Market news & insights

China’s recent shift in economic policy and its potential for fiscal stimulus reflect an evolving approach to support economic stability. Following previous monetary easing measures, including a reduction in the Reserve Ratio Requirement and interest rate cuts in late September, China’s National People’s Congress (NPC) Standing Committee has now approved a local government debt restructuring plan. This plan allows for up to RMB 10 trillion (~US$2.54 Trillion) in debt adjustments, including a one-time increase of RMB 6 trillion in the special debt ceiling over 2024-2026, and an additional RMB 800 billion in special bond quotas annually from 2024 to 2028.

These measures align with expectations, the catch – it’s estimated to add just 0.1 per cent to China’s GDP. Naturally this left the market disappointed and saw Chinese equities shredded. But it's more than the lack of direct demand-side stimulus.

It’s the vague guidance on the use of bonds for banking sector recapitalisation as well as poor outlining on housing inventory buy-backs, and idle land. It's all a bit, ‘nothing’. Now we admit market expectations had been high, so price falls were inevitable, but the metals prices post-meeting were telling from both a short- and longer-term perspective.

First support for the housing market may be limited in the near term, given that primary home sales for top developers turned positive up 15 per cent year-on-year from June last year and home prices rose slightly 0.4 per cent in 50 cities September to October. Second is a possible trade war and having some powder dry as it gears up for the next four years of a Trump 2.0 administration. Fiscal Stimulus is clearly going to be part of this.

And already we have seen Finance Minister Lan Foan, in comments to the South China Morning Post discussing this very point. He pointed out that China’s Ministry of Finance has a readiness for fiscal expansion starting in 2025 and that China’s current debt-to-GDP ratio (68%) provides fiscal headroom, especially in comparison to Japan (250%) and the U.S. (119%). So is that suggesting it’s a ‘when’ not an ‘if’?

From a trader and markets perspective the answer may come at the Central Economic Work Conference in December is expected to outline specific fiscal measures for 2025, potentially focusing on reducing housing inventory, boosting infrastructure, and enhancing social welfare and consumption. The market consensus is for between RMB 2-3 trillion in fiscal expansion over the next one to two years, likely with an initial emphasis on infrastructure investment over consumption support. We should point out this could be a “fourth strike and you’re out” territory as expectations for delivery since Gold Week celebrations have been 0-3, a fourth miss might see the markets completely ignoring what has been promised.

However if it does eventuate looking historically, such investment-heavy stimulus cycles have bolstered demand for steel and other raw materials. China’s past stimulus responses, particularly during the 2018-19 U.S. tariff period, included fiscal stimulus and currency depreciation, indicating that fiscal policy could adjust in response to global economic factors. However, China’s approach to fiscal expansion this time may differ slightly from past cycles: Reason 1: Steel Demand: Prior fiscal expansions, such as during 2009-2010 and the 2018-19 tariff period, drove strong steel demand growth.

Investment in steel-intensive infrastructure, for example, boosted annual steel demand by approximately 200 million tons (a 30 per cent increase) between 2016 and 2019, raising the steel intensity of GDP by 7 per cent. Given China’s high cumulative steel stock—estimated at around 8.5 tons per capita (approaching developed-nation averages of 8-12 tons per capita)—the scale of future infrastructure investment may be more limited, as large physical projects are increasingly complete and the need for new largest scale projects is moderating. Reason 2: Shift To Consumption and Social Welfare: Since 2018 China has subtly and gradually shifted fiscal efforts toward consumer support and social welfare to address deflation risks.

This shift is likely to accelerate, as policy moves to an emphasis on stimulating internal demand through social spending. Now historically China has often favoured investment-driven stimulus to support GDP growth targets, which could mean another infrastructure-led, steel-intensive approach if economic conditions demand it, albeit possibly on a smaller scale than in the past, but again 0-3 on promises, there are risks it doesn’t materialise this time around. The next part of the story for commodities and a China stimulus story is the impending trade war.

China is clearly facing headwinds for its exports, given the likely policy changes from the second Trump administration. The biggest issues are the 10 per cent tariff on all imports and up to 60 per cent on Chinese goods. The timing and specifics of the tariffs are uncertain, but using his 2016-2020 timelines as a guide it's likely to be one of the first programs enacted and new tariffs could emerge as early as the first half of 2025.

Currently, more than 20 per cent of China’s steel production is tied to exports—11 per cent directly and 12 per cent indirectly through products like machinery and vehicles—any new tariffs on Chinese goods would likely impact steel output and, subsequently, iron ore demand. During the 2018-19 tariff period, China’s direct steel exports to the U.S. declined, but this was balanced by growth in indirect steel exports via manufactured goods and bolstered by domestic infrastructure demand which is hard to see this time around. 2025 strategies China might deploy to counteract any new tariffs could include currency depreciation, reciprocal tariffs, re-routing exports to new markets, and increased fiscal and monetary stimulus. Interestingly the U.S. comprises only 1 per cent of China’s direct steel export market, it the larger share for indirect exports, particularly machinery ~20 per cent that is the issue.

Since 2018, China has expanded its steel-based goods exports by focusing on emerging markets—a resilience that will likely be tested further if tariffs intensify next year. So where does this leave iron ore? Current iron ore prices, hovering around US$100 per tonne, seem to reflect current market fundamentals pretty accurately.

The substantial net short positions in SGX futures, which were prevalent prior to the late-September stimulus, have notably diminished in the past 6 weeks China’s recent policy adjustments have mitigated the downside risks for steel demand for the remainder of 2024. This is coupled with solidifying demand indicators and restocking activities, which may bolster seasonal price strength as the year concludes. Nevertheless, the potential impact of a seasonal price rally may be constrained by relatively high port stock levels, which presently stand at about 41 days of supply which again underscores why price around US$100 a tonne is accurate.

Looking ahead to 2025, the Ministry of Finance in China signalling forthcoming fiscal expansion suggests a potential upside risk. However, potential new tariffs from the U.S. may pose challenges to steel export volumes, potentially counteracting the positive effects of domestic fiscal measures. China’s response to such tariffs—potentially through currency depreciation, trade redirection, or additional fiscal and monetary stimulus—will be crucial in mitigating these pressures.

But this would be a zero-sum game effect. Thus any upside risks are counted by downside risks – this leads us to conclude that China is not going to be the White Knight of the past. And that 2025 is going to be a tale of two competing forces that sees pricing see-sawing around but finding equilibrium at current prices.

This also leads us to point to equities – iron ore and cyclical plays have benefited strongly over the past 24 months on higher prices and the long COVID tail. 2025 appears to be the year that tail ends and a new phase will begin.

For years we have been told that ‘value’ will have its day again. The reasoning is vast, deep value in value versus overpriced growth, pricing in risk is stretched, the ‘free money decade is over, and growth will be left holding the bag. You can take your pick as to what reasoning you use regarding this market conundrum, but the conclusion is this.

Growth is still monstering value. Thus let’s review the ASX 200, one of the clearest ‘value’ plays out there with its high exposure to defensive, value and cycle sectors versus some of it global peers. May saw the ASX 200 index rising by just +0.9% compare this to the +4.8% rebound observed in US equities or European equities that saw gains of between 2% and 6%.

Yes, parts of Europe are more ‘value’ than the US but in the main the ASX’s underperformance is something of a continuing trend of the past decade. The drivers of the global rebound were largely influenced by weaker economic data and comments from the Federal Reserve, which indicated a lower probability of imminent interest rate hikes. Countering that for Asia (and thus Australia) was a weaker than expected rebound in China, an easing in iron ore and overall concern that Asian growth is starting to drag.

Thing is – if you look at the sectors inside the ASX the growth versus value trade is playing out here: Sector Performance Technology (+4.5%): The biggest “growth” area - Technology led the ASX gains, buoyed by the big lead player in the likes of Xero (XRO, +10.6%) and Technology One (TNE, +9.7%) which both release strong earnings numbers in the month. These results underscored the sector's potential for substantial earnings growth despite the pressure from high bond yields, which flies in the face to the macro view that growth is facing a funding issue. Furthermore - The majority of the sector's rise was attributed to actual earnings improvements rather than just price-to-earnings (PE) expansion, which has been seen in places like Staples and Discretionary.

Banks (+3.6%): Each year May is sometime renamed - Bank earning month. The lead up expectations to the release from NAB, ANZ, WBC and Macquarie were mixed. The fears from the market included: the ‘mortgage cliff’, lower new loans and margin risk.

The results even surprised the CEOs with all suggesting they were pleasantly surprise by the ‘resilience’ of banking customers this saw a positive earnings season characterised by lower-than-expected impairments and margins that were not a low as expected. Communications (-2.8%): This sector was the laggard, with a notable -4.6% decline in telecom stocks. The negative performance was driven by Telstra (TLS, -5.4%), which announced a shift away from CPI-linked post-paid mobile pricing, causing market concerns.

If there was ever a stock that highlights ‘value’ that isn’t value TLS, is it. Low project pipeline and the prospect of flat earnings and a high payout ratio makes TLS that stock that is siting no-mans-land. Key Stock Performances Aristocrat Leisure (ALL, +13.5%): ALL was the standout performer in the ASX 50, following a strong first-half 2024 earnings beat and the announcement of a strategic review of its subsidiaries BigFish and Plarium.

Negative Surprises: Several stocks experienced significant declines due to disappointing earnings. These included James Hardie Industries (JHX, -13.7%) and Sonic Healthcare (SHL, -9.1%) among large caps, and Bapcor (BAP, -26.5%), Eagers Automotive (APE, -19.9%), and Fletcher Building (FBU, -18.2%) among smaller caps. All had structural reasons for there declines – but in the main these are players are exposed to cyclical issues and either can’t grow or are areas of economic slowdown.

Getting back to market momentum Looking at the market action and momentum in May there was something of note. Buying ‘speed’ – that being a measure of positive equity market sentiment, increased to 1.21 in May from 0.68 in April, indicating heightened investor enthusiasm despite the underperformance versus global peers. Historically, when buying speed exceeds 1, ASX forward returns tend to fall below average over the following year, suggesting a potential risk of a market correction.

Additionally, June is traditionally a weaker month for ASX equity returns, often impacted by tax loss selling and other end of financial year movements. Other influences Despite a higher-than-expected CPI print in May, rate expectation interestingly enough moved into a slight dovish position (if only just). ASX Cash Futures are currently indicating a 5% chance of a 25-basis point rate cut in June.

This might not seem relevant but it i a shift from a previously expected 3% chance of a rate hike. This fluctuating expectation reflects ongoing uncertainty in the economic outlook is creating a risk level in bond and fixed income markets that hasn’t been seen for months. The conclusion from this is the RBA’s job is far from over and that market is clearly confused about when a rate movement in either direction will occur.

This makes the ASX momentum that much hard to gauge as it is now competing with markets that are facing definite cuts in 2024. This can explain Europe’s outperformance as during the month of May the ECB has all but declared that it will cut rates in the coming meetings even as soon as the month. While the Riksbank cut rates for the first time in over half a decade seeing the Swedish bank being the second central bank in the G10 to cut rates in 2024 behind the SNB.

The take outs? While May saw a positive, albeit modest, performance for ASX equities, driven primarily by strong earnings in the technology sector, there are several indicators suggesting caution in the coming period. The significant increase in buying euphoria points to a possible weaker June performance highlight the potential for a near-term market correction.

Then there is the cash allocation between global markets. With the slowing Chinese economy being a persistent issue, the “higher for longer” position from the RBA and then Europe and the US facing recharged economic conditions funds are likely to shift once again to the areas of growth seeing the ASX once again underperforming. Thus investors should be mindful of these risks, particularly with upcoming earnings reports and central bank decisions on the horizon.

We have been scratching our heads as to what exactly drove some of the strong price action in pairs, equities and bonds off the back of a further hawkish turn from the Fed at its June meeting. So, what exactly has promoted the moves on markets and what else should we as traders acknowledge from the Fed meeting First Powell has pointed to a positive change in the latest CPI inflation report. The 3.3% year on year rate was better than expected and is finally moving back in the right direction after the first quarter saw raises rather than declines.

Chair Powell's comments at the press conference leaned more dovish, emphasising "broad" labour market data indicating that the labour market had returned to a pre-pandemic balance. He noted that further loosening might be seen as unnecessary and expressed no concern about an overly strong labour market despite recent robust payroll readings. Here is a decent chunk of his message: "If the economy remains solid and inflation persists we're prepared to maintain the target range for the federal funds rate as long as appropriate.

If the labour market were to weaken unexpectedly or if inflation were to fall more quickly than anticipated, we're prepared to respond. Policy is well positioned to deal with the risks and uncertainties that we face in pursuing both sides of our dual mandate. We'll continue to make our decisions meeting by meeting based on the totality of the data and its implications for the economic outlook and the balance of risks," However, he cautioned that there are clearly big areas of concern namely, owner's equivalent rent (OER) did not decelerate (again) and with an 5.3% annual rate in the latest release it is eons away from where the board needs it to be.

If OER continues at this pace, it will be challenging for the FOMC to bring inflation sustainably back to 2% or gain confidence that it is heading there. Chair Powell emphasised the need for consistent structural data reasoning to move – clear in this quote "One reading isn't enough. You don't want to be too motivated by any single data point." This is pretty clearly reflected in the latest Dot Plot, which is now signalling only cut in 2024 down from 3 at the March meeting.

We have highlighted that in the orange and blue lines that shows the marked difference between the two. The critical question now is whether there is sufficient data for the September FOMC meeting to justify starting the rate cut cycle in 2024. You only have to look at the record highs in US indices and the collapse in US yields to think September is near enough to a certainty.

Is this the view of the FOMC? The Committee will receive three more employment reports and three more CPI reports before the September meeting. Given their preference for communicating actions ahead of time, the timing of the first-rate cut will be significant and well flagged.

If you look back at the dot plots there is something clearly communicated there. Currently, 11 out of 19 board members expect to hold rates until December or even into 2025. Thus, as the majority see a holding pattern you could even argue that waiting for the fourth CPI and employment report plus 2 quarterly GDP reports if the board was to wait until November would be a more likely outcome.

Of the eight participants who favour two rate cuts this year, it's estimated that this includes three to five regional Fed Presidents that are non-voting members and have minimal influence on policy. All things being equal and judging by his public comments and history Powell is likely among those favouring a single cut, he will need to build consensus among the board members that are voting members and that appears easier said than done considering several of these players are hawks and will sit in the group that is holding rates out to 2025. To realistically consider a rate cut in September, a significant shift in data is needed in the next two months.

This is why we are asking the market – is less more? Less cuts, less clarity on inflation but clear drive into bullish positions? We know not to ‘fight momentum and the trend’.

But it is also prudent to stop and ask if a swing back is likely. Unless there is a substantial weakening in growth and employment the prospects of a September cut look poor. And, given the FOMC's cautious approach over the past 18 months and substantial lead time required for such decisions.

The consensus forecast in the labour market, sees moderation not a rapid decline, which does not support a rate cut in September. Thus mind the blow back as this concept builds momentum and shoves markets back the other way. So, what exactly has moved the dial in markets to be so positive?

We think it’s the comments he made during his press conference that somewhat poured cold water on what have traditionally been seen as bedrock data. First - Powell downplayed the importance of the Fed's summary of economic projections (SEP) and the "dots," describing them as mere possibilities. This feels like the good old days of the Yellen era where she too would remind everyone that forecasts are just that forecasts not actuals.

Will point to something that might have been missed – he also stated that officials could revise forecasts and dots after the release of CPI data, though " most don’t." Here are some of the key revisions in the SEP - an expected increase in core PCE inflation from 2.6% to 2.8%, reflecting higher-than-expected inflation in Q1 remembering that this is the measure the Fed needs to at or around 2%. The unemployment rate and GDP growth were left unchanged at 4.0% and 2.1%, respectively. Second – The dot plot projections showed an upward revision of 25 basis points for 2025.

Really this is just a push back of the rate expectation for this year. But and it is a large and consistent but – The dot plots suggest once the cuts begin the path of quarterly rate cuts once they begin cuts will be rather consistent. This view has not changed since reaching the peak of the hike cycle.

So if this is indeed the case – market positioning is banking on this time next year being the ‘middle’ of a significant rate cutting cycle.

We know that this is slightly contrary to the consensus views but we think it needs to be said. The communication from the RBA (Reserve Bank of Australia) is unusually unclear, confusing and conflicted. The view conveyed in statement, press conference and minutes currently we would argue counter each other.

And the reason for this we believe is because the RBA is a reluctant hawk and is frightened to act. Let us now present why we think this and what it will mean for FX and yields in particular. The RBA has just completed a mass review of its operations and one of the key changes was to improve transparency.

This included press conferences, extended meetings, and more public discussions from members. The catch with this has been the mixed communications. Take for example the statement which was extremely ambiguous.

It was filled with terms like uncertainty, mixed signals, and complexity. It explains why the statement has this line: ‘the path of interest rates that will best ensure that inflation returns to target in a reasonable timeframe remains uncertain and the Board is not ruling anything in or out.’ That’s fair – things are complex and we understand why the board is waiting for more data. That was countered with this: ‘ The Board remains resolute in its determination to return inflation to target and will do what is necessary to achieve that outcome.’ Historically, whenever the Board has included such a resolute statement in its communications, they followed up with a cut or a hike in the preceding meetings – the frightened hawk is there and strongly suggests that a rate hike is likely.

The initial AUD reaction to the statement we think shows why the communication is mixed. Then take the press conference – Governor Bullock’s were much stronger than the statement, indicating a significant stance, not really clear in the statement. As mentioned, the Board stated they are not ruling anything in or out, but in reality, they have dismissed the possibility of rate cuts.

That was confirmed when Bullock was asked on this exact point and confirmed that rate hikes were the only things discussed. There was no ongoing discussion about cuts in the near or medium term as they do not expect inflation to reach their target by mid-2026. The Board’s concern is that inflation is notably higher than expected, employment is solid and that overall demand is still generating inflation.

The reaction to all this was clear here: The next notable reaction was the interbank market. All though it doesn’t appear like much in this chart. Please understand this change is actually from a ‘cut’ to ‘hike’ so yes there is a 10% chance of a hike, that is from a 10% chance of a cut.

July will be crucial with substantial data releases, including the second quarter CPI (July 31), GDP figures, and the wage price index. Current forecasts suggest that inflation and employment are performing better than expected, raising concerns about the need for a potential harder landing in the economy to return inflation back to target. The focus is now shifting towards slowing down the economy further despite the per capita recession because in the RBA’s view the impact on the household’s price power in the future from high inflation is still too high.

Future Rate Decisions All things being equal – with the RBA turning itself in knots and trying so hard to stay the course the RBA's commentary suggests it still has preference to hold rates if possible. The big issue as it acknowledges is the possible need for near term tightening due to a lack of progress towards inflation targets. Here is the market’s forecast for rates post the meeting on Tuesday Which probably explains the AUD/USD reactions in the following 24 hours It flatlined – thus the market is telling us that it needs a catalyst, and those catalysts are clearly coming in July.

So to finish what’s the key? A significant upside surprise in the RBA's core inflation measure could lead to a rate hike, despite slowing demand and labour market conditions. We get the monthly inflation data next week, this will be the first strike then the July 31 quarterly read.

This will be huge and will be the biggest AUD mover outside of an RBA meeting. We will be providing as much information on this release the closer we get to the release. However as shown the RBA is a terrified hawk and without this inflation beat, the risk of further tightening diminishes, with expectations for the RBA to remain on hold until potentially the first rate cut in February 2025.

The next RBA meeting on August 6 it’s going to be an interesting 6 weeks for AUD traders ahead of what is a likely live event.

Entries for longer-term stock investment approaches can be based on either long-term technical trends or more commonly, fundamental data related to a company’s current and projected performance. Despite the plethora of such suggestions, there is often a lack of clear guidance, or even a complete absence, of instructions on determining the timing of an exit from a long-term position. Logically, whether it’s a short-term technical entry or long-term fundamental entry, many of the “rules of the game” are similar, including the need for clear and unambiguous exit strategies seems paramount for consistently positive investment outcomes.

The approach originally used to make an entry decision can serve as a good starting point but there are other considerations that can potentially benefit outcomes. This article aims to briefly describe six potential exit approaches you could consider, providing some detail and examples as to how to action your chosen approach. Target Price Exit Strategy Setting Targets: Determine a fair value (and thus exit price target) by conducting in-depth fundamental analysis, utilizing metrics like Price-to-Earnings ratio (P/E), Cash flow, debt levels, book value, or longer-term technical levels.

On-going monitoring: Regularly track the price against this target. For example, if you calculate a fair value for a stock at $50, and it’s currently trading at $45, you might decide to sell once it reaches or exceeds $50. Other Considerations: Regularly review and adjust the target price, taking into account changes in fundamental factors impacting the relevant sector or market as a whole.

Ongoing Fundamental Awareness Ongoing Analysis: Continuously evaluate underlying fundamentals, such as earnings, balance sheets, cash flow, and management quality. Be vigilant not only when next company reporting dates are due but also for the often-unpredictable release of operational updates or changes in guidance. Trigger Points: Identify specific company indicators or information that would prompt an exit.

An example of this may be a sustained decline in revenue or mounting debt levels, particularly when beyond what was originally expected. Other Considerations: Implementing this strategy requires consistent research and a nuanced understanding of the particular business and industry factors influencing the investment. Having the optimum resources in place to be able to do this is vital and identifying these should be a primary goal of any fundamental investor.

Economic & Sector Changes On-going Analysis: Regularly review broader economic indicators like GDP growth, inflation, interest rates, or industry trends. Understand how such changes in these key data points may correlate with the asset price and establish exit criteria accordingly.For example, you may reconsider a position in a technology stock if there’s a widespread shift away from tech spending or growth concerns or regulatory changes that detrimentally affect the sector. Other Considerations: This strategy necessitates a broad understanding of economic cycles, industry dynamics, and how these elements interact with your particular investment holdings.

Additionally, it’s worth noting that appropriate resources should be in place to ascertain this as proactively as possible, or at worst in a timely manner. This may assist in preventing excess depreciation in asset price to the point where action is delayed and major capital damage has occurred. Dividend Targeted Approaches On-going Analysis: If part of your entry criteria and anticipated return from fundamental analysis-oriented trades is based on dividend yield to some degree, it is worthwhile to not only look at what is current but also perform ongoing evaluation of the reliability and/or growth of dividends.

Exit Criteria: Having established an expected return, it logically makes sense to have criteria in place to help decision making. For example a decrease in dividend yield below a certain threshold or a cut in dividends could be part of your potential exit plan for a specific investment. Other Considerations: As well as vigilance for the timing of company announcements where dividend changes are often announced, awareness of the yield of your current investment compared to others, and industry trends is required, as they could influence the sector and the market as a whole.

Time-Based Exits On-going Analysis: Often with time-based exits, there is alignment with a particular impending event. Examples of this type of event include a shift to EVs from petrol-fuelled cars or the impact on assets in the lead-up to an election. Either way, your investment time horizon needs to be reviewed should there be a change in circumstances and the rationale behind your initial thinking on entry.

Other Considerations: There is a discipline involved in exiting from a stock position that remains strong even after an event, or the impact of such, has passed. With a systematic approach to fundamental entries in place, it is legitimate to review whether other fundamental approach criteria are met and perhaps consider continuing to hold. Without this in place, or if no match with other approaches exists, logic would dictate that a planned exit is an exit, and you should action it as such, no matter how well this specific position has served you to date.

Portfolio Rebalancing On-going Analysis: Although not based on a specific entry approach, periodically evaluate your overall portfolio asset allocation is prudent. Reviewing whether the current holdings are still a fit with long-term investment aims and risk tolerance in current and ongoing market circumstances are appropriate rebalancing considerations. Rebalancing Exit Approach: Criteria for rebalancing should be pre-planned and clearly defined.

These may require consideration of multiple factors, such as an asset becoming an excessive portion of the portfolio on good performance, or changes in market or economic circumstances that threaten specific portions of the portfolio. Other Considerations: Continuous monitoring of the portfolio is required, and checking continuing congruence with desired asset allocation and your risk profile is vital. Rather than based on a specific entry approach, just to reinforce that the concept of rebalancing is one that is important across all of the approaches described above.

Summary Although they receive little “airplay” in comparison to technical approaches and exits, the exit strategies within a portfolio based on fundamental analysis entries are multifaceted, frequently interconnected, and equally important to master. Crafting a proficient exit system demands a comprehensive knowledge of each specific investment holding, and wider market and economic dynamics, in the context of your personal investment objectives, and risk tolerance. The need for a set of written system criteria for all actions, regular monitoring, thorough analysis, and disciplined adherence to predetermined exit criteria are essential.

Ideally, as traders, our aim is often to identify potential entries at the start of a new trend (so “first in the queue”) and exit at the end of that trend. Of course, we often will identify a price move where a trend may already be established and are therefore faced with the decision as to “join in” mid-trend (we hope) with the aim of catching the rest of a trend move. The concern of this approach is of course the fear of potentially entering just prior to that trend changing.

There are “clues” we can use, such as candle body/wick size and volume which may help, but also there is a group of indicators termed ‘oscillators’ which work on the idea that there are points in a price move which the underlying asset (be it a Forex pair or CFD) may be overbought (and hence a long trade could be deemed riskier), and oversold (where a short trade may be termed riskier). Although the Relative Strength Index (RSI) which we covered previous in an article (review "Adding the RSI to your entry or exit trading plan? "), is possibly a more commonly used oscillator for determining oversold and overbought situations, the stochastic although possibly seen as being slightly more complex, does appear to be frequently used by more experienced traders. This article aims to shed some light on how this indicator is used and what it may be showing you relative to price movement.

What is the stochastic trying to tell us? As with the RSI the Stochastic is an oscillator (whose value can theoretically lie between 0-100) which has identified key levels which may indicate whether a particular asset is overbought or oversold. A move into either of these two “zones” may suggest a trend change is more likely to be imminent.

The key levels are below 20 (oversold) and above 80 (overbought). See below a 30-minute chart for GBP/USD with the stochastic added using the default system settings (we have added horizontal lines from the drawing tools to make the key levels clearer. We will discuss settings later and the additional line but at a simple level, taking the blue line on the stochastic if it moves below 20, then you would be cautious and perhaps avoid entering a short trade (examples A and B), and perhaps avoid entering a long trade if it moves above 80 (see example C).

And the other dotted line? There are two lines that form the stochastic namely: %K (usually a solid line) – In this case blue as previously referenced above. %D (usually a dotted line) and is a moving average of %K (often set as an exponential) Slowing periods may also be set (default is 3). As a rule, the slower (bigger number the less “noisy” i.e. you will see less overbought and oversold conditions).

And how can it be used? a. As an additional entry criteria “tick” As referenced earlier, for entry, traders may use this as an additional tick (when other indicators may suggest entry) to make sure they do not enter a long trade on an overbought currency pair/CFD, or short trade on an oversold currency pair/CFD. b. As a warning to prepare for exit action in an open trade Though less commonly discussed, it would appear logical that if in a long trade for example and the Stochastic moves into an over-bought position this could be a warning to consider exit (more commonly used as a signal to tighten a trailing stop loss) c.

As a primary reversal signal Additionally, some traders may look to buy when moving out of an oversold situation when the EMA dotted line crosses the solid blue line. (and of course, the reverse when overbought). It would be rare to use this in isolation with no other indicators, using increasing volume, and candle change recognition would often be used also. The relatively fast default settings (5,3,3) may merit some review anyway but particularly in this case.

Which settings? As with any indicator you are in control of the settings and what you use for you is of course your choice. With the chart below, we have used the default 5,3,3 and added a 21,7, 7 to illustrate the difference of a less noisy set of perimeters.

In Summary Ultimately, and to finish, it is of course your choice as to which criteria you use for entry and exit. Remember, whatever these are for you, the key lessons of: a. specifically identifying how you are to use the criteria within your plan, b. the importance of forward-testing (as well as back-testing) of any system change, c. and of course, the discipline of following through are ALL critical whether you use the Stochastic, RSI or neither.