---

All the problems in forex short-term trading,
Have answers here!
All the troubles in forex long-term investment,
Have echoes here!
All the psychological doubts in forex investment,
Have empathy here!

---



In the practical execution of two-way forex trading, the primary psychological pain point for most traders stems not from actual realized losses on their accounts, but from the regret of missing out on market opportunities. The emotional anguish caused by such missed opportunities often far outweighs the impact of a standard trading loss.

---

Actual losses in forex trading represent the necessary cost of risk—the price one pays for participating in the market and weathering its volatility. They are an inevitable consequence of entering the trading arena, akin to the tempering process required to master the market; they are the logical outcome of voluntarily assuming risk. Because traders can clearly perceive the risk they are undertaking, they find it easier to rationally accept the resulting outcomes. Missing a market move, however, is a completely different experience. Before a market trend even begins, traders often endure long periods of observation and repeated analysis, suffering through market fluctuations, emotional turmoil, and mental strain. They survive the initial uncertainties, only to miss the optimal trading window—and the associated profits—due to hesitation in holding positions, delayed entry, or an unsettled mindset. They pay the full price in time, energy, and emotional capital, yet reap no market reward.
The forex market operates on the fundamental principle that profit and loss share the same origin. Every instance of passively absorbing floating losses, enduring chaotic market volatility, and steadfastly adhering to one's trading logic is essentially a process of gathering momentum—aligning with the market's rhythm while waiting for the trend to materialize. All trading costs and emotional expenditures serve, in essence, to lay the groundwork for capturing market gains. Compared to actual losses—which can be faced directly, reviewed, and corrected—the sense of disappointment from missing out on profits after investing so much effort and weathering the market's trials creates a profound psychological imbalance. This disparity between effort and reward is the core issue that traders find hardest to let go of, and it is the factor most likely to disrupt their trading mindset.

Under the mechanism of two-way forex margin trading, the core logic of profitability lies in resonating with the market's dominant forces and strictly trading in the direction of the trend.

---

The "dominant force" referred to here is not a market manipulator in the traditional sense of a single entity controlling the price; rather, it represents a trend-driven power shaped by the flow of macro capital, institutional positioning preferences, and market consensus. Aligning with this force essentially means abandoning subjective speculation and an adversarial mindset in favor of recognizing and following the inherent rhythm of capital movement: going long when the trend is upward and short when it is downward, without stubbornly attempting to pick absolute bottoms or tops against the market's direction. This synchronization manifests not only in the choice of long or short positions but also in a comprehensive understanding of the market cycle—from accumulation and consolidation/shakeouts to the unfolding of the trend. Each stage possesses distinct temporal characteristics and price behaviors; only by grasping this structure and exercising patience can a trader hold a position as the trend persists. Conversely, falling into a frenzy of high-frequency monitoring and rapid-fire trading creates an illusion of constant engagement while actually causing the trader to drift away from the mainstream capital flow due to short-term market noise. Even if the overall direction is correctly identified, the trader risks being shaken out by minor fluctuations, ultimately finding themselves in a trap where greater effort leads only to greater losses.
Excessive market monitoring is a root cause of losses because it continuously amplifies the impact of human weaknesses on trading execution. Minute-by-minute fluctuations and the shifting patterns of bullish and bearish candles constantly trigger greed and fear: traders rush to lock in meager profits at the slightest gain and panic-sell at the first sign of a pullback, repeatedly chasing rallies and dumping positions during dips. A more insidious danger lies in how high-frequency trading drives up costs and the likelihood of decision-making errors—every new position incurs spreads and commissions, and every impulsive adjustment erodes capital. Furthermore, trading frequency correlates positively with the probability of error; a series of small losses accumulates over time, eventually ballooning into a significant drawdown. When a trader’s attention is locked onto random fluctuations at the minute or hourly level, they lose all sense of the primary trend on daily or weekly charts, falling into a cognitive blind spot where they can see the trees but miss the forest.
Truly mature traders understand the principle that "less is more": they conduct in-depth analysis of market structure, trend direction, and holding periods before trading, establishing clear rules for entry, stop-loss, and take-profit. They then entrust execution to their pre-set plan rather than letting real-time market fluctuations dictate their actions. Reducing unproductive screen-watching is essentially a way to actively insulate oneself from short-term market noise—replacing emotional reactions with disciplined execution and replacing the restlessness of frequent trading with the steadfastness required to hold a trend position. Success in forex trading ultimately hinges on disciplined execution rather than the sheer amount of time spent; true diligence lies in the systematic pre-market analysis of trends, rhythms, and rules, not in the blind busyness of being swept up by the red and green fluctuations during the trading session. Only by combining rigorous preliminary analysis with the patience to hold a position can one truly align with the rhythm of "smart money" and achieve stable profits by trading with the trend.

In the two-way trading environment of forex, traders should abandon the short-term mindset of rushing to close positions for profit after a breakout—only to re-enter after a pullback—and instead cultivate the resolve to hold positions firmly.

---

Short-term fluctuations in the forex market are inherently random; no trader can precisely predict absolute daily highs and lows. Developing a habit of closing positions as soon as a trend extends can lead to panic when the market enters a phase of accelerated movement. Traders may then feel compelled to chase the market at high levels rather than waiting for an ideal pullback point. Such behavior not only forfeits the advantage of a low-cost position but also drives up holding costs through frequent entry and exit, ultimately trapping the trader in a vicious cycle of "small gains and large losses."
The core profit in trend trading comes from capturing the full extent of a trending move, not from accumulating small, fragmented price differences; frequent turnover is a major pitfall in trend trading. As long as key indicators—such as moving averages, trend lines, and critical support or resistance levels—remain unbroken, traders should hold their positions firmly to avoid missing out on major market moves due to an over-focus on short-term volatility. Attempting to capture every incremental price fluctuation often leads to losing the forest for the trees; ultimately, one fails to hold onto core positions capable of generating massive profits, resulting in overall returns that fall far short of the potential gains from riding a trend. Traders must adopt differentiated holding strategies based on market conditions. In range-bound markets lacking a clear trend, one might employ small-position swing trading—selling high and buying low—to generate profit. Conversely, during extended trending markets, one should abandon the urge for short-term tactical gains in favor of a "buy and hold" approach, exiting only when there is a clear signal that the trend has broken. The essence of forex trading lies in "riding the trend while minimizing activity and maximizing holding time"; only by curbing the impulse to trade frequently can one safeguard core profits amidst market volatility and achieve stable, long-term investment returns.

Operating within a two-way trading system, domestic forex traders—who do not participate in the A-share market—actually enjoy a natural advantage regarding their trading environment.

---

The domestic A-share market emerged in the 1990s with the primary objective of serving the real economy. Its core mission was to help state-owned enterprises (SOEs) overcome difficulties and provide financing support to real-sector businesses. At the time, SOEs generally struggled with high debt ratios and operational pressures; consequently, the capital market was defined from its inception by its role in direct financing—aiming to replenish corporate capital, mitigate debt risks, and empower steady regional economic development. This core positioning instilled the A-share market with fundamental characteristics that prioritize financing and corporate-side development. Early market infrastructure and regulatory priorities focused on safeguarding financing functions, while the system for protecting the rights and interests of small and medium-sized investors was a component that was gradually refined and supplemented as the market matured.
In contrast, the evolution of the US stock market differs fundamentally from that of the A-share market. It originated from spontaneous private demand for securities trading, evolving through early over-the-counter (OTC) and broker-matched trading models—a growth trajectory where market activity developed first, followed by the subsequent refinement of regulatory frameworks. In the early stages of the U.S. stock market, rampant issues such as fraud, price manipulation, and trading misconduct compelled the establishment and refinement of a regulatory framework. Regulatory rules and agencies emerged in response, with the core governance objectives being to curb market disorder, protect the legitimate rights and interests of small and medium-sized investors, and uphold the overall credibility of the capital market. This process instilled a fundamental logic into the U.S. system: constraining listed entities and ensuring fair trading at the very root.
At a fundamental level, the A-share market was established with the primary goal of facilitating corporate financing, whereas the U.S. market was built upon the foundations of ensuring fair trading and maintaining market credibility. This divergence in core DNA stems from their respective developmental histories and market positioning—factors that are objective and enduring. It is not that the domestic capital market lacks investor protection mechanisms; rather, the development of these systems started later and has progressed incrementally. In recent years, the A-share market has continuously advanced institutional reforms to address shortcomings. The full implementation of the registration-based IPO system and the tightening of delisting rules have significantly accelerated the exit of poor-quality listed entities and companies involved in financial fraud. Simultaneously, market regulation has intensified; mechanisms such as class-action lawsuits, advance compensation, and rewards for whistleblowing on violations have become normalized. Authorities have cracked down heavily on financial fraud, insider trading, and other violations, while further enforcing the primary responsibilities of intermediaries and actual controllers of listed companies, thereby substantially raising the cost of misconduct. However, due to the market's relatively short development cycle and the accumulation of legacy issues, deep-seated flaws formed over decades cannot be eradicated through short-term reforms alone. Consequently, small and medium-sized investors in the A-share market remain vulnerable to investment risks and trading losses. This reflects the objective reality of a market in transition rather than a disregard for investor protection.
The U.S. stock market is not merely a trading venue for small retail investors; at its core, it remains a primary arena for capital competition, dominated by institutional participants, with retail trading accounting for a consistently small share of activity. The primary purpose of the U.S. market's robust investor protection mechanisms is to maintain the overall credibility of the capital market. Only by fully safeguarding the legitimate rights and interests of ordinary investors and external capital can the market sustain liquidity and expand in scale, thereby ensuring smooth financing channels for listed companies and facilitating the efficient circulation of capital. The US stock market also suffers from various irregularities, such as market cap manipulation and capital traps; however, thanks to a century of market evolution, a mature class-action lawsuit system, and severe penalties for misconduct, the cost of wrongdoing for market participants is significantly higher. Consequently, the overall incidence of market irregularities is lower, and market operations are more standardized. Traders who clearly understand the fundamental positioning and structural differences between the US and Chinese stock markets should not merely complain about the market environment; instead, they should adjust their trading and survival strategies in alignment with market dynamics. The A-share market’s core function of facilitating financing for the real economy is characterized by long-term stability; traders must therefore discard the notion that the market will automatically safeguard the interests of retail investors and instead take personal control over risk management, asset selection, and market timing. During trading, one should avoid listed companies that rely on speculative hype, engage in frequent capital raising, or suffer from chaotic internal governance, prioritizing instead investments with transparent financials, stable dividend policies, and solid core businesses. Traders need to rationally accept the market's periodic institutional shortcomings and inequities without being swayed by market sentiment, recognizing that the A-share system and ecosystem are undergoing continuous optimization and iteration—albeit through a lengthy process of refinement. In the current domestic capital market environment, it is far more prudent and reliable to avoid overheated stocks—characterized by retail crowding and artificially high liquidity—and to build a trading system based on market rules and data-driven logic, thereby protecting one's principal, rather than relying on external institutional safety nets or passively expecting market protection. The fundamental positioning, underlying DNA, and development trajectories of the US and Chinese stock markets differ vastly—an objective reality shaped by the respective histories and national conditions of both countries. The domestic capital market follows a logic of establishing institutional norms before fostering market growth, whereas the US market relies on spontaneous development to drive institutional refinement. The A-share market originated with real-economy financing, with investor protection systems evolving as a subsequent, complementary measure; conversely, the US market began with free private trading, and its regulatory framework was built entirely around trading fairness and market integrity. For the average trader, deeply understanding the nature of market rules, proactively adapting to different operating environments, strictly adhering to risk management boundaries, and prioritizing the safety of one's principal are the fundamental keys to achieving long-term, stable trading success and establishing a foothold in the capital market.

In the landscape of two-way forex trading, there is a fundamental conflict and divergence between long-term holding strategies and the logic of short-term speculation.

---

For long-term traders who prioritize trend-following and maintain positions spanning weeks or even months, the primary principle in asset selection should be to avoid major currency pairs—such as EUR/USD, GBP/USD, and USD/JPY—where short-term capital heavily congregates and intraday volatility is intense yet lacks trend continuity. These pairs have become a playground for short-term traders precisely because of their abundant liquidity, tight spreads, and frequent intraday fluctuations—characteristics that attract a massive influx of retail short-term capital to battle it out. However, when the vast majority of participants base their decisions on minute or hourly charts and hold positions for mere hours or minutes, these currency pairs lose the fundamental conditions necessary to form stable, medium-to-long-term trends. Without the sustained accumulation and locking-in of large-scale long-term capital, price movements merely oscillate back and forth amidst the rapid entry and exit of short-term funds, exhibiting distinct range-bound characteristics; for long-term strategies that rely on trend extension for profit, this is akin to building a structure on quicksand. Therefore, long-term forex traders should focus on currency pairs that attract less short-term attention and lower retail interest but are driven by macroeconomic fundamentals. Only by steering clear of the noisy battlegrounds of short-term capital can one capture the profit potential inherent in long-term positions through the quiet unfolding of a trend.
Shifting the perspective from the forex market to the stock market, the nature of market dynamics revealed by indicators such as shareholding distribution and the number of shareholders also warrants deep reflection by every long-term investor. Before a "bull stock" embarks on its primary upward wave, it often displays a highly consistent shareholding structure: the number of shareholders shrinks to a historical low, shares are heavily locked up by major institutions and long-term capital, and the volume of "floating shares" (shares actively traded by the public) is extremely limited. This state of highly concentrated shareholding implies minimal selling pressure in the market and negligible resistance during a rally; "smart money" (major institutional investors) can drive a smooth upward trend with relatively limited capital. In contrast, "junk stocks" that suffer from prolonged, sluggish declines often share the same underlying ailment: they are held by hundreds of thousands or even over a million retail investors, with shares scattered like loose sand. Many retail investors, trapped at high price points, refuse to cut their losses, causing the stock to lose the momentum needed for share turnover and the consolidation of holdings. For any major capital attempting to intervene, driving up such a stock is tantamount to carrying the burden for a vast number of retail investors; the moment the price rises slightly, a tidal wave of profit-taking and exit-seeking selling floods the market, creating relentless downward pressure. Ultimately, the stock becomes mired in a cycle of mutual attrition among retail investors, trapped in a long-term sideways drift or a slow, grinding decline from which it struggles to escape.
At its core, the stock market is an arena characterized by a strong zero-sum game dynamic; its institutional design and operational rules dictate it is a certainty that the vast majority of participants will ultimately fail to turn a profit. The core logic behind rising stock prices is never the organic growth of value, but rather the transfer of wealth from the few to the many. When shares are concentrated in the hands of a few professional investors and institutions, the foundation for a concerted upward move is established, and a bull market becomes merely a matter of time. Conversely, when shares are dispersed among a multitude of retail investors—where everyone holds stock yet no one is willing to exit—the market loses the momentum provided by fresh capital entering to drive up prices; ultimately, it becomes trapped in a cycle of grinding out a bottom and suffering a slow, relentless decline due to a lack of buying interest. Many retail investors mistakenly identify "smart money" or institutional players as their primary adversaries, failing to realize that in stocks with highly dispersed ownership, their true opponents are the fellow retail investors beside them who also refuse to cut their losses. When masses of retail investors hunker down together and effectively checkmate one another, the stock loses the fundamental conditions required for an upward rally, devolving into a war of attrition with no winners.
Based on this logic of market dynamics, changes in the number of shareholders should serve as a primary metric and a key filter for avoiding pitfalls when selecting stocks. Priority should be given to stocks where the shareholder count is steadily declining and currently sits at a historical low; such trends often indicate that shares are concentrating in the hands of a few long-term investors, significantly increasing the probability of a major upward surge in the future. At the same time, one should resolutely avoid popular, large-cap stocks where the number of retail investors keeps climbing and the shareholder count remains persistently high. Steer clear of "star stocks" that the market treats with cult-like devotion, seemingly safe low-priced large-cap blue chips, and various "viral" concept stocks. These assets are sought after by retail investors precisely because their superficial sense of safety and high visibility attract a flood of capital lacking independent judgment, effectively turning them into crowded hubs for retail investors. From a long-term investment perspective, the poor distribution of shares in such stocks makes it difficult for them to generate a truly sustainable upward trend.
One of the most deeply ingrained misconceptions among retail investors is equating high buyer volume with safety, assuming that widespread popularity implies underlying value. However, the brutal reality of the stock market repeatedly demonstrates that the most crowded areas are often the most dangerous traps. When an investment thesis becomes market consensus and a specific stock becomes the talk of the town, its price often already reflects excessive expectations, and the distribution of share ownership has frequently deteriorated to an irreversible point. Of course, while the number of shareholders serves as a vital window for observing ownership structure, it is merely one dimension within a stock selection framework rather than the sole criterion; practical application requires a comprehensive assessment that incorporates factors such as the stock's price level, industry prospects, and the quality of the company's fundamentals. Nevertheless, using changes in the number of shareholders as a fundamental screening tool—a "mine detector," so to speak—can help long-term investors avoid the vast majority of investment traps characterized by prolonged, grinding declines that drain both capital and time, thereby gaining a strategic advantage in evaluating the quality of ownership structures.

---

• 
• 

---

13711580480@139.com

+86 137 1158 0480

+86 137 1158 0480

+86 137 1158 0480

z.x.n@139.com

Mr. Z-X-N

China · Guangzhou

---