What is going on with Taiwan? Taiwan is back in the news after US speaker of the house Nancy Pelosi visited the country causing a fiery reaction from the mainland of China. Historical background In order to understand the causes of the China/Taiwan tension, some historical perspective is needed.
The current tension stems from the Chinese civil war 1927 – 1949 where Mao Zedong’s Communist army and Chiang Kai- Shek’s Republic of China army fought in a series of intermittent battles to secure control of mainland China. As the Communist army began to gain ascendancy, Chiang Kai–Shek and the Republic of China movement was forced into exile to Taiwan. Since this exile and lasting until today, a long-standing military and political standoff has been in place between the two countries with each claiming to be the rightful controller of China.
In recent years, China has attempted to expand its influence and places such as Hong Kong have seen Beijing challenge its sovereignty the pressure has been building on Taiwan. At times of increased tension, China has conducted military exercises in the Taiwan Strait to act as a ‘warning’ to Taiwan and the West that it may be treading too close to China’s political interests. Current Day Events Nancy Pelosi became the first US speaker of the House to visit Taiwan in more than 25 years.
The visit by Pelosi, whilst not necessarily threatening is an act that supports the legitimacy of Taiwan as a democratic, sovereign government. Pelosi challenged the essence of China’s communist regime and stated, “Today the world faces a choice between democracy and autocracy.” However, the speaker did not go as far as to offer any specific military support to protect against an aggressive response from the CCP.. Any act of economic or military support has the potential to draw an aggressive response from the CCP.
Why does this matter? Traders and investors do not have to look too far to see what can happen to the market if geopolitical conflict breaks out. It is still only a few months on since the Russia and Ukraine conflict broke out.
After the initial invasions, commodity prices soared as sanctions were placed on Russia and supply chains were placed under pressure. The market is still trying to adjust to these consequences today. In addition, the Ruble took a huge hit and Moscow Exchange had to be closed as countries placed sanctions on Russia and its monetary system.
If China was to invade Taiwan it is reasonable to expect economic sanctions will follow. With China being such a huge player in the global supply chain, it may have a larger effect on commodity prices. The Ukraine conflict showed the world how fragile global supply chains can be when conflict strikes.
Specifically, Gas, Grain, Oil rocketed in price. Regarding Taiwan and China, a large portion of the world semi- conductors are produced in Taiwan which means that there could be disastrous consequences that may ensure should war breakout. A more detailed discussion on the impact that a shortage of semiconductors may have can be found below. https://www.gomarkets.com/au/articles/economic-updates/semi-conductor-supply-crunch/ Similarly, the Yuan may take a hit with any kind of escalation in conflict.
Therefore, traders should be aware of the conflict and ongoing tensions as trading opportunities may eventuate. The USDCNH can be traded on Go Markets platforms.
By
GO Markets
The information provided is of general nature only and does not take into account your personal objectives, financial situations or needs. Before acting on any information provided, you should consider whether the information is suitable for you and your personal circumstances and if necessary, seek appropriate professional advice. All opinions, conclusions, forecasts or recommendations are reasonably held at the time of compilation but are subject to change without notice. Past performance is not an indication of future performance. Go Markets Pty Ltd, ABN 85 081 864 039, AFSL 254963 is a CFD issuer, and trading carries significant risks and is not suitable for everyone. You do not own or have any interest in the rights to the underlying assets. You should consider the appropriateness by reviewing our TMD, FSG, PDS and other CFD legal documents to ensure you understand the risks before you invest in CFDs. These documents are available here.
免责声明：文章来自 GO Markets 分析师和参与者，基于他们的独立分析或个人经验。表达的观点、意见或交易风格仅代表作者个人，不代表 GO Markets 立场。建议，（如有），具有“普遍”性，并非基于您的个人目标、财务状况或需求。在根据建议采取行动之前，请考虑该建议（如有）对您的目标、财务状况和需求的适用程度。如果建议与购买特定金融产品有关，您应该在做出任何决定之前了解并考虑该产品的产品披露声明 (PDS) 和金融服务指南 (FSG)。
The United States entered a government shutdown on October 1, 2025, after Congress failed to agree on full-year appropriations or a short-term funding bill. Although shutdowns have occurred before, the timing, speed, scale, and motives behind this one make it unique. This is the first shutdown since the last Trump term in 2018–19, which lasted 35 days, the longest in history.For traders, understanding both the mechanics and the ripple effects is essential to anticipating how markets may respond, particularly if the shutdown draws out to multiple weeks as currently anticipated.
What Is a Government Shutdown?
A government shutdown occurs when Congress fails to pass appropriation bills or a temporary extension to fund government operations for the new fiscal year beginning October 1.Without the legal authority to spend, federal agencies must suspend “non-essential” operations, while “essential” services such as national security, air traffic control, and public safety continue, often with employees working unpaid until funding is restored.Since the Government Employee Fair Treatment Act of 2019, federal employees are guaranteed back pay to cover lost wages once the shutdown ends, although there has been some narrative from the current administration that some may not be returning to work at all.
Why Did the Government Shutdown Happen?
The 2025 impasse stems from partisan disputes over spending levels, health-insurance subsidies, and proposed rescissions of foreign aid and other programs. The reported result is that around 900,000 federal workers are furloughed, and another 700,000 are currently working without pay.Unlike many past standoffs, there was no stopgap agreement to keep the government open while negotiations continued, making this shutdown more disruptive and unusually early.
Why an Early Shutdown?
Historically, most shutdowns don’t occur immediately on October 1. Lawmakers typically kick the can down the road with a “Continuing Resolution (CR)”. This is a stopgap measure that can extend existing funding for weeks or months to allow time for an agreement later in the quarter.The speed of the breakdown in 2025, with no CR in place, is unusual compared to past shutdowns. It suggests it was not simply budgetary drift, but a potentially deliberate refusal to extend funding.
Alternative Theories Behind the Early Shutdown
While the main narrative coming from the U.S. administrators points to budget deadlock, several other theories are being discussed across the media:
Executive Leverage – The White House may be using the shutdown as a tool to increase bargaining power and force structural policy changes. Health care is central to the debate, funding for which was impacted significantly by the “one big, beautiful bill” recently passed through Congress.
Hardline Congressional Factions – Small but influential groups within Congress, particularly on the right, may be driving the shutdown to demand deeper cuts.
Political Messaging – The blame game is rife, despite the reality that Republican control of the presidency, House, and Senate, as well as both sides, is indulging in the usual political barbs aimed at the other side. As for the voter impact, Recent polls show that voters are placing more blame on Republicans than Democrats at this point, though significant numbers of Americans suggest both parties are responsible
Debt Ceiling Positioning – Creating a fiscal crisis early could shape the terms of future negotiations on borrowing limits.
Electoral Calculus – With midterms ahead, both sides may be positioning to frame the narrative for voters.
Systemic Dysfunction – A structural view is that shutdowns have become a recurring feature of hyper-partisan U.S. politics, rather than exceptions.
Short-Term Impact of Government Shutdown
AreaImpactFederal workforceHundreds of thousands have been furloughed with reduced services across various agencies.Travel & aviationFAA expects to furlough 11,000 staff. Inspections and certifications may stall. Safety concerns may become more acute if prolonged shutdown.Economic outputThe White House estimates a $15 billion GDP loss per week of shutdown (source: internal document obtained by “Politico”.Consumer spendingFederal workers and contractors face delayed income, pressuring local economies. Economic data releaseKey data releases may be delayed, impacting the decision process at the Fed meeting later this month.Credit outlookScope Ratings and others warn that the shutdown is “negative for credit” and could weigh on U.S. borrowing costs.Projects & researchInfrastructure, grants, and scientific initiatives are delayed or paused.
Medium- to Long-Term Impact of Government Shutdown
1. Market Sentiment
Shutdowns show some degree of U.S. political dysfunction. They can weigh on confidence and subsequently equity market and risk asset sentiment. To date, markets are shrugging off a prolonged impact, but a continued shutdown into later next week could start to impact.Equity markets have remained strong, and there has been no evidence of the frequent seasonal pullback we often see around this time of year.Markets have proved resilient to date, but one wonders whether this could be a catalyst for some significant selling to come.
2. Borrowing Costs
Ratings downgrades could lift Treasury yields and increase debt-servicing costs. The Federal Reserve is already balancing sticky inflation and potential downward pressure on growth. This could make rate decisions more difficult.
3. The Impact on the USD
Rises in treasury yields would generally support the USD. However, rising concerns about fiscal stability created by a prolonged shutdown may put further downward pressure on the USD. Consequently, it is likely to result in buying into gold as a safe haven. With gold already testing record highs repeatedly over the last weeks, this could support further moves to the upside.
4. Credibility Erosion
Repeated shutdowns weaken the U.S.’s reputation as the world’s most reliable borrower. With some evidence that tariffs are already impacting trade and investment into the US, a prolonged shutdown could exacerbate this further.
What Traders Should Watch
For those who trade financial markets, shutdowns matter more for what they could signal both in the short and medium term. Here are some of the key asset classes to watch:
Equities: Likely to see volatility as political risk rises, and the potential for “money off the table” after significant gains year-to-date for equities.
U.S. Dollar: With the US dollar already relatively weak, further vulnerability if a shutdown feeds global doubts about U.S. fiscal stability.
Gold and other commodities: May continue to gain as hedges against political and credit risk. Oil is already threatening support levels; any prolonged shutdown may add to the bearish narrative, along with other economic slowdown concerns
Outside the US: With the US such a big player in global GDP, we may see revisions in forward-looking estimates, slingshot impacts on other global markets and even supply chain disruptions with impact on customs services (potentially inflationary).
Final Word
The 2025 shutdown is unusual because of its scale and because it started on Day 1 of the fiscal year, without even a temporary extension. That speed points to a deeper strategic and political contribution beyond the usual budget wrangling that we see periodically.For traders, the lesson is clear: shutdowns are not just what happens in Washington, but may impact confidence, borrowing costs, and market sentiment across a range of asset classes. In today’s world, where political credibility is a form of capital, shutdowns have the potential to erode the very foundation of the U.S.’s role in global finance and trade relationships.
The “Magnificent Seven” technology companies are expected to invest a combined $385 billion into AI by the end of 2025.Each of the Seven is trying to carve out its own territory in the AI landscape.Microsoft is positioning itself as the platform leader. Nvidia dominates the underlying AI infra. Google leads in research. Meta is building open-source tech. Amazon – AI agents. Apple — on-device integration. And Tesla pioneering autonomous vehicles and robots.But with these enormous sums pouring into AI, is this a winner-take-all game? Or will each of the Mag Seven be able to thrive in the AI future?[caption id="attachment_712288" align="aligncenter" width="554"]
The “Big 4” tech companies' AI spending alone is forecast at $364 billion.[/caption]
Microsoft: The AI Everywhere Strategy
Microsoft has made one of the biggest bets on AI out of the Mag Seven — adopting the philosophy that AI should be everywhere.Through its deep partnership with OpenAI, of which it is a 49% shareholder, the company has integrated GPT-5 across its entire ecosystem.Key initiatives:
GPT-5 integration across consumer, enterprise, and developer tools through Microsoft 365 Copilot, GitHub Copilot, and Azure AI Foundry
Azure AI Foundry for unified AI development platform with model router technology
Copilot ecosystem spanning productivity, coding, and enterprise applications with real-time model selection
$100 billion projected AI infrastructure spending for 2025
Microsoft’s centerpiece is Copilot, which can now detect whether a prompt requires advanced reasoning and route to GPT-5's deeper reasoning model. This (theoretically) means high-quality AI outputs become invisible infrastructure rather than a skill users need to learn.However, this all-in bet on OpenAI does come with some risks. It is putting all its eggs in OpenAI's basket, tying its future success to a single partnership.[caption id="attachment_712289" align="aligncenter" width="530"]
Elon Musk warned that "OpenAI is going to eat Microsoft alive"[/caption]
Google: The Research Strategy
Google’s approach is to fund research to build the most intelligent models possible. This research-first strategy creates a pipeline from scientific discovery to commercial products — what it hopes will give it an edge in the AI race.Key initiatives:
Over 4 million developers building with Gemini 2.5 Pro and Flash
Ironwood TPU offering 3,600 times better performance compared to Google’s first TPU
AI search overviews reaching 2 billion monthly users across Google Search
DeepMind breakthroughs: AlphaEvolve for algorithm discovery, Aeneas for ancient text interpretation, AlphaQubit for quantum error detection, and AI co-scientist systems
Google’s AI research branch, DeepMind, brings together two of the world's leading AI research labs — Google Brain and DeepMind — the former having invented the Transformer architecture that underpins almost all modern large language models. The bet is that breakthrough research in areas like quantum computing, protein folding, and mathematical reasoning will translate into a competitive advantage for Google.
Today, we're introducing AlphaEarth Foundations from @GoogleDeepMind , an AI model that functions like a virtual satellite which helps scientists make informed decisions on critical issues like food security, deforestation, and water resources. AlphaEarth Foundations provides a… pic.twitter.com/L1rk2Z5DKk
Meta has made a somewhat contrarian bet in its approach to AI: giving away their tech for free. The company's Llama 4 models, including recently released Scout and Maverick, are the first natively multi-modal open-weight models available.Key initiatives:
Llama 4 Scout and Maverick - first open-weight natively multi-modal models
AI Studio that enables the creation of hundreds of thousands of AI characters
$65-72 billion projected AI infrastructure spending for 2025
This open-source strategy directly challenges the closed-source big players like GPT and Claude. By making AI models freely available, Meta is essentially commoditizing what competitors are trying to monetize. Meta's bet is that if AI models become commoditized, the real value will be in the infrastructure that sits on top. Meta's social platforms and massive user base give it a natural advantage if this eventuates.Meta's recent quarter was also "the best example to date of AI having a tangible impact on revenue and earnings growth at scale," according to tech analyst Gene Munster. [caption id="attachment_712301" align="aligncenter" width="996"]
H1 relative performance of the Magnificent Seven stocks. Source: KoyFin, Finimize[/caption]However, it hasn’t been all smooth sailing for Meta. Their most anticipated release, Llama Behemoth, has all but been scrapped due to performance issues. And Meta is now rumored to be developing a closed-source Behemoth alternative, despite their open-source mantra.
Amazon: The AI Agent Strategy
Amazon’s strategy is to build the infrastructure for AI that can take actions — booking meetings, processing orders, managing workflows, and integrating with enterprise systems. Rather than building the best AI model, Amazon has focused its efforts on becoming the platform where all AI models live.Key initiatives:
Amazon Bedrock offering 100+ foundation models from leading AI companies, including OpenAI models.
$100 million additional investment in AWS Generative AI Innovation Center for agentic AI development
Amazon Bedrock AgentCore enabling deployment and scaling of AI agents with enterprise-grade security
$118 billion projected AI infrastructure spending for 2025
The goal is to become the “orchestrator” that lets companies mix and match the best models for different tasks. Amazon’s AgentCore will provide the underlying memory management, identity controls, and tool integration needed for these companies to deploy AI agents safely at scale.This approach offers flexibility, but does carry some risks. Amazon is essentially positioning itself as the middleman for AI. If AI models become commoditized or if companies prefer direct relationships with AI providers, Amazon's systems could become redundant.
Nvidia: The Infra Strategy
Nvidia is the one selling the shovels for the AI gold rush. While others in the Mag Seven battle to build the best AI models and applications, Nvidia provides the fundamental computing infrastructure that makes all their efforts possible. This hardware-first strategy means Nvidia wins regardless of which company ultimately dominates. As AI advances and models get larger, demand for Nvidia's chips only increases.Key initiatives:
Blackwell architecture achieving $11 billion in Q2 2025 revenue, the fastest product ramp in company history
New chip roadmap: Blackwell Ultra (H2 2025), Vera Rubin (H2 2026), Rubin Ultra (H2 2027)
Data center revenue reaching $35.6 billion in Q2, representing 91% of total company sales
Manufacturing scale-up with 350 plants producing 1.5 million components for Blackwell chips
With an announced product roadmap of Blackwell Ultra (2025), Vera Rubin (2026), and Rubin Ultra (2027), Nvidia has created a system where the AI industry must continuously upgrade to Nvidia’s newest tech to stay competitive.This also means that Nvidia, unlike the others in the Mag Seven, has almost no direct AI spending — it is the one selling, not buying.However, Nvidia is not indestructible. The company recently halted its H20 chip production after the Chinese government effectively blocked the chip, which was intended as a workaround to U.S. export controls.
Apple: The On-Device Strategy
Apple's AI strategy is focused on privacy, integration, and user experience. Apple Intelligence, the AI system built into iOS, uses on-device processing and Private Cloud Compute to help ensure user data is protected when using AI.Key initiatives:
Apple Intelligence with multi-model on-device processing and Private Cloud Compute
Enhanced Siri with natural language understanding and ChatGPT integration for complex queries
Direct developer access to on-device foundation models, enabling offline AI capabilities
$10-11 billion projected AI infrastructure spending for 2025
The drawback of this on-device approach is that it requires powerful hardware from the user's end. Apple Intelligence can only run on devices with a minimum of 8GB RAM, creating a powerful upgrade cycle for Apple but excluding many existing users.
Tesla: The Robo Strategy
Tesla's AI strategy focuses on two moonshot applications: Full Self-Driving vehicles and humanoid robots.This is the 'AI in the physical world' play. While others in the Mag Seven are focused on the digital side of AI, Tesla is building machines that use AI for physical operations.[caption id="attachment_712292" align="aligncenter" width="537"]
Tesla’s Optimus robot replicating human tasks[/caption]Key initiatives:
Plans for 5,000-10,000 Optimus robots in 2025, scaling to 50,000 in 2026
Robotaxi service targeting availability to half the U.S. population by EOY 2025
AI6 chip development with Samsung for unified training across vehicles, robots, and data centers
$5 billion projected AI infrastructure spending for 2025
This play is exponentially harder to develop than digital AI, and the markets have reflected low confidence that Tesla can pull it off. TSLA has been the worst-performing Mag Seven stock of 2025, down 18.37% in H1 2025.However, if Tesla’s strategy is successful, it could be far more valuable than other AI plays. Robots and autonomous vehicles could perform actual labor worth trillions of dollars annually.
The $385 billion Question
The Mag Seven are starting to see real revenue come in from their AI investments. But they're pouring that money (and more) back into AI, betting that the boom is just getting started.The platform players like Microsoft and Amazon are betting on becoming essential infrastructure. Nvidia’s play is to sell the underlying hardware to everyone. Google and Meta compete on capability and access. While Apple and Tesla target specific use cases.The $385 billion question is which of the Magnificent Seven has bet the right way? Or will a new player rise and usurp the long-standing tech giants altogether?You can access all Magnificent Seven stocks and thousands of other Share CFDs on GO Markets.
The US has entered the Israel-Iran war. However, despite an initial 4 per cent surge on the open, oil has settled where it has been since the conflict began in early June — around US$72 to US$75 a barrel.Trump claims the attacks from the US on Iranian nuclear facilities over the weekend are a very short, very tactical, one-off. This is something his base can get behind — some really big conservative players do not want a long-contracted war that sucks the US into external disputes.Whether this will be the case or not is up for debate, but there is a precedent from Trump's first presidency that we can look to. Iran had attacked several American bases in 2019, as well as attacking Saudi Arabia's most important oil refinery with Iranian drones. There wasn't a huge amount of damage; it was more a symbolic movement and display of capabilities by Iran.Initially, Trump didn't react — it took pressure from Gulf allies like the UAE and Israel for him to respond, which saw him order the assassination of the head of the Iranian Defence Force, Qasem Soleimani. This led to an Iranian response of ‘lots of noise’ and ‘cage rattling’, but minimal real action events, just a few drone attacks. Trump is betting on the same reaction now.If Iran follows the same patterns from the previous engagement, the geopolitical side of this is already at its peak.As of now, Iran is not going after or destroying major Gulf energy capabilities. Nor have there been any disruptions to the shipping traffic through the Strait of Hormuz. In fact, apart from a posturing vote to block the Strait, Iran has not made any indication that it is going to disrupt oil in any way that would lead to price surges.Additionally, despite the U.S. military equipment buildup in the region being its highest since the Iraq war, critical Iranian energy infrastructure is running largely unscathed.This all suggests that the geopolitics and the physical and futures oil markets remain disconnected. Oil will spike on news rumours, but the actual impacts in the physical realm to this point remain low. Of course, this could change in future. But, for now, the risk of seeing oil move to US$100 a barrel is still a minority case rather than the majority.
Artificial intelligence stocks have begun to waver slightly, experiencing a selloff period in the first week of this month. The Nasdaq has fallen approximately 2%, wiping out around $500 billion in market value from top technology companies.
Palantir Technologies dropped nearly 8% despite beating Wall Street estimates and issuing strong guidance, highlighting growing investor concerns about stretched valuations in the AI sector.
Nvidia shares also fell roughly 4%, while the broader selloff extended to Asian markets, which experienced some of their sharpest declines since April.
Wall Street executives, including Morgan Stanley CEO Ted Pick and Goldman Sachs CEO David Solomon, warned of potential 10-20% drawdowns in equity markets over the coming year.
And Michael Burry, famous for predicting the 2008 housing crisis, recently revealed his $1.1 billion bet against both Nvidia and Palantir, further pushing the narrative that the AI rally may be overextended.
As we near 2026, the sentiment around AI is seemingly starting to shift, with investors beginning to seek evidence of tangible returns on the massive investments flowing into AI, rather than simply betting on future potential.
However, despite the recent turbulence, many are simply characterising this pullback as "healthy" profit-taking rather than a fundamental reassessment of AI's value.
Supreme Court Raises Doubts About Trump’s Tariffs
The US Supreme Court heard arguments overnight on the legality of President Donald Trump's "liberation day" tariffs, with judges from both sides of the political spectrum expressing scepticism about the presidential authority being claimed.
Trump has relied on a 1970s-era emergency law, the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), to impose sweeping tariffs on goods imported into the US.
At the centre of the case are two core questions: whether the IEEPA authorises these sweeping tariffs, and if so, whether Trump’s implementation is constitutional.
Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Amy Coney Barrett indicated they may be inclined to strike down or curb the majority of the tariffs, while Justice Brett Kavanaugh questioned why no president before Trump had used this authority.
Prediction markets saw the probability of the court upholding the tariffs drop from 40% to 25% after the hearing.
Polymarket odds on Supreme Court upholding Trump's tariffs
The US government has collected $151 billion from customs duties in the second half of 2025 alone, a nearly 300% increase over the same period in 2024.
Should the court rule against the tariffs, potential refunds could reach approximately $100 billion.
The court has not indicated a date on which it will issue its final ruling, though the Trump administration has requested an expedited decision.
Shutdown Becomes Longest in US History
The US government shutdown entered its 36th day today, officially becoming the longest in history. It surpasses the previous 35-day record set during Trump's first term from December 2018 to January 2019.
The Senate has failed 14 times to advance spending legislation, falling short of the 60-vote supermajority by five votes in the most recent vote.
So far, approximately 670,000 federal employees have been furloughed, and 730,000 are currently working without pay. Over 1.3 million active-duty military personnel and 750,000 National Guard and reserve personnel are also working unpaid.
SNAP food stamp benefits ran out of funding on November 1 — something 42 million Americans rely on weekly. However, the Trump administration has committed to partial payments to subsidise the benefits, though delivery could take several weeks.
Flight disruptions have affected 3.2 million passengers, with staffing shortages hitting more than half of the nation's 30 major airports. Nearly 80% of New York's air traffic controllers are absent.
From a market perspective, each week of shutdown reduces GDP by approximately 0.1%. The Congressional Budget Office estimates the total cost of the shutdown will be between $7 billion and $14 billion, with the higher figure assuming an eight-week duration.
Consumer spending could drop by $30 billion if the eight-week duration is reached, according to White House economists, with potential GDP impacts of up to 2 percentage points total.
You've been using a 30-pip trailing stop for as long as you can remember. It feels professional, manageable and relatively safe.
But during volatile sessions, you see your winners get stopped out prematurely, while low-volatility winners drift back and hit stops that are relatively too tight.
Same 30 pips, different market contexts, but inconsistent in the protection of profit and overall results.
The Fixed-Pip Fallacy?
Traders gravitate toward fixed pip trailing stops because they feel concrete and calculable. The approach is easy to execute, readily automated through platforms like MetaTrader, and aligns with how most people naturally think about profit and loss.
But this simplicity masks a fundamental problem.
A twenty-five pip move in EURUSD during the London open represents an entirely different market event than the same move during the Asian session. The context matters, yet the fixed-pip approach treats them identically.
This becomes even more problematic when you consider different currency pairs. GBPJPY might have an average true range of thirty pips on an hourly chart, while EURGBP shows only ten. The same trailing stop applied to both instruments ignores the reality that volatility varies dramatically across pairs.
Timeframe introduces yet another layer of complexity. Take AUDUSD as an example: a ten-pip move on a four-hour chart barely registers as meaningful price action, but on a five-minute chart it represents a significant swing. The fixed-pip method treats these scenarios as equivalent.
The natural response might be to use something more sophisticated, like an ATR multiple. This accounts for your chosen timeframe, the instrument's normal volatility, and even session differences. But it brings its own complications.
When do you measure the ATR? Do you use the value at entry, knowing it might be distorted by sessional effects? Or do you make it dynamic, which becomes far more complex to implement in practice?
Perhaps there's another way forward that doesn't rely on abstract measures of volatility but instead responds directly to the movement of price in relation to the trade you're actually in—accounting for your lot size and the profit you've already captured.
Maximum Give Back: The Percentage Approach
Instead of asking "how do I protect profit after fifty pips," ask "how do I protect profit after giving back a certain percentage of open gains."
Consider a maximum give-back threshold of 40%. When your trade is up one hundred pips, the trailing stop activates if price retraces forty pips from peak, locking in a minimum of sixty pips.
But when that same trade reaches two hundred fifty pips of profit, the stop adjusts, and now it activates at a one-hundred-pip pullback, securing at least one hundred fifty pips. The stop distance scales naturally with the magnitude of the win you're sitting on.
This creates a logical asymmetry that fixed pip approaches miss entirely. Small winners receive tighter protection. Big winners get room to breathe.
The approach adapts automatically to what the market is actually giving you in real time, without requiring you to predict anything in advance.
You don't need to maintain a reference table where EURUSD gets thirty pips and GBPJPY gets sixty. You don't need different standards for different instruments at all.
The same 40% logic works whether the average true range is high or low, whether volatility is expanding or contracting. It survives regime changes without requiring recalibration because it's responding to the trade itself rather than to abstract measures of what the instrument normally does.
The market tells you how much it's willing to move in your direction, and you protect that information proportionally. Nothing more complicated than that.
Key Parameters to Specify in Your System:
Maximum Give Back Percent: 30-50% is typical, but is dependent on how much profit retracement you can tolerate.
Minimum Profit to Activate: In dollar amount or an ATR multiple form entry. This prevents premature exits on tiny winners, e.g., if it has moved 5 pips at 40% that would mean you are only locking in a 3-pip profit.
Update Frequency: Potentially every bar. More frequent, but there may be issues if there is a limited ability to look at the market (if using some sort of automation, this could be programmed).
Is Maximum Giveback Always the Optimum Trail?
As with many approaches, results can be highly dependent on underlying market conditions. It is important to be balanced.
The table below summarises some observations when maximum giveback has been used as part of automated exits.
The major difference isn’t likely to be an increased win rate. It is about keeping more of your runners during high-volatility price moves rather than donating them back to the market.
It may not always be the best approach, as different strategies often merit different exit approaches.
There are two obvious scenarios where fixed pips may still be worth consideration.
Very short-term scalping (sub-20 pip targets)
News trading, where you want instant hard stops
Integrating Maximum Giveback With Your System
You may have other complementary exit filters in place that you already use. Remember, the ideal is often a combination of exits, with whichever is triggered first.
There is no reason why this approach will not work well with approaches such as set stops, take profits and partial closes (where you simply use maximum Giveback in the remainder as well as time-based exits.
Final Thoughts
To use fixed-pip trailing stops irrespective of instrument pricing, volatility, timeframe, and sessional considerations is the trading equivalent of wearing the same jacket in summer and winter.
Maximum Give Back trailing adjusts to the ‘market weather’. It won't make bad trades good, but it will stop you from cutting your best trades short just because your stop was designed for average conditions.
The market doesn't trade in averages but has specific likely moves dependent on context. Your exits should not be average either.
.jpg)
