josh for this post:
Do we have a conflict or a paradox? if a balance area is just a stage of accumulation/distribution then obviously the dominant group is still present but smarter (better at hiding his intention) and has a strong belief on the prospects for the future direction. I do not see any disagreement here.
"According to AMT"? Says who, or which version? I'm not doubting that this has been said, just curious.
A very small portion (would depend on market, but 3% tops is probably a good estimate) of contracts actually result in a delivery. It makes more sense to purchase the commodity in the cash market when it's needed, and hedge against a price increase/decrease by a purchase/sale in the futures market today. Deliveries through the exchange must be inspected, shipped, and it's easier to just sell and buy it locally. So, I don't think there is any logical reason why people would use the futures market for exchange, nor any actual data to substantiate that, which is why futures deliveries are so rare.
The following 3 users say Thank You to josh for this post:
True so they agree on value - but one side is thinking it's a good buying price and the other thinks it's a good selling price. So it is an agreement of sorts.
Another way I've been thinking about it of late is....
Most trading is 2 sided, if you think about it,we range more than we breakout - so in these micro ranges we have people buying and selling over a relatively small range of prices, then one side gets trapped and exits, which causes a move. Once that move is over, the micro range, just regular buying and selling continues until one side gets offside and we move somewhere else.
If you have any questions about the products or services provided, please send me a Private Message or use the futures.io "Ask Me Anything" thread
This is the essence of how markets work, as modeled by AMT (at least on a small scale anyway). Balance leads to imbalance, which leads to balance, and then rinse and repeat.
Yes, but this is potentially only for the very near future; sure, stops will drive the market in one direction temporarily. However, at some point there needs to be continued flow in that direction to ensure that it's not pushed back down. If the new higher prices are seen as "too high" ("unfairly high"), then sellers will pressure the market back down to the previous area of acceptance. If they do not do this, then a new area of balance will be established higher.
The following 2 users say Thank You to josh for this post: