It communicates that the instrument is in a pair. Looking at major changes specifically from the US side of that pair is a rather myopic view.
With that being said, I do wholeheartedly agree with the assessment that trying to stay current on fundamentals is largely time wasted. The biggest movers of the market aren’t based on speculation, and they are largely one way trades.
If you were BMW, or Sony, Toyota, Land Rover, Boeing, Airbus, Phizer, Novartis, Caterpillar or any other multinational large cap corporation, if you needed a transaction to occur at a certain price, you really could care less how long it took to complete it. So you would park your money based on that idea accordingly. Now, knowing where that may occur, the friendly neighborhood bank you’ve chosen to guide you through this protracted transaction knows what will occur when your order begins to get filled. If you think they won’t park a few tag-alongs to ride around for free, you would be patently incorrect.
So, moral of the story. The places that physical money actually changes hands far and away trumps the places that derivatives focus on. Large standing one way real money orders will create those ever so familiar places of interest on a chart. When they finally get filled, they leave a vacuum, and bam, price moves to the next point one way or the other. If it moves against them, nobody cares when they are not using leverage. They can sit and wait. Price is a creature of habit. Where it was it will be again. And the whole thing flies in the face of fundamentals. Money talks, BS walks.
This is my own analysis, and I’m not claiming to have been able to predict it.
It’s based on my experience, and clearly I’m not stating that this is the sole reason why the move may have occurred.
