andyandy- If you're to ask for help, you should ask for it in English. Your constant use of "u" really grates.
OK, here's a shot in the dark. What would anyone suggest to someone that really wanted to learn about investing. When I go to the bookstore there are tons of books all promising to make me a millionaire if I only read their book. Any suggestions? If it matters any, I currently have a decent sized IRA, 401K (in my 401K I can self allocate 20% of my money, the rest has to be in the funds that are offered), and a variable life policy.
I really recommend
Principles of Corporate Finance. It actually looks at stocks from the companies' point of view, explaining why they make the decisions they do. But this also means that it explains investing, because you can't understand how to run a publicly traded company without understanding what your stockholders are doing and why. It's also aimed at graduate, MBA type students, which can make it rather intimidating, but that also means that you're learning the actual principles, rather than some dumbed-down version. It provides a much deeper level of understanding than investing books, explaining the actual reasons for why the stock market is how it is, rather than just giving you a surface understanding.
Most of all, it approaches the subject from the point of view of educating the reader, rather than just spouting a bunch of BS to look knowledgeable, telling you that you can become a millionaire, and doing whatever else it takes to get someone to buy it. I have yet to see a book aimed at investors that takes the subject seriously, rather than just peddling simplistic ideas.
lenny said:
investing in shares, like opening a bank account, is harder in the UK.
How so?
but then betting on the stock market is very easy, and the returns are tax free (no income tax, no capital gains, ...)
Why is "the" in italics?
LazarusLong said:
The example given describes the sale of a "futures contract" without specifying whether it is a "call" or a "put", or stating the strike price, or expiration date.
It says that it's for six months from now.
Keep in mind that the buyer of the contract has the option to "exercise" (i.e., sell you his share for $24) at any time within the specified time. You, as the seller of the contract have no say in when, or whether, he decides to do so.
That's true for puts, but not for futures options.
There is nothing risk-free about this scenario.
It makes no sense to interpret an example with the assumption that there is no arbitrage, then complain that there is no arbitrage.
LazarusLong said:
As a previous poster noted, a contract price of $14 is grossly unrealistic. The buyer of the contract is agreeing to pay the strike price after one year, so his eventual total cost is the strike price plus the contract price; it makes no sense to agree to pay more for a stock in a year than it would cost you today.
The reason it doesn't make sense is because it creates arbitrage. It's rather silly to criticize an example of arbitrage on the basis that it doesn't make sense. Arbitrage is,
by definition, a situation where pricing is not rational.
LazarusLong said:
Their example involves a contract that is still open after the trade, so there is inherent risk, even if it is only opportunity cost.
How so?