home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: misc.invest
- Path: sparky!uunet!gumby!yale!cs.yale.edu!news
- From: blenko-tom@CS.YALE.EDU (Tom M. Blenko)
- Subject: Re: Warrents
- Message-ID: <1992Nov17.045645.23615@cs.yale.edu>
- Sender: news@cs.yale.edu (Usenet News)
- Nntp-Posting-Host: wren.systemsz.cs.yale.edu
- Reply-To: blenko-tom@cs.yale.edu
- Organization: Yale University, Department of Computer Science, New Haven, CT
- References: <1992Nov16.210025.14527@cs.sfu.ca>
- Distribution: usa
- Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 04:56:45 GMT
- Lines: 69
-
-
- | >>>
- | I don't get it. Options are insurance policies. Options
- | on options are reinsurance. What is the objection to
- | either, and why shouldn't they be traded as securities?
- | <<<
- |
- | The idea of insurance is fine; the problems arise when one starts
- getting
- | enough options volume so that the options must be considered as
- commodities
- | (items in their own right), rather than as a minor cost associated with
- | stabilizing a portfolio. In such a case, the amplifying effect of
- options
- | can be very dangerous. Consider a bull market, where people are
- speculation
- | (not hedging, speculating) in options by buying calls. If for some
- reason
- | a bear market, even a minor one, occurs, a great many people may find
- that
- | they have lost ALL of their money--not just the one-fourth or one-third
- they
- | would have lost if they'd been holding the stocks. Under the right
- | circumstances, this may trigger selling, and turn a minor bear into to
- | major one.
-
- I think you've described some of the effects of
- speculative investment on the market. Speculative
- investment, however, doesn't begin or end with options,
- so I don't see it as an argument against options. It is
- true, I think, that small and inexpert players can get
- hurt -- but again, they don't need options to do that
- (witness the messages here following up on "hot"
- information gleaned from 60 Minutes broadcasts).
-
- | This problem is yet another case of the more general economic problem
- that
- | is usually seen with credit, but is more correctly termed a problem of
- | unsupported expectations. In stable or predictable (which generally
- means
- | good, i.e. UP UP UP) financial markets, people gradually lose sight of
- the
- | fact that bears do come wandering buy, and spend/invest ahead of their
- | guaranteed means. (Think of all those people who thought that house
- | prices would rise forever.) When the market goes bad, a whole slew of
- | people--possibly even a majority of the investing public--are suddenly
- | faced with the realization that they are in way over their heads. The
- | result is a precipitous drop in their spending, and possibly other
- | money-saving activities (in the extreme case, bankruptcy), which has the
- | effect of disrupting the smooth flow of capital in the economy. The
- result
- | is a degree of turbulence which, if it gets bad enough, can take down
- | even prudent businesses and individuals, as well as those who were
- | speculating.
-
- Look, individuals engage in leveraged speculation all
- the time -- it's called getting a mortgage to buy real
- estate. You are quite correct that one effect is
- increased volatility in the markets. We happen to be in a
- period when a lot of people are getting burned by this. But
- I think that mortgages and investment in real estate
- aren't going to go away, for perfectly good reasons --
- there is an economic cost to prohibiting these
- alternatives as well.
-
- And I don't see any argument here against options in
- particular.
-
- Tom
-