De fleste faar sig en overraskelse naar de kaster sig ud i investering i dereviater. Den helt store overraskelse ligger i hvor haardt de slaar, eller hvor "nemt" pengene tjenes.
Her er min oplevelse. Jeg sad i slut 2008 kontant, det var vist Sept. eller Okt., med en mindre mill. beloeb, jeg havde ligget kontant i mere end et aar, og vidste at dette var en tid hvor der kunne laves en god moent. Det var pokkers svaert alligevel, for pludselig foelte jeg mig ubehagelig ved at have kontanterne i banken, hvad nu hvis den krakkede? (Det var foer bankpakken)Saa hellere investere i et eller andet...Ups. Det blev til stint i Novo, Vestas og Danske bank, men kurserne gik saa vildt nedaf, at jeg hoppede ud igen..... men igen, jeg vidste dette var en tid der kunne laves serioes moent hvis man fik strategien rigtigt... Saa hvad skal man saa goere.... Naa ja, naar US, har saa meget gang i seddeltrykken, lad mig shorte USD, og AUD havde faaet ekstremt mange bank, den var faldet 30% i loebet af kort tid mener jeg, saa lad mig ligge lang i den...Den naeste uge gik begge valutaer ca. 10% i forkert retning, USD op i 6 kr., og AUD yderligere 10% ned (det viste sig at vaere bunden), banken ringede og sagde 1 mill. ind paa kontoen nu, eller positionerne lukkes. Jeg gav op og lukkede positionerne, med tab paa ca. 300.000 USD paa mener jeg en uge, det kan godt vaere det var 2 uger. Men nogle af de mest ulidelige og stressende dage af mit liv var de. Sikke noget lort. Og set i bakspejlet, AUD reboundede saa det batter derefter. USD gik kortvarigt tilbage til 5 kr. Og jeg kunne faktisk have tjent en formue. Jeg var bare for tidligt ude. Og det er det med dereviater. De er knivskarpe, og doedsens farlige.
Og dont worry, Im stongly back, og har indhendtet tabet
Og ja, nu sidder jeg igen og overvejer excact derivat bear etc., var inde paa EI og se at Ponzi for en maaneds tid siden anbefalede en dereviat bear aktie, og ja havde man fulgt hans raad havde man paa den maaned tabt ca 30%. Av. Mange af disse dereviat aktie produkter ser ud til at vaere opfundet inden for en meget kort aarraekke. De fleste kan man kun gaa 1 aar tilbage for at tjekke kursudviklingen, som derfor er ned, ned, ned. Ush, tank hvis man i forvejen er pessimist omkring markedet, og saa ovenikoebet skal se pengne forsvinde, mens alle andre investorer tjener stykkeligt Ja det er virkelig et farligt instrument, ogsaa psykologisk mener jeg. De goer dobbelt ondt eller dobbelt godt. Men er jo s.... fristende. Faar vi en ny nedboelge af dimmensioner kan man jo maaske lave 1 mill. til 10 mill, eller?
Men er der iovrigt nogen sikkerhed for disse dereviat bear aktier? Ved vi hvad de bagvedliggende aktiver betyder? Er de ligesom en investeringsforening med en indre vaerdi? Eller skal man bare acceptere konceptet, at naar markedet falder, saa stiger de, og omvendt. Hvis de falder dobbelt, af havd markedet stiger, kan de begvedliggende aktiver saa forsvinde? Og hvornaar?
Ja jeg spoeger bare. Og har besluttet, at jeg venter lidt med disse instrumenter/aktier indtil jeg er mere sikker paa markedsretningen, og hvad de egentlig er for nogle stoerrelser, disse dereviat aktier.
mvh
Colombuss
Her er min oplevelse. Jeg sad i slut 2008 kontant, det var vist Sept. eller Okt., med en mindre mill. beloeb, jeg havde ligget kontant i mere end et aar, og vidste at dette var en tid hvor der kunne laves en god moent. Det var pokkers svaert alligevel, for pludselig foelte jeg mig ubehagelig ved at have kontanterne i banken, hvad nu hvis den krakkede? (Det var foer bankpakken)Saa hellere investere i et eller andet...Ups. Det blev til stint i Novo, Vestas og Danske bank, men kurserne gik saa vildt nedaf, at jeg hoppede ud igen..... men igen, jeg vidste dette var en tid der kunne laves serioes moent hvis man fik strategien rigtigt... Saa hvad skal man saa goere.... Naa ja, naar US, har saa meget gang i seddeltrykken, lad mig shorte USD, og AUD havde faaet ekstremt mange bank, den var faldet 30% i loebet af kort tid mener jeg, saa lad mig ligge lang i den...Den naeste uge gik begge valutaer ca. 10% i forkert retning, USD op i 6 kr., og AUD yderligere 10% ned (det viste sig at vaere bunden), banken ringede og sagde 1 mill. ind paa kontoen nu, eller positionerne lukkes. Jeg gav op og lukkede positionerne, med tab paa ca. 300.000 USD paa mener jeg en uge, det kan godt vaere det var 2 uger. Men nogle af de mest ulidelige og stressende dage af mit liv var de. Sikke noget lort. Og set i bakspejlet, AUD reboundede saa det batter derefter. USD gik kortvarigt tilbage til 5 kr. Og jeg kunne faktisk have tjent en formue. Jeg var bare for tidligt ude. Og det er det med dereviater. De er knivskarpe, og doedsens farlige.
Og dont worry, Im stongly back, og har indhendtet tabet
Og ja, nu sidder jeg igen og overvejer excact derivat bear etc., var inde paa EI og se at Ponzi for en maaneds tid siden anbefalede en dereviat bear aktie, og ja havde man fulgt hans raad havde man paa den maaned tabt ca 30%. Av. Mange af disse dereviat aktie produkter ser ud til at vaere opfundet inden for en meget kort aarraekke. De fleste kan man kun gaa 1 aar tilbage for at tjekke kursudviklingen, som derfor er ned, ned, ned. Ush, tank hvis man i forvejen er pessimist omkring markedet, og saa ovenikoebet skal se pengne forsvinde, mens alle andre investorer tjener stykkeligt
Ja det er virkelig et farligt instrument, ogsaa psykologisk mener jeg. De goer dobbelt ondt eller dobbelt godt. Men er jo s.... fristende. Faar vi en ny nedboelge af dimmensioner kan man jo maaske lave 1 mill. til 10 mill, eller?Men er der iovrigt nogen sikkerhed for disse dereviat bear aktier? Ved vi hvad de bagvedliggende aktiver betyder? Er de ligesom en investeringsforening med en indre vaerdi? Eller skal man bare acceptere konceptet, at naar markedet falder, saa stiger de, og omvendt. Hvis de falder dobbelt, af havd markedet stiger, kan de begvedliggende aktiver saa forsvinde? Og hvornaar?
Ja jeg spoeger bare. Og har besluttet, at jeg venter lidt med disse instrumenter/aktier indtil jeg er mere sikker paa markedsretningen, og hvad de egentlig er for nogle stoerrelser, disse dereviat aktier.
mvh
Colombuss
4/4 2010 22:36 colombuss 0
27853 Taenk paa folk som CP paa ei, og andre der anbefaler deveriat bear produkter, uden at vide hvad de egentlig har med at goere. Og se saa dette indlaeg som oprindeligt er bragt af C. Hjort her paa siden....
http://www.learningmarkets.com/index.php/200908183767/Stocks/Mutual-Funds-and-ETFs/the-risks-of-inverse-etfs.html
by John Jagerson
When the stock market is falling or a particular market sector or commodity is struggling individual investors can make bearish trades that will profit from those declines. Traditionally this meant that investors had to be able to short stocks or use options but now there is another way to profit from the downside of the market using inverse ETFs.
Inverse ETFs, like leveraged ETFs have been gaining in popularity very quickly. However, because they carry a unique risk that is often misunderstood they are currently being vilified by some brokers and analysts. We feel that the real fault lies with uneducated investors who use these ETFs like gamblers or in other inappropriate ways.
Inverse ETFs are designed to produce the inverse returns on a daily basis of whatever index they are tracking. For example if the S&P 500 were to fall 10% in a given day, an S&P 500 inverse ETF would be up 10% that same day. Some inverse ETFs are also leveraged and may be designed to deliver twice the inverse return of the index they are tracking.
This sounds like an ideal trading instrument for bearish investors who want to profit from a down market. That is true to a certain extent. If the market is trending strongly and you have a short term horizon these are good ETFs for that purpose. However, inevitably the market channels over the long term and that is when these ETFs can really get hurt.
The best way to explain the problem is with a simple math problem. Let's contrast what happens in a channeling but bearish market with two ETFs. The first ETF is based on a market index and goes up and down with stocks in general. The second ETF is the inverse of the first ETF.
In the video I provide even more detail by looking at leveraged ETFs as well.
Normal Indexed ETF
Day one starting balance = $100 and the market falls 20%
Day two starting balance = $80 and the market falls another 20%
Day three starting balance = $64 and the market rises 20%
Ending balance = $76.80 for a total loss of -23.20%
Based on this data alone we would expect that the inverse ETF would be up exactly 23.2%. However, as you can see in the calculation below this won't turn out to be true.
Inverse ETF
Day one starting balance = $100 but the market falls 20%
Day two starting balance = $120 but the market falls another 20%
Day three starting balance = $144 but the market rises 20%
Ending balance = $115.20 for a total gain of +15.20%
The inverse ETF did perform better than the normal ETF but it underperformed expectations because the ETF is designed to match the inverse of the daily performance of the other index not its long term returns. This contra-compounding is the unique risk of inverse and leveraged ETFs.
This problem is particularly pronounced during channels when the market is moving up and down a lot. If the market is trending strongly then the inverse ETF should perform close to expectations but it will never be equal to the exact inverse over the long term. In fact over the long term, an inverse or leveraged ETF is almost certain to be a loser no matter what direction the market goes.
Inverse and leveraged ETFs can be great for short term trades but their risks should not be ignored. Make sure that an inverse ETF can meet your trading objectives before you make the trade. Like any investment tool, if you ignore the costs and risks you may be verydisappointed in your long term performance. .
http://www.learningmarkets.com/index.php/200908183767/Stocks/Mutual-Funds-and-ETFs/the-risks-of-inverse-etfs.html
by John Jagerson
When the stock market is falling or a particular market sector or commodity is struggling individual investors can make bearish trades that will profit from those declines. Traditionally this meant that investors had to be able to short stocks or use options but now there is another way to profit from the downside of the market using inverse ETFs.
Inverse ETFs, like leveraged ETFs have been gaining in popularity very quickly. However, because they carry a unique risk that is often misunderstood they are currently being vilified by some brokers and analysts. We feel that the real fault lies with uneducated investors who use these ETFs like gamblers or in other inappropriate ways.
Inverse ETFs are designed to produce the inverse returns on a daily basis of whatever index they are tracking. For example if the S&P 500 were to fall 10% in a given day, an S&P 500 inverse ETF would be up 10% that same day. Some inverse ETFs are also leveraged and may be designed to deliver twice the inverse return of the index they are tracking.
This sounds like an ideal trading instrument for bearish investors who want to profit from a down market. That is true to a certain extent. If the market is trending strongly and you have a short term horizon these are good ETFs for that purpose. However, inevitably the market channels over the long term and that is when these ETFs can really get hurt.
The best way to explain the problem is with a simple math problem. Let's contrast what happens in a channeling but bearish market with two ETFs. The first ETF is based on a market index and goes up and down with stocks in general. The second ETF is the inverse of the first ETF.
In the video I provide even more detail by looking at leveraged ETFs as well.
Normal Indexed ETF
Day one starting balance = $100 and the market falls 20%
Day two starting balance = $80 and the market falls another 20%
Day three starting balance = $64 and the market rises 20%
Ending balance = $76.80 for a total loss of -23.20%
Based on this data alone we would expect that the inverse ETF would be up exactly 23.2%. However, as you can see in the calculation below this won't turn out to be true.
Inverse ETF
Day one starting balance = $100 but the market falls 20%
Day two starting balance = $120 but the market falls another 20%
Day three starting balance = $144 but the market rises 20%
Ending balance = $115.20 for a total gain of +15.20%
The inverse ETF did perform better than the normal ETF but it underperformed expectations because the ETF is designed to match the inverse of the daily performance of the other index not its long term returns. This contra-compounding is the unique risk of inverse and leveraged ETFs.
This problem is particularly pronounced during channels when the market is moving up and down a lot. If the market is trending strongly then the inverse ETF should perform close to expectations but it will never be equal to the exact inverse over the long term. In fact over the long term, an inverse or leveraged ETF is almost certain to be a loser no matter what direction the market goes.
Inverse and leveraged ETFs can be great for short term trades but their risks should not be ignored. Make sure that an inverse ETF can meet your trading objectives before you make the trade. Like any investment tool, if you ignore the costs and risks you may be verydisappointed in your long term performance. .
4/4 2010 22:45 colombuss 027854 Jeg kopierer et andet indlaeg skrevet af tgsc den 10 juli sidste aar. Igen, av, av.
Modeaktierne FAZ/FAS har været forholdsvis stabile i stilstanden efter opturen.
Det er ved at ændre sig nu hvor korrektionen er sat igang efter forårets optur.
FAZ er finansbear ETF med 3x gearing, altså temmeligt høj risiko!
Ser man fx på FAZ, er der høj volumen fra dagens start i $53-54 efter 10:1-splittet.
http://investing.businessweek.com/businessweek/research/stocks/charts/charts.asp?ric=FAZ
vælg 5day.
Den øgede interesse mens markedet er i nedtrend bør give højere FAZ-kurser.
FAZ har modstandszoner i 50-60 og 100-200. Klikker man YTD eller 1y bliver man søsyg og højdeskræk af de enormt høje og svingende kurser, men det er sket i meget mindre volumen end nu, og i et helt andet marked.
Split vises brugbart i Bizweek, men ikke i Google : http://www.google.com/finance?q=FAZ
Sammenligner man med IXBK, er den tidligere støtte i 1520 nu modstand som idag gentestes, og foreløbigt afvist. Noget af dagens handel foregår her som bekræftelse af niveauets vigtighed.
Nedturen fortsætter dog formentlig for at genteste Marts-bunden, men støtte bør findes over 1200 (sidste bund) fordi scenariet nu er recession og lavvækst fremfor depression.
Det betyder afvikling af FAZ som spekulationsobjekt, men en fordobling fra 55 til cirka 100 bør være mulig på kort sigt. Tidligere niveauer i 1000-2000 anser jeg som umulige at opnå igen, men alt over 100 er også ganske fint på så kort sigt.
Når volumen falder igen, bliver der kø ved udgangen, og det presser prisen. Men derfor kan det sidste skvulp godt være profitabelt !
Før og efter V-bunden i Marts er der en slags trading range (gule linier) mellem 1520 og 1700, med yderområder ved hhv. 1450 og 1750 :
http://peecee.dk/upload/view/179876/full
Siden 8maj09 er der en nedtrend som bekræftes af høj volumen (røde cirkler), og som passer nogenlunde med oversiden af den flerårige nedtrend.
Link til IXBK er som sædvanlig : http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/cbuilder?ticker1=CBNK:IND
http://stockcharts.com/h-sc/ui?c=$bank
http://www.google.com/finance?q=INDEXNASDAQ%3A.IXBK
ETFer udgør en ret stor del af volumen på børsen :
http://247wallst.com/2009/07/09/etf-reverse-splits-have-arrived-more-looming-fas-faz/
og har sine egne problemer som spekulanter bør være klar over :
http://www.thestreet.com/story/10535685/1/split-could-set-straight-two-direxion-etfs.html
http://www.thestreet.com/story/10526739/1/leveraged-etfs-comprehension-is-key.html
Siden nytår er FAS faldet 67%, mens FAZ er faldet 86% - de burde være gået modsat hinanden, men det viser at ETF bør omgås med varsomhed.
Citat justsomeone:
"FAZ er designet til den kortsigtede spekulant, i.e. daytrader/swingtrader.
Den er aldeles uegnet til en langsigtet investering, idet den med matematisk sikkerhed vil gå mod 0 på sigt - hvilket de nylige reverse splits i både FAZ og FAS klart dokumenterer.
Nedenstående link beskriver fordele og risici og forbundet med gearede ETF'er:
http://direxionshares.com/pdfs/Understanding_Exchange_Traded_Funds.pdf "
Jeg håber det er iorden at citere.
Modeaktierne FAZ/FAS har været forholdsvis stabile i stilstanden efter opturen.
Det er ved at ændre sig nu hvor korrektionen er sat igang efter forårets optur.
FAZ er finansbear ETF med 3x gearing, altså temmeligt høj risiko!
Ser man fx på FAZ, er der høj volumen fra dagens start i $53-54 efter 10:1-splittet.
http://investing.businessweek.com/businessweek/research/stocks/charts/charts.asp?ric=FAZ
vælg 5day.
Den øgede interesse mens markedet er i nedtrend bør give højere FAZ-kurser.
FAZ har modstandszoner i 50-60 og 100-200. Klikker man YTD eller 1y bliver man søsyg og højdeskræk af de enormt høje og svingende kurser, men det er sket i meget mindre volumen end nu, og i et helt andet marked.
Split vises brugbart i Bizweek, men ikke i Google : http://www.google.com/finance?q=FAZ
Sammenligner man med IXBK, er den tidligere støtte i 1520 nu modstand som idag gentestes, og foreløbigt afvist. Noget af dagens handel foregår her som bekræftelse af niveauets vigtighed.
Nedturen fortsætter dog formentlig for at genteste Marts-bunden, men støtte bør findes over 1200 (sidste bund) fordi scenariet nu er recession og lavvækst fremfor depression.
Det betyder afvikling af FAZ som spekulationsobjekt, men en fordobling fra 55 til cirka 100 bør være mulig på kort sigt. Tidligere niveauer i 1000-2000 anser jeg som umulige at opnå igen, men alt over 100 er også ganske fint på så kort sigt.
Når volumen falder igen, bliver der kø ved udgangen, og det presser prisen. Men derfor kan det sidste skvulp godt være profitabelt !
Før og efter V-bunden i Marts er der en slags trading range (gule linier) mellem 1520 og 1700, med yderområder ved hhv. 1450 og 1750 :
http://peecee.dk/upload/view/179876/full
Siden 8maj09 er der en nedtrend som bekræftes af høj volumen (røde cirkler), og som passer nogenlunde med oversiden af den flerårige nedtrend.
Link til IXBK er som sædvanlig : http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/cbuilder?ticker1=CBNK:IND
http://stockcharts.com/h-sc/ui?c=$bank
http://www.google.com/finance?q=INDEXNASDAQ%3A.IXBK
ETFer udgør en ret stor del af volumen på børsen :
http://247wallst.com/2009/07/09/etf-reverse-splits-have-arrived-more-looming-fas-faz/
og har sine egne problemer som spekulanter bør være klar over :
http://www.thestreet.com/story/10535685/1/split-could-set-straight-two-direxion-etfs.html
http://www.thestreet.com/story/10526739/1/leveraged-etfs-comprehension-is-key.html
Siden nytår er FAS faldet 67%, mens FAZ er faldet 86% - de burde være gået modsat hinanden, men det viser at ETF bør omgås med varsomhed.
Citat justsomeone:
"FAZ er designet til den kortsigtede spekulant, i.e. daytrader/swingtrader.
Den er aldeles uegnet til en langsigtet investering, idet den med matematisk sikkerhed vil gå mod 0 på sigt - hvilket de nylige reverse splits i både FAZ og FAS klart dokumenterer.
Nedenstående link beskriver fordele og risici og forbundet med gearede ETF'er:
http://direxionshares.com/pdfs/Understanding_Exchange_Traded_Funds.pdf "
Jeg håber det er iorden at citere.
5/4 2010 03:06 cyber 027858 Du har godt nok været uheldig med dine væddemål, som man må betragte derivater for at være. Derivater tilfører markedet en masse likviditet, hvilket vi kan takke Greenspan for, da han indførte begrebet i forbindelse med børskrakket i 1987, samtidig med at seddelpressen kørte fuld speed.
De kendte stimulus pakker har pustet mere luft i ballonen fra dengang, og jeg tør ikke spå om det økonomiske system kan bære nye "kunstarter", når luften fiser ud næste gang, hvilket der dog ikke er tegn på for nuværende globalt set. Danmark er et kapitel for sig.
De kendte stimulus pakker har pustet mere luft i ballonen fra dengang, og jeg tør ikke spå om det økonomiske system kan bære nye "kunstarter", når luften fiser ud næste gang, hvilket der dog ikke er tegn på for nuværende globalt set. Danmark er et kapitel for sig.
5/4 2010 08:47 sl65amg 027859 Problemet er at derivaterne bruges forkert i spekulationsøjemed. Blev de brugt til det som de egentlig skulle - nemlig at hedge en risiko - så var der ikke disse problemer. Private aktører (de mindre) bør slet ikke have mulighed for at "investere" i disse, medmindre de er fuldt ud klar over at det er det samme som at spille lotto. Grådighed gør dum!
Et sted hvor derivater (og andre økonomiske instrumenter) kunne have været brugt fornuftigt, er ved skandalen om ScandiNotes. Havde man i pakken også brugt CDS (Credit Default Swaps) - så ville mange private ikke have tabt alle deres penge. Men problemet for udbyderen er, at så ser investeringen ikke så attraktiv ud, fordi aktiemarkedet tilbyder meget bedre forretning. Igen gør grådighed dum!
Så derivater er for så vidt fornuftige nok - men anvendelsen kan diskuteres.
Et sted hvor derivater (og andre økonomiske instrumenter) kunne have været brugt fornuftigt, er ved skandalen om ScandiNotes. Havde man i pakken også brugt CDS (Credit Default Swaps) - så ville mange private ikke have tabt alle deres penge. Men problemet for udbyderen er, at så ser investeringen ikke så attraktiv ud, fordi aktiemarkedet tilbyder meget bedre forretning. Igen gør grådighed dum!
Så derivater er for så vidt fornuftige nok - men anvendelsen kan diskuteres.
Specielt FAZ og FAS er ret farlige udover deres høje gearing er der også et administrationsgebyrer etc.
Jeg har ret dårlige erfaringer med derivater personligt så har svært ved at anbefale dem til nogen. Det er selvfølgelig fristende med en quick win, men de må under alle omstændigheder kun udgører en meget lille andel af ens samlede portefølje, jeg vil skyde det til en 0,5%.
Chalie Munger og Warren Buffet kaldte CDO en tidsindstillet bombe, et finansielt masseødelæggelsesvåben i 2004. Og de fik jo temmeligt præcis ret.
Jeg har ret dårlige erfaringer med derivater personligt så har svært ved at anbefale dem til nogen. Det er selvfølgelig fristende med en quick win, men de må under alle omstændigheder kun udgører en meget lille andel af ens samlede portefølje, jeg vil skyde det til en 0,5%.
Chalie Munger og Warren Buffet kaldte CDO en tidsindstillet bombe, et finansielt masseødelæggelsesvåben i 2004. Og de fik jo temmeligt præcis ret.
Det kan synes forbandet at du havde ret i din overordnede analyse i modsætning til finanslemminge der ikke havde set (eller turde se) paradigmeskiftet, men så gik galt i byen ved at markedet ikke havde indset det i tilstrækkelig grad og derved gjorde timingen uheldig! Richard Farleigh har skrevet noget i retning af at de overordnede makrotrends kan være relativt lette at spotte, men at man først bør agerere på dem, når prisbevægelsen er startet, for det er en langsom process når markedet korrigerer sig selv på de overordnede baner, og der er tid nok til at nå ind. At være first mover og bundfisker kan være lokkende, men for farligt!
Lettere snørklet kan man sige, at selv når markedet tager fejl, så har det ret!!
Lettere snørklet kan man sige, at selv når markedet tager fejl, så har det ret!!
Det er overhovedet ikke snørklet Valueguy - det er temmeligt præcist forklaret:
"...de overordnede makrotrends kan være relativt lette at spotte, men [man]bør [først ]agerere på dem, når prisbevægelsen er startet, for det er en langsom process når markedet korrigerer sig selv på de overordnede baner, og der er tid nok til at nå ind"
og
"...selv når markedet tager fejl, så har det ret!!"
Print det ud og hæng det op!
"...de overordnede makrotrends kan være relativt lette at spotte, men [man]bør [først ]agerere på dem, når prisbevægelsen er startet, for det er en langsom process når markedet korrigerer sig selv på de overordnede baner, og der er tid nok til at nå ind"
og
"...selv når markedet tager fejl, så har det ret!!"
Print det ud og hæng det op!
5/4 2010 22:11 colombuss 027883 Hej rkhanen,
har du et bud paa "the right vehicle" naar markedet beraeftes i en vending, bortset fra shorting, og at gaa direkte ind i terminskontrakt? Er der en af de her derevat bear aktier der ikke direkte er destruktive, men ogsaa over f.eks 3 maaneder kan bruges som hedge?
mvh
Colombuss
har du et bud paa "the right vehicle" naar markedet beraeftes i en vending, bortset fra shorting, og at gaa direkte ind i terminskontrakt? Er der en af de her derevat bear aktier der ikke direkte er destruktive, men ogsaa over f.eks 3 maaneder kan bruges som hedge?
mvh
Colombuss
15/4 2010 18:16 renek 028227 Hej Columnbuss
Har først set ovenstående nu, så jeg svarer lige:
Umiddelbart har jeg ikke det optimale instrument på hånden - desværre. Jeg anvender selv XACT produkterne og de amerikanske ETF'ere og jeg tager hellere end gerne de udfordringer de giver samt skattemæssige hovedpiner for at kunne være inde i markedet til en relativt lav risiko. Mine SPY's er jo ikke nær så volatile som mine enkeltaktier.
Har først set ovenstående nu, så jeg svarer lige:
Umiddelbart har jeg ikke det optimale instrument på hånden - desværre. Jeg anvender selv XACT produkterne og de amerikanske ETF'ere og jeg tager hellere end gerne de udfordringer de giver samt skattemæssige hovedpiner for at kunne være inde i markedet til en relativt lav risiko. Mine SPY's er jo ikke nær så volatile som mine enkeltaktier.
5/4 2010 23:13 butterboy 027885 Skattemæssigt er de også mindre attraktive- jeg mener gevinster skal beskattes som kapitalindkosmt- dvs topskat.
6/4 2010 15:00 turin 027909 Nej, derivater er ikke noget fanden har skabt. Uvidenhed om derivater er derimod noget fanden har skabt.
- turin
- turin
12/4 2010 11:04 colombuss 028112 Top 10 Investor Traps
Sponsored by
Friday, April 9, 2010
provided by
CNBClogo.gif
It's easy to become a victim of an investor scam, as news headlines have shown for the past two years. Criminals follow the latest market trends and find weaknesses to lure victims. According to the North American Securities Administrator Association (NASAA), senior citizens are the No. 1 target for fraud, while baby boomers are second. In 2008, the FBI estimated $40 billion was lost to securities and commodities fraud.
More from CNBC.com:
? Top 10 Investor Traps
? Unbelievable Scams and Schemes
? Your Money: Up Close and Personal
So how can you protect yourself from being scammed? See which investment vehicles are ranked high for fraud and get tips on making sure it doesn't happen to you.
10. Leveraged Exchange-Traded Funds (ETFs)
Leveraged exchange-traded funds (ETFs) are a relatively new financial product, which is why investors may not be aware of the risks they carry. The funds, which trade throughout the day like a stock, use exotic financial instruments, including options, other derivatives and promise the potential to generate better returns than the market return. Given their volatility, these funds typically are not suitable for most retail investors.
9. Speculative Inventions and New Products
New products are for venture capitalists who know how to assess the risks. They are not good investments for your retirement money even though they may promise high returns.
8. Short-Term Commercial Promissory Notes
Many seniors have lost their life savings by investing in short-term commercial promissory notes that are nine months or less in duration. These notes may be touted as being "insured" or "guaranteed," but the insurance companies generally are located outside of the United States, are not licensed to do business in the United States, and lack the resources necessary to deliver on the promised guarantees.
Unlike publicly advertised promissory notes, promoters of these short-term notes usually attempt to use commercial paper exemptions as a basis for selling the products without registration. The commercial paper exemptions apply only to high-grade commercial paper traded by major corporations ? not to these risky notes pushed to the public by a sales force paid with extremely high commissions.
7. Entertainment Investments
Entertainment investments are unregistered investments. They encompass a variety of products including movies, infomercials, internet gambling and pornography sites, and promise high returns while offering little disclosure of risk.
6. Real Estate Investment Schemes
NASAA members have noted a rise in scams disguised as offers to help homeowners caught up in the turbulent housing market "save" their homes or "fix" their mortgages, usually in exchange for a fee paid in advance. Most of these advance-fee offers only generate a quick profit for the con artist and provide no benefit to the consumer.
Some homeowners, particularly seniors, may be attracted to reverse mortgages, which are a legitimate lending option. However, the resulting lump sum home equity payment makes them an attractive target for unscrupulous salesmen, who may attempt to direct these funds toward worthless or unsuitable investment products.
5. Private Placement Offerings
State securities regulators have observed a steady and significant rise in the number of private placement offerings that are later discovered to be fraudulent, especially those made under a federal registration exemption (Regulation D, Rule 506). Companies using this exemption can raise an unlimited amount of money without registering the offering with the SEC as long as they meet certain standards.
Although properly used by many legitimate issuers, the exemption has become an attractive option for con artists, as well as individuals barred from the securities industry and others bent on stealing money from investors through false and misleading representations.
4. Life Settlements
Life Settlements have been a concern for state securities regulators. The rising popularity of these products among investors has prompted a recent congressional investigation. While life settlement transactions have helped some people obtain funds needed for medical expenses and other purposes, those benefits come at a high price for investors, particularly senior citizens.
Wide-ranging fraudulent practices in the life settlement market include Ponzi schemes; fraudulent life expectancy evaluations; inadequate premium reserves that increase investor costs; and false promises of large profits with minimal risk.
3. Natural Resource Investments
The NASAA expects to continue to see a rise in energy and precious-metals scams promising quick, high returns. Investors anxious to recover losses quickly likely will be hooked by oil and gas schemes, as well as fraudulent offerings of investments tied to natural gas, wind and solar energy, and the development of new energy-efficient technologies.
2. Gold Bullion and Currency Scams
With the high price of gold, investors should beware of gold bullion scams in which the seller offers to retain "purchased" gold in a "secure vault" and promises to sell the gold for the investor as it gains in value. In many instances the gold does not exist.
There are a lot of similar foreign-exchange (forex) trading schemes. Trading in foreign currencies requires resources far beyond the capacity of most individual investors. Promoters profit by charging high commissions or selling investment strategies assuming that trades are actually made. In many instances there are no trades; the money is simply stolen.
1. Ponzi Schemes
Ponzi Schemes rank Number One in investment fraud. Following Bernard Madoff's multi-billion dollar fraud and 150-year prison sentence, these scams continue to trap investors. The Ponzi scheme is a house-of-cards swindle in which high returns are paid to initial investors out of the funds contributed by later investors, who end up losing all or most of their money to the promoter.
While some Ponzi investors may have a slight chance of realizing a return on their investment, most investors have from the outset no hope of recovery.
How to Prevent Fraud
Denise Voight Crawford, president of the NASAA and Texas Securities Commissioner, says, "The way to protect yourself from affinity fraud is to investigate before you invest." First you should find your state securities regulator on NASAA.org, contact them with the name of the person that asked you to invest and give them the name of the offering.
The red flags for fraud are being promised a high rate or consistent rate of return on securities that aren't registered in your state, and also if the person is not properly licensed.
Sponsored by
Friday, April 9, 2010
provided by
CNBClogo.gif
It's easy to become a victim of an investor scam, as news headlines have shown for the past two years. Criminals follow the latest market trends and find weaknesses to lure victims. According to the North American Securities Administrator Association (NASAA), senior citizens are the No. 1 target for fraud, while baby boomers are second. In 2008, the FBI estimated $40 billion was lost to securities and commodities fraud.
More from CNBC.com:
? Top 10 Investor Traps
? Unbelievable Scams and Schemes
? Your Money: Up Close and Personal
So how can you protect yourself from being scammed? See which investment vehicles are ranked high for fraud and get tips on making sure it doesn't happen to you.
10. Leveraged Exchange-Traded Funds (ETFs)
Leveraged exchange-traded funds (ETFs) are a relatively new financial product, which is why investors may not be aware of the risks they carry. The funds, which trade throughout the day like a stock, use exotic financial instruments, including options, other derivatives and promise the potential to generate better returns than the market return. Given their volatility, these funds typically are not suitable for most retail investors.
9. Speculative Inventions and New Products
New products are for venture capitalists who know how to assess the risks. They are not good investments for your retirement money even though they may promise high returns.
8. Short-Term Commercial Promissory Notes
Many seniors have lost their life savings by investing in short-term commercial promissory notes that are nine months or less in duration. These notes may be touted as being "insured" or "guaranteed," but the insurance companies generally are located outside of the United States, are not licensed to do business in the United States, and lack the resources necessary to deliver on the promised guarantees.
Unlike publicly advertised promissory notes, promoters of these short-term notes usually attempt to use commercial paper exemptions as a basis for selling the products without registration. The commercial paper exemptions apply only to high-grade commercial paper traded by major corporations ? not to these risky notes pushed to the public by a sales force paid with extremely high commissions.
7. Entertainment Investments
Entertainment investments are unregistered investments. They encompass a variety of products including movies, infomercials, internet gambling and pornography sites, and promise high returns while offering little disclosure of risk.
6. Real Estate Investment Schemes
NASAA members have noted a rise in scams disguised as offers to help homeowners caught up in the turbulent housing market "save" their homes or "fix" their mortgages, usually in exchange for a fee paid in advance. Most of these advance-fee offers only generate a quick profit for the con artist and provide no benefit to the consumer.
Some homeowners, particularly seniors, may be attracted to reverse mortgages, which are a legitimate lending option. However, the resulting lump sum home equity payment makes them an attractive target for unscrupulous salesmen, who may attempt to direct these funds toward worthless or unsuitable investment products.
5. Private Placement Offerings
State securities regulators have observed a steady and significant rise in the number of private placement offerings that are later discovered to be fraudulent, especially those made under a federal registration exemption (Regulation D, Rule 506). Companies using this exemption can raise an unlimited amount of money without registering the offering with the SEC as long as they meet certain standards.
Although properly used by many legitimate issuers, the exemption has become an attractive option for con artists, as well as individuals barred from the securities industry and others bent on stealing money from investors through false and misleading representations.
4. Life Settlements
Life Settlements have been a concern for state securities regulators. The rising popularity of these products among investors has prompted a recent congressional investigation. While life settlement transactions have helped some people obtain funds needed for medical expenses and other purposes, those benefits come at a high price for investors, particularly senior citizens.
Wide-ranging fraudulent practices in the life settlement market include Ponzi schemes; fraudulent life expectancy evaluations; inadequate premium reserves that increase investor costs; and false promises of large profits with minimal risk.
3. Natural Resource Investments
The NASAA expects to continue to see a rise in energy and precious-metals scams promising quick, high returns. Investors anxious to recover losses quickly likely will be hooked by oil and gas schemes, as well as fraudulent offerings of investments tied to natural gas, wind and solar energy, and the development of new energy-efficient technologies.
2. Gold Bullion and Currency Scams
With the high price of gold, investors should beware of gold bullion scams in which the seller offers to retain "purchased" gold in a "secure vault" and promises to sell the gold for the investor as it gains in value. In many instances the gold does not exist.
There are a lot of similar foreign-exchange (forex) trading schemes. Trading in foreign currencies requires resources far beyond the capacity of most individual investors. Promoters profit by charging high commissions or selling investment strategies assuming that trades are actually made. In many instances there are no trades; the money is simply stolen.
1. Ponzi Schemes
Ponzi Schemes rank Number One in investment fraud. Following Bernard Madoff's multi-billion dollar fraud and 150-year prison sentence, these scams continue to trap investors. The Ponzi scheme is a house-of-cards swindle in which high returns are paid to initial investors out of the funds contributed by later investors, who end up losing all or most of their money to the promoter.
While some Ponzi investors may have a slight chance of realizing a return on their investment, most investors have from the outset no hope of recovery.
How to Prevent Fraud
Denise Voight Crawford, president of the NASAA and Texas Securities Commissioner, says, "The way to protect yourself from affinity fraud is to investigate before you invest." First you should find your state securities regulator on NASAA.org, contact them with the name of the person that asked you to invest and give them the name of the offering.
The red flags for fraud are being promised a high rate or consistent rate of return on securities that aren't registered in your state, and also if the person is not properly licensed.
14/4 2010 19:59 colombuss 028201 WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Barack Obama said Wednesday that Democrats' efforts to regulate Wall Street will not result in new public bailouts of banks, as Republicans have charged.
Obama also said he wants greater federal oversight of derivatives -- investment products that contributed to the nation's financial meltdown.
The president met with House and Senate leaders of both parties to discuss legislation revamping regulation of the financial industry. The Senate is beginning to debate the measure amid sharp partisan differences.
Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, who sat two chairs from Obama in the White House Cabinet Room, delivered a speech earlier Wednesday saying the administration-backed bill would perpetuate bailouts for Wall Street rather than end them.
Obama, speaking briefly to reporters before the closed meeting began, said he was "absolutely confident that the bill that emerges is going to be a bill that prevents bailouts. That's the goal."
"If there's one lesson that we've learned," he said, "it's that an unfettered market where people are taking huge risks and expecting taxpayers to bail them out when things go sour is simply not acceptable."
He called for "a strong mechanism to regulate derivatives." Obama also said the complex investment packages exist "in the shadow economy" and are "enormously risky."
"We want to get that into daylight," he said.
Derivatives are contracts used to hedge risk or speculate on the future value of assets. The most problematic derivatives from 2008 and 2009 involved mortgage loans that went into default.
After the meeting, McConnell was unmoved. He still insisted that the Senate bill "will lead to endless taxpayer bailouts of Wall Street banks."
That was the message he delivered earlier on the Senate floor -- the second such attack on the bill in as many days. He said the White House plans the same approach on financial reforms that it took on health care: "Put together a partisan bill, then jam it through on a strictly partisan basis."
White House economist Austan Goolsbee dismissed the GOP objections as "totally disingenuous."
"Bailouts are forbidden," he said in an interview. "There will only be wipeouts. They (the banks) will clean up the messes. If somebody fails, they're done -- they're toast. The management is fired. They're broken up or sold off or liquidated."
Goolsbee added the GOP broadside was "pretty cheeky of the Republican leadership," and an effort to divert attention from its efforts to stop regulation of the derivatives market. "They're trying to dramatically weaken and put loopholes into that derivatives regulation," he said.
Obama also said he wants greater federal oversight of derivatives -- investment products that contributed to the nation's financial meltdown.
The president met with House and Senate leaders of both parties to discuss legislation revamping regulation of the financial industry. The Senate is beginning to debate the measure amid sharp partisan differences.
Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, who sat two chairs from Obama in the White House Cabinet Room, delivered a speech earlier Wednesday saying the administration-backed bill would perpetuate bailouts for Wall Street rather than end them.
Obama, speaking briefly to reporters before the closed meeting began, said he was "absolutely confident that the bill that emerges is going to be a bill that prevents bailouts. That's the goal."
"If there's one lesson that we've learned," he said, "it's that an unfettered market where people are taking huge risks and expecting taxpayers to bail them out when things go sour is simply not acceptable."
He called for "a strong mechanism to regulate derivatives." Obama also said the complex investment packages exist "in the shadow economy" and are "enormously risky."
"We want to get that into daylight," he said.
Derivatives are contracts used to hedge risk or speculate on the future value of assets. The most problematic derivatives from 2008 and 2009 involved mortgage loans that went into default.
After the meeting, McConnell was unmoved. He still insisted that the Senate bill "will lead to endless taxpayer bailouts of Wall Street banks."
That was the message he delivered earlier on the Senate floor -- the second such attack on the bill in as many days. He said the White House plans the same approach on financial reforms that it took on health care: "Put together a partisan bill, then jam it through on a strictly partisan basis."
White House economist Austan Goolsbee dismissed the GOP objections as "totally disingenuous."
"Bailouts are forbidden," he said in an interview. "There will only be wipeouts. They (the banks) will clean up the messes. If somebody fails, they're done -- they're toast. The management is fired. They're broken up or sold off or liquidated."
Goolsbee added the GOP broadside was "pretty cheeky of the Republican leadership," and an effort to divert attention from its efforts to stop regulation of the derivatives market. "They're trying to dramatically weaken and put loopholes into that derivatives regulation," he said.
