query: Is there a reason to buy a 0% yield bond?

positive: 0% bonds are desirable for some individuals. It depends on your situation. 0% bonds are usually sold well below par value (eg a 100$ face value bond for 2020 might sell for 90$ today) Hence, your gains will be CAPITAL GAINS. A similar investment paying interest would be taxed as INCOME, and smaller portion of capital gains. In many countries (US, Canada) Capital gains are taxed at a more favourable rate then income. This is especially true when holding these investments in corporations.

positive: No, there isn't. There are a number of reasons that institutions buy these bonds but as an individual you're likely better off in a low-yield cash account. By contrast, there would be a reason to hold a low-yield (non-zero) bond rather than an alternative low-yield product.

negative: There is another reason why an investor might buy negative yielding bonds: if the investor expects that bond yields will go even further negative, then they are also expecting the price of the bond to go up. They can resell the bond later at a profit. As an example, they may expect an increase in central bank bond purchases to drive yields lower and prices higher.

negative: Yes those are really yields. A large portion of the world has negative yielding bonds in fact. This process has been in motion for the past 10 years for very specific reasons. So congratulations on discovering the bond market.

negative: Virtually zero risk of default; safety; diversification; guaranteed fixed income albeit very low; portfolio diversifier so it reduces total volatility; plus yields might drop even lower thus increasing the price of the bond.  Very unlikely given how obscenely low yields already are but still possible.  I thought nobody would ever buy a 10yr @ 3% and now look, rates are almost half as much and those 3% bonds are worth a lot more now on the secondary market.  Timing the bond market is really hard.

negative: The dividend yield can be used to compare a stock to other forms of investments that generate income to the investor - such as bonds.  I could purchase a stock that pays out a certain dividend yield or purchase a bond that pays out a certain interest.  Of course, there are many other variables to consider in addition to yield when making this type of investment decision. The dividend yield can be an important consideration if you are looking to invest in stocks for an income stream in addition to investing in stocks for gain by a rising stock price. The reason to use Dividend/market price is that it changes the dividend from a flat number such as $1 to a percentage of the stock price, which thus allows it to be more directly compared with bonds and such which return a percentage yeild.

negative: Imagine that the existing interest rate is 5%. So on a bond with face value of 100, you would be getting a $5 coupon implying a 5% yield. Now, if let's say the interest rates go up to 10%, then a new bond issued with a face value of 100 will give you a coupon of $10 implying a 10% yield. If someone in the bond market buys your bond after interest price adjustment, in order to make the 10% yield (which means that an investor typically targets at least the risk-free rate on his investments) he needs to buy your bond at $50 so that a $5 coupon can give a 10% yield. The reverse happens when interest rates go down. I hope this somewhat clears the picture. Yield = Coupon/Investment Amount Update: Since the interest rate of the bond does not change after its issuance, the arbitrage in the interest rate is reflected in the market price of the bond. This helps in bringing back the yields of old bonds in-line with the freshly issued bonds.

negative: "TL;DR: If your currently held bond's bid yield is smaller than another bonds' ask yield. You can swap your bond for bigger returns. Let's imagine you buy a long bond for $12000 (face value of $10000) and it has 6% coupon. The cash flows will have an internal return rate of 4.37%, this is the published ""ask yield"" in 2014 of the bond. After six years, prices have fallen, inflation and yields went up. So you can sell it for only $10000. If you would do it, the IRR will be only 2.55%, so there will be less return, than if you keep it.  But if you would ""undo"" the transaction, then the future cash flows would yield 6.38%. This is the ""bid yield"" in 2020 of the bond. If you can find an offer that yields more than 6.38%, you have better returns if you sell your bond and invest that $10000 in the other bond.  But as other answers pointed it out, you rarely have this opportunity as the market is very effective. (Assuming everything else is equal.)"

negative: In theory, yes, it makes sense to sell your current bonds in pursuit of higher yields. In practice, there are a lot of smart people out there who own bonds, and the market is very efficient, so you won't see opportunities to trade new bonds for old bonds with better yields from the same issuer. If you do find someone willing to buy your old bond for a higher amount, it probably points to a change in the contract that the new bonds were issued under. (see Argentina for an example)

negative: "All of the other answers here are accurate, but (I think) are missing the point as to the question, which rests on how Bonds work in the first place. The bond specifies a payback AMOUNT and DATE. Let's say it is $10,000 and one year from today. If you buy that today for $9900, your yield will be 1%. If you buy it today for $11,000, your yield will be less than 0% (please don't make me do the math - it's just under negative 1%). You might be willing to pay that 1% (rather than receive 1%) for the certainty that you will definitely get your money back. The combined actions of all the people who may be willing to pay a little more or a little less for the safety of a US Treasury Bond is what people call ""the Market.""  Market forces (generally, investor confidence) will drive the price up and down, which affects the yield. All the other stuff - coupons and inflation and whatnot - all of that only makes sense if you understand that you aren't buying a rate of return, you are buying a payback amount and date."

negative: Supply and demand for a particular bond may be such that the market price exceeds the par value for the bond at maturity. This is when you get a negative yield. Especially when volatility is high, people will actually pay money to park it in treasuries for an amount of time. But when compared to a > 25% vol in the equities market over that same period, taking a 5% or less hit doesn't sound nearly as bad!

negative: A large number of bond holders decide to sell their bonds.  If they all decide to do this at the same time then there will be a large supply of bonds being sold in the market.  This will drive down the price of the bonds which will increase yields. Why do bond yields move inversely to bond prices? You purchase a $100 bond today that yields 5%.  You spent $100.  The very next day the same bonds are being sold with a yield of 10%.  If you wanted to sell your bond to someone you would have to sell it so it competed with the new bonds being sold.  You could not sell it for $100 which is what you paid for it.  You would have to sell it for less than the $100 you paid for it in order for it to have the equivalent yield of the new bonds being sold with a 10% yield.  This is why bond yields move inversely to bond prices. Why does rising yields increase the cost of borrowing? If someone is trying to sell new bonds they will have to sell bonds that compete with the yields of the current bonds already in the market. If yields are rising on the existing bonds then the issuer of the new bonds will have to pay higher interest rates to offer equivalent yields on the new bonds. The issuer is now paying more in interest making it more expensive to borrow money. What are the incentives for the bond vigilante to sell his/her bonds? One reason a bond holder will sell his/her bonds is they believe inflation will outpace the yield on the bond they are holding.  If a bond yields 3% and inflation is at 5% then the bond holder is essentially losing purchasing power if they continue to hold onto the bond.  Another reason to sell would be if the bond holder has doubts in the ability of the issuer to repay the interest and/or principal of the bond.

negative: "Since you want to know exactly what ""yield"" means, let's get all the details of the security down first. Treasury Bills are 0-1 year and do not pay interest/coupons. The yield comes from buying the T-Bill at a discount. For example, you buy a T-Bill for $99 and it pays $100 when it matures, and the yield over that holding period is 1/99. When people talk about ""yield"" they are generally talking about annualized yield unless stated otherwise.  Treasury Notes are 2-10 years. They pay interest semi-annually. Treasury Bonds are 20-30 years and they also pay interest semi-annually. Again, ""yield"" is typically the annualized yield, or the two semi-annual interest payments added together (without compounding). These have interest payments so they are typically sold at par. They may trade a premium/discount afterwards.  TIPS pay a constant coupon rate, but the principal is adjusted up and down with inflation."

negative: A bond fund has a 5% yield. You can take 1/.05 and think of it as a 20 P/E.  I wouldn't, because no one else does, really. An individual bond has a coupon yield, and a YTM, yield to maturity. A bond fund or ETF usually won't have a maturity, only a yield.

negative: "[...] are all bonds priced in such a way so that they all return the same amount (on average), after accounting for risk? In other words, do risk premiums ONLY compensate for the amount investors might lose? No. GE might be able to issue a bond with lower yield than, say, a company from China with no previous records of its presence in the U.S. markets. A bond price not only contains the risk of default, but also encompasses the servicability of the bond by the issuer with a specific stream of income, location of main business, any specific terms and conditions in the prospectus, e.g.callable or not, insurances against default, etc. Else for the same payoff, why would you take a higher risk? The payoff of a higher risk (not only default, but term structure, e.g. 5 years or 10 years, coupon payments) bond is more, to compensate for the extra risk it entails for the bondholder. The yield of a high risk bond will always be higher than a bond with lower risk. If you travel back in time, to 2011-2012, you would see the yields on Greek bonds were in the range of 25-30%, to reflect the high risk of a Greek default. Some hedge funds made a killing by buying Greek bonds during the eurozone crisis. If you go through the Efficient frontier theory, your argument is a counter statement to it. Same with individual bonds, or a portfolio of bonds. You always want to be compensated for the risk you take. The higher the risk, the higher the compensation, and vice versa. When investors buy the bond at this price, they are essentially buying a ""risk free"" bond [...] Logically yes, but no it isn't, and you shouldn't make that assumption."

negative: Yes, 0% APR = no interest. APR = Annual Percentage Rate. As in, the lender gets an annual percentage returned to them for lending you money. This is the opposite of APY, which is Annual Percentage Yield, or the money that an investment yields.

negative: "Negative Yields on Bonds is opposite of Getting profit on your investment. This is some kind of new practice from world wide financial institute.  the interest rate is -0.05% for ten years. So a $100,000 bond under   those terms would be ""discounted"" to $100,501, give or take. No, actually what you are going to get out from this investment is after 10 years when this investment is mature for liquidation, you will get return not even your principle $100,000 , but ( (Principle $100,000) minus (Negative Yields @ -0.05) Times ( 10 Years ) ) assume the rates are on simple annual rate.  Now anyone may wander why should someone going to buy this kind of investment where I am actually giving away not only possible profit also losing some of principle amount!  This might looks real odd, but there is other valid reason for issuing / investing on such kind of bond.  From investor prospective: Every asset has its own 'expense' for keeping ownership of it. This is also true for money/currency depending on its size. And other investment possibility and risk factor. The same way people maintain checking account with virtually no visible income vs. Savings account where bank issue some positive rate of interest with various time factor like annually/half-yearly/monthly. People with lower level of income but steady on flow choose savings where business personals go for checking one. Think of Millions of Ideal money with no secure investment opportunity have to option in real. Option one to keeping this large amount of money in hand, arranging all kind of security which involve extra expense, risk and headache where Option two is invest on bond issued by Government of country. Owner of that amount will go for second one even with negative yields on bonds where he is paying in return of security and risk free grantee of getting it back on time.  On Issuing Government prospective: Here government actually want people not to keep money idle investing bonds, but find any possible sector to invest which might profitable for both Investor + Grater Community ultimately country.  This is a basic understanding on issue/buy/selling of Negative interest bearing bond on market.   Hope I could explain it here. Not to mention, English is not my 1st language at all. So ignore my typo, grammatical error and welcome to fix it.  Cheers!"

negative: So you don't have to click the link   >When the 30-year bond yield begins the year below 4%, stocks go up 22.1%.  >When investment grade bonds yield below 4%, stocks go up 16%.  >When high yield bonds yield below 8%, stocks go up 11.6%.  >When cash as a percent of asset for non-financials is above 10%, stocks go up 17.6%.  >When the Fed tightens 0-75 basis points in the year, stocks go up 22%.  >When oil falls more than 20%, stocks go up 27.5%.

negative: Zero percent interest may sound great, but those deals often have extra margin built into the price to make up for it. If you see 0%, find it cheaper somewhere else and avoid the cloud over your head.

negative: Certainly, yes, a zero coupon bond can go down in price. If interest rates rise before your bond matures, the price of the bond will go down – and the longer to maturity, the more it will tend to drop.  Depending on when you bought and how much interest rates rise, you can incur a capital loss. The bond is guaranteed to be worth a certain amount at maturity as long as the issuer hasn't defaulted, but before maturity the market price of the bond will fluctuate, primarily based on interest rate movements.  In fact, zero coupon bonds are even more interest-rate-sensitive than regular bonds (which have periodic coupon interest payments.)

negative: Yield is the term used to describe how much income the bond will generate if the bond was purchased at a particular moment in time. If I pay $100 for a one year, $100 par value bond that pays 5% interest then the bond yields 5% since I will receive $5 from a $100 investment if I held the bond to maturity. If I pay $90 for the same one year bond then the bond yields 17% since I will receive $15 from a $90 investment if I held the bond to maturity. There are many factors that affect what yield creditors will accept: It is the last bullet that ultimately determines yield.  The other factors feed into the creditor’s desire to hold money today versus receiving money in the future.  I desire money in my hand more than a promise to receive money in the future.  In order to entice me to lend my money someone must offer me an incentive.  Thus, they must offer me more money in the future in order for me to part with money I have. A yield curve is a snapshot of the yields for different loan durations.  The x-axis is the amount of time left on the bond while the y-axis is the yield.  The most cited yield curve is the US treasury curve which displays the yields for loans to the US government.  The yield curve changes while bonds are being traded thus it is always a snapshot of a particular moment in time. Short term loans typically have less yield than longer term loans since there is less uncertainty about the near future. Yield curves will flatten or slightly invert when creditors desire to keep their money instead of loaning it out.  This can occur because of a sudden disruption in the market that causes uncertainty about the future which leads to an increase in the demand for cash on hand. The US government yield curve should be looked at with some reservation however since there is a very large creditor to the US government that has the ability to loan the government an unlimited amount of funds.

negative: "You ask a question, ""Is there any real purpose in purchasing bonds?"" and then appear to go off on a rant. Before the question is closed by members here, let me offer this:  This chart reflects the 10 year bond rate. From 1960-2004 (give or take) the coupon rate was over 4%. Asset allocation suggests a mix of stocks and bonds seeking to avoid the risk of having ""all of one's eggs in one basket."" To that end, the simplest approach is a stock/bond mix. Over time, a 70/30 mix provides nearly 95% of the long tern return, but with a much lower volatility.  I'm not going to suggest that a 2% 10 year bond is an exciting investment, but bonds may have a place in one's portfolio. I'm not going to debate each and every point you attempted, but #5 is especially questionable. If you feel this is true, you should short bonds. Or you should at least 99% of the time. Do you have data to back up this statement?"

negative: Your question asked about a specific time the yield curve flattened or inverted.  There are other times when the yield curve inverted or flattened.  You also imply in your question that investors were flocking to long term bonds which lowered their yields.  I don't believe this is the case.  I believe investors were fleeing from short term bonds causing the yields on short term bonds to rise to meet those of long term bonds. The chart below shows the history of yields on US bonds over time.  The shaded areas are where the yield curve flattened or inverted.  Notice that after 1982 it is the short term yields that rise sharply to meet or cross the yields on longer term bonds.  The yields on longer term bonds move little compared to the movement in yields on the short term bonds.  Thus it is investors moving out of short term bonds that cause the yield curve to flatten or invert.  These investors are not moving into longer term bonds since the yields on the longer term bonds do not move much at all at these times.  In fact, in 2006 the longer term bond market was only 25% of the total US public debt while short term bonds made up 75%.  It would take less money to move the yields on longer term bonds than it would on short term bonds yet the longer term yields did not move near as much as short term yields.  So why are investors or banks moving out of short term bonds causing their yields to rise?  I believe this happens for one of two reasons:  they are moving into higher yielding investments or they need to raise cash to cover bad investments.  Charts and more information here.

negative: "It makes sense if the NPV is positive. But what rate should you use at determining the NPV? A textbook might say ""market rate"".... and by definition the market rate to use in bond calculations like yours will mean that your NPV will be zero.  How can this be? Well it's a bit of a circular definition. You take less capital to earn a higher return. The value of your capital spread over the period of the bond's maturity is the net difference... but the money in your pocket from selling the bond and not purchasing also has value. Banks and traders do this exact swap every day, many many times. The rate at which you can execute this swap is what defines the market rate. Therefore, by definition, the NPV will be zero. Now, this doesn't mean it's a bad idea for you. You can, on your own accord, decide the value you place on the capital versus the yield and make the decision. Do you expect rates to rise or fall? Do you expect higher or lower inflation? In reality you can form whatever opinion you like for your own circumstance, but the market is the net aggregation of formative opinion. You only get to decide whether or not you agree with the market."

negative: "The answer is yes. And the reason is if today's interest rates are lower than the interest rate (coupon) at which the bond was issued. The bond's ""lifetime value"" is 100 cents on the dollar. That's the principal repayment that the investor will get on the maturity date. But suppose the bond's coupon rate is 4% while today's interest rate is 3%. Then, people who bought the bond at 100 would get 4% on their money, while everyone else was getting 3%. To compensate, a three year bond would have to rise to almost 103 so that the so-called yield to maturity"" would be 3%. Then there would be a ""capital loss"" (from almost 103 to 100) that would exactly offset the extra interest, that is 1% ""more"" for three years. If today's interest rates are negative (as they were from time to time in the 1930s, and in the present decade), the ""negative"" interest rates will prevent the buyer from getting the ""lifetime value"" (as defined by the OP) of principal plus interest over the original life of the bond. This happens in a ""flight to quality"" situation, where people are willing to take a (small) capital loss on Treasuries in order to prevent a large possible loss from bank failures like those that took place in 2008."

negative: Yes, if you want income and are willing to commit to hold a bond to maturity, you can hold the bond, get the scheduled payments, and get your principal returned at the end. US Savings Bonds are non-marketable (you cannot trade them, but can redeem early) bonds designed for this purpose. The value of a marketable bond will vary over its lifetime as interest rates change and the bond matures. If you buy a 30 year US Treasury bond at par value (100) on September 1, 2011, it yielded 3.51%. If rates fall, the value of your bond will increase over 100. If rates rise, the value will decrease below 100.  How much the value changes depends on the type of bond and the demand for it. But if your goal is to buy and hold, you don't need to worry about it.

negative: It depends a lot on your investment period and the quality of the bonds that you want to invest. For example, if you want to invest until the maturity of the bonds, and the bonds are very safe (i.e. they are not expected to default), it does not matter that the interest rate rise. That is because at the maturity of the bond it will converge to its maturity value which will be independent of the change of the interest rates (although on the middle of the life the price of the bond will go down, but the coupon should remain constant -unless is a floating coupon bond-). An option could be to invest in an ETF with short term bonds (e.g. 1 year) with AAA credit rating (high quality, so very low default rate). It won't yield much, but is more than 0% if you hold it until maturity.

negative: "No... that's just what I'm owed for letting them use my principal.  If I wanted to enjoy the opportunity cost of 0% interest for 13 plus years, I'd just keep the money in my ""savings"" account (where the 8th wonder of world, miracle of compound interest no longer exists).   The bigger question posited by my snark was if/when the bond market will stop trading them as legitimate paper."

negative: There are a few other factors possible here: Taxes - Something you don't mention is what are the tax rates on each of those choices.  If the 4% gain is taxed at 33% while the 3% government bond is taxed at 0% then it may well make more sense to have the government bond that makes more money after taxes. Potential changes in rates - Could that 4% rate change at any time?  Yield curves are an idea here to consider where at times they can become inverted where short-term bonds yield more than long-term bonds due to expectations about rates.  Some banks may advertise a special rate for a limited time to try to get more deposits and then change the rate later.  Beware the fine print. Could the bond have some kind of extra feature on it?  For example, in the US there are bonds known as TIPS that while the interest rate may be low, there is a principal adjustment that comes as part of the inflation adjustment that is part how the security is structured.

negative: The 10yr bond pays coupons semi annually.  The yield % is what you would get annually if you hold the bond to full term.  The coupon payment won't be exactly 1.65%/2 because of how bond pricing and yields work.  The yield commonly quoted does not tell you how much each interest payment is.  You have to look at the price and coupon of a specific individual bond.  The rate you see is the market equilibrium yield at the present.      Example, I offer two different people two different bonds.  Joe buys a 10yr bond paying 5% coupons semi annually at a par value of $1000.  I charge him $1000.  Bob wants to buy a 10yr bond paying 10% coupons semi annually at a par value of $1000.  I charge him $1500 for this.   The yield is similar between the two (not equal due to math details but lets assume).  So at the end of 10 yrs, the two have roughly the same total amount of $.  Bob's paid more each year but he paid more up front.    This is why the federal govt can issue bonds with diff coupons and the market prices them so the yield rises/falls to the market clearing yield.

negative: Russia has become more risky as an investment, thus investors, basically the market, wants to be paid more for investing in or owning those bonds. As yields go up, prices go down. So right now you can buy a low priced Russian bond with a high yield because the market views the risk involved as higher than risks involved in other similar securities.

negative: "There's actually a lot of smaller questions in your question, so I'll answer just a few here. The standard bond index for high yield corporates is the Barclays Capital High Yield Corporate index, which is the basis for JNK.  I am not familiar with the index behind HYG, the ""iBoxx $ Liquid High Yield index."" The ETFs are managed quantitatively to try to track the index as closely as possible.  AFAIK these ETFs do not attempt to take active positions. New issues are typically purchased with cash which is constantly coming in from interest and principal payments from other bonds.  There is rarely a need to sell bonds just to buy new issues.  Selling bonds is more common when a fund is experiencing redemptions. These ETFs and the high yield bonds they buy are not derivatives (your question seems to be confused on that point). The US Treasury is not directly involved in any way.  They are indirectly involved, as they are indirectly involved in US equities markets or world markets for that matter, although perhaps they have greater influence in the bond world. Moody's has extensive studies of default rates by ratings."

negative: Significantly less effort to buy into any of several international bond index funds. Off the top of my head, VTIBX.

negative: Buy a fund of bonds, there are plenty and are registered on your stockbroker account as 'funds' rather than shares. Otherwise, to the individual investor, they can be considered as the same thing. Funds (of bonds, rather than funds that contain property or shares or other investments) are often high yield, low volatility. You buy the fund, and let the manager work it for you. He buys bonds in accordance to the specification of the fund (ie some funds will say 'European only', or 'global high yield' etc) and he will buy and sell the bonds regularly. You never hold to maturity as this is handled for you - in many cases, the manager will be buying and selling bonds all the time in order to give you a stable fund that returns you a dividend. Private investors can buy bonds directly, but its not common.  Should you do it? Up to you. Bonds return, the company issuing a corporate bond will do so at a fixed price with a fixed yield. At the end of the term, they return the principal. So a 20-year bond with a 5% yield will return someone who invests £10k, £500 a year and at the end of the 20 years will return the £10k. The corporate doesn't care who holds the bond, so you can happily sell it to someone else, probably for £10km give or take. People say to invest in bonds because they do not move much in value. In financially difficult times, this means bonds are more attractive to investors as they are a safe place to hold money while stocks drop, but in good times the opposite applies, no-one wants a fund returning 5% when they think they can get 20% growth from a stock.


query: Basic Algorithmic Trading Strategy

positive: This strategy is called trading the 'Golden Cross' if the 50 day SMA moves above the 200 day, or the 'Death Cross' when the 50 day SMA moves below the 200 day SMA. Long-term indicators carry more weight than shorter-term indicators, and this cross, in a positive direction signals a change in momentum of the stock. You will not catch the very bottom using this method, but there is a better chance that you will catch a move near the beginning of a longer-term trend. Golden Cross Information - Zacks

negative: "I interned for about six months at a firm that employed a few technical analysts, so I'll try to provide what little information I can. Since the bulk of the intra-day trading was decided algorithmically, technical analysts had two main functions: This basically boils down to my answer to your question. There are still enough people, trading firms, etc. who believe in candlestick charting and other visually subjective patterns that if you notice a trend, pattern, etc. before the majority of traders observing, you may be able to time the market successfully and profit. This is becoming increasingly dangerous, however, because of the steps I outlined above. Over time, the charting patterns that have been proven effective (often in many firms individually since the algorithms are all proprietary) are incorporated into computer algorithms, so the ""traders"" you're competing with to see the pattern are increasingly low-latency computer clusters less than a few blocks from the exchange. Summary: Candlestick charting, along with other forms of subjective technical analysis, has its believers, and assuming enough of these believers trade the standard strategies based on the standard patterns, one could conceivably time the market with enough skill to anticipate these traders acting on the pattern and therefore profit. However, the marginal benefits of doing so are decreasing rapidly as computers take over more trading responsibility.  Caveats:  I know you're in Australia, where the market penetration of HF/algo traders isn't as high as in the US, so it might be a few more years before the marginal benefits cease to be profitable; that being said, if various forms of technical analysis proved wildly profitable in Australia, above and beyond profits available in other markets, rest assured that large American or British trading firms would already have moved in.  My experience is limited to one trading firm, so I certainly can't speak for the industry as a whole. I know I didn't address candlestick charts specifically, but since they're only one piece of visual technical analysis, I tried to address the issue as a whole.  This somewhat ties into the debate between fundamental or technical analysis, which I won't get into. Investopedia has a short article on the subject. As I said, I won't get into this because while it's a nice debate for small traders, at large trading firms, they don't care; they want to make profit, and any strategy that can be vetted, whether it's fundamental, technical, or astrological, will be vetted.  I want to add more information to my answer to clear up some of the misconceptions in the comments, including those talking about biased studies and a lack of evidence for or against technical analysis (and candlestick charts; I'll explore this relationship further down).  It's important to keep in mind that charting methods, including candlestick charts, are visually subjective ways of representing data, and that any interpretations drawn from such charts should, ideally, represent objective technical indicators. A charting method is only as good as the indicators it's used to represent. Therefore, an analysis of the underlying indicators provides a suitable analysis for the visual medium in which they're presented.  One important study that evaluates several of these indicators is Foundations of Technical Analysis: Computational Algorithms, Statistical Inference, and Empirical Implementation by Lo, Mamaysky, and Wang. Lest anyone accuse its authors of bias, I should point out that not only is it published by the National Bureau of Economic Research (a highly reputable organization within economics and finance), but also that the majority of its authors come from MIT's Sloan school, which holds a reputation second to none. This study finds that several technical indicators, e.g. head-and-shoulder, double-bottom, and various rectangle techniques, do provide marginal value. They also find that although  human judgment is still superior to most computational algorithms in the area of visual pattern recognition, ... technical analysis can be improved by using automated algorithms Since this paper was published in 2000, computing power and statistical analysis have gained significant ground against human ability to identify and exploit for visual pattern detection like candlestick charts.  Second, I suggest you look into David Aaronson's book, Evidence-Based Technical Analysis: Applying the Scientific Method and Statistical Inference to Trading Signals. He finds similar results to the Lo, et. al. paper, in that some technical indicators do add value to the investment process, but those that do are those that can be represented mathematically and thus programmed directly into trading algorithms (thus bypassing visual tools like candlestick charts).  He describes how studies, including Lo, et al., have found that head and shoulders patterns are worse than random, i.e. you would earn higher returns if you simply traded at random. That point is worth than repeating. If a day-trader is using a candlestick chart and using head-and-shoulders patterns as part of their toolkit, he's rolling the dice when he uses that pattern and returns that come from its application come from chance. This reminds me of that old story about a company that sends out pamphlets predicting the results of sports games, complete with ""strategies"" and ""data"" to back up the predictions. The company sends out several versions of the pamphlet every game, each predicting a different winner. Given a large enough sample size, by the end of the season, there are a few people who have received a pamphlet that accurately predicted the winner for every game and they're convinced the system is perfect. The others weren't so lucky, however. Relying on candlestick charts and TA patterns that are relics from the pre-computerized era is reassuring to some traders and gives them a sense of control and ""beating the market,"" but how long will chance remain on your side? This is why I maintain that visual tools like candlestick charts are a slowly dying medium. They certainly still add value to some trading firms, which is why Bloomberg terminals still ship with this functionality built in, but as more and more research shows, automated algorithms and statistical indicators can provide more value. It's also important to think about whether the majority of the value added by visual tools like candlestick charts comes in the form of profit or a sense of security to traders who learned the field using them over the past few decades.  Finally, it's extremely important to realize that the actions of retail investors in the equities market cannot begin to represent the behaviors of the market as a whole. In the equities markets alone, trading firms and institutional investors dwarf retail investors, and the difference in scale is even more vastly pronounced in derivatives and currency markets. The fact that some retail investors use candlestick charts and the technical indicators they (hope) underlie them provides nothing but minor anecdotal evidence as to their effectiveness."

negative: "I would start with VBA for 2 reasons.  - Easy to step through and see what you're doing. - Most financial data is in .xlsx or .csv format already.  VBA will be your friend for a long time. Even ordinary Excel skills will be highly useful.   Once you have the basics down of VBA start exploring other languages based on need. If you are constantly pushing and pulling data maybe SQL will be the next logical choice.  If you are running out of options with the Excel statistical analysis packages then learn R.  Web development? Javascript.  Algorithmic trading? Python, C or C++.  what's more, I find learning another language really helps develop your VBA skills. I never really saw the value of ""Do"" loops until I started learning Python where it is necessary."

negative: It just amazes me that they haven't already. I know people who work at big banks that do nothing but run spreadsheets and analyze the balance boxes all day. The only reason they haven't been automated yet is because their tech guys produce more value working on trading algorithms.

negative: I think you are right. I hear people all the time with horror stories about futures and trading horror stories in general. I want to learn about this market, but I don't want to go in without some education on the matter. I watched their video on options on futures, but the valuation method needs a bit more explaining to be (beta, gamma, etc.). I get the basic idea of options on futures, but I need to formulate a strategy, and that is where study would come in.   I have wanted to play around with a few strategies I had in my head for regular options, and by the time I get the grasp of it, I might be able to trade options on futures. I guess my biggest thing with options on futures is not to be sophisticated, but more so I can have access to new markets. On the topic of options though, I do think there is some strategies that could boost my returns a bit on my existing strategies. I think selling various options (selling call options on weak dividend stocks stuck as bulk shipper or mortgage reits and as of late oil trusts or selling put options on some stronger oil reits or other stronger dividend stocks). The only problem is I don't know if the premium would be enough to make it worth while with the weak dividend stocks. So either way, even if you are only earning a conservative 9% on dividends, if you add in another 4% for premium, you could be making 13% off of one trade, and could repeat the process (assuming the target stayed weak or strong).

negative: * In the 70's, 80's and early 90's there were pinstriped brokers who took orders over the phone from people who wanted to buy and sell. They had a huge competitive advantage over the rest of the market due to the lack of transparency in the market's order book. Therefore you got screwed every time you wanted to trade, ie the markets were less efficient because transaction cost was high. Transaction cost is = bid-ask spread + how much you get screwed by the market insiders.  * In the 90's and early 00's there were automated trading systems that allowed people to conduct trades directly with computers, aka Algorithmic Trading. The markets were more efficient, because spreads became tighter as more people were able to enter the market on this platform (e.g. [Lightspeed](http://lightspeed.com)). The ability for market insiders to screw the general market was lessened because the exclusive access to the market's order book was eroded. Of course some Algorithmic Trading operations had a huge competitive advantage because they had great systems and great people. However it wasn't talked about because those who new about it were making a killing and keeping their mouths shut.   * Then in the mid to late 00's there was co-located algorithmic trading on very fast systems, aka HFT, a natural evolution of Algorithmic Trading. Now market insiders (= people with enough resources to field co-located machines and the the engineer/traders to manage them) expanded their  competitive advantage by discovering the market's order book (as they are able to see orders in a fraction of a second and then act on those orders). However to retract this natural efficiency in the markets you would need to create some kind of set of rules to even out the playing field. How can that be done?   ** Option 1) Transaction tax would just make the markets less efficient by increasing the cost of buying and selling. A generally bad thing because it discourages traders (to put money into stocks), which is of course how the capital markets are supported.   ** Option 2) Create rules to ensure everyone sees the same information at the same time and then permit anyone to use whatever technology they want to act on that information, so that the most efficient trading operations win.    ** Option 3) Create some artificial environment where no-one is allowed to have an advantage:  ensure everyone sees the same information at the same time, ensure everyone has the same technology, and ensure that the people who manage the systems have the exact same experience and intelligence etc...      Of course #2 is how it works, and it is the meritocratic basis which underpins Capitalism. I don't see why people have a problem with it.

negative: Based on my experience with OpenQuant, which is a development platform for automated trading strategies (and therefore can be easily be used for backtesting your personal strategy), I can give a little insight into what you might look for in such a platform.  OpenQuant is a coding environment, which reads data feeds from a variety of sources (more on that in the second point), and runs the code for your strategy on that data and gives you the results. The data could be imported from a live data feed or from historical data, either through numerous API's, CSV/Excel, etc. You can write your own strategies using the custom C# libraries included with the software, which spares you from implementing your own code for technical indicators, basic statistical functions, etc. Getting the data is another issue. You could use joe's strategy and calculate option prices yourself, although you need to exercise caution when doing this to test a strategy. However, there is no substitute for backtesting a strategy on real data. Markets change over time, and depending on how far back you're interested in testing your strategy, you may run into problems. The reason there is no substitute for using real data is that attempting to replicate the data may fail in some circumstances, and you need a method of verifying that the data you're generating is correct and realistic. Calculating a few values, comparing them to the real values, and calibrating accordingly is a good idea, but you have to decide for yourself how many checks you want to do. More is better, but it may not be enough to realistically test your strategy. Disclaimer: Lest you interpret my post as a shameless plug for the OpenQuant platform, I'll state that I found the interface awful (it looked vaguely like Office 2000 but ten years too late) and the documentation woefully incomplete. I last used the software in 2010, so it may have improved in the intervening years, but your mileage may vary. I only use it as an example to give some insight into what you might look for in a backtesting platform. When you actually begin trading, a different platform is likely in order.  That being said, it responded fairly quickly and the learning curve wasn't too steep. The platform wasn't too expensive at the time (about $700 for a license with no data feeds, I think) but I was happy that the cost wasn't coming out of my pocket. It's only gotten more expensive and I'm not sure it's worth it.

negative: Assuming you were immersed in math with your CS degree, the book **'A Non-Random Walk Down Wall Street' by Andrew Lo** is a very interesting book about the random walk hypothesis and it's application to financial markets and how efficient markets might not necessarily imply complete randomness.    Lots of higher level concepts in the book but it's an interesting topic if you are trying to branch out into the quant world.  The book isn't very specific towards algorithmic trading but it's good for concept and ideas.  Especially for general finance, that will give you a good run down about markets and the way we tackle modern finance.    **A Random Walk Down Wall Street** (which the book above is named after) by **Burton Malkiel** is also supposed to be a good read and many have suggested reading it before the one I listed above, but there really isn't a need to do so.    For investing specifically, many mention **'The Intelligent Investor' by Benjamin Graham** who is the role model for the infamous Warren Buffet.  It's an older book and really dry and I think kind of out dated but mostly still relevant.  It's more specifically about individual trading rather than markets as a whole or general markets.  It sounds like you want to learn more about markets and finance rather than simply trading or buying stocks.  So I'd stick to the Andrew Lo book first.    ---  Also, since you might not know, it would be a good idea to understand the capital asset pricing model, free cash flow models, and maybe some dividend discount models, the last of which isn't so much relevant but good foundations for your finance knowledge.  They are models using various financial concepts (TVM is almost used in every case) and utilizing them in various ways to model certain concepts.  You'd most likely be immersed in many of these topics by reading a math-oriented Finance book.  Try to stay away from those penny stock trading books, I don't think I need to tell a math major (who is probably much smarter than I am) that you don't need to be engaging in penny stocks, but do your DD and come to a conclusion yourself if you'd like.  I'm not sure what career path you're trying to go down (personal trading, quant firm analyst, regular analyst, etc etc) but it sounds like you have the credentials to be doing quant trading.    ---  Check out www.quantopian.com.  It's a website with a python engine that has all the necessary libraries installed into the website which means you don't have to go through the trouble yourself (and yes, it is fucking trouble--you need a very outdated OS to run one of the libraries).  It has a lot of resources to get into algorithmic trading and you can begin coding immediately.  You'd need to learn a little bit of python to get into this but most of it will be using matplotlib, pandas, or some other library and its own personal syntax. Learning about alpha factors and the Pipeline API is also moderately difficult to get down but entirely possible within a short amount of dedicated time.     Also, if you want to get into algorithmic trading, check out Sentdex on youtube.  He's a python programmer who does a lot of videos on this very topic and has his own tool on quantopian called 'Sentiment Analyzer' (or something like that) which basically quantifies sentiment around any given security using web scrapers to scrape various news and media outlets.  Crazy cool stuff being developed over there and if you're good, you can even be partnered with investors at quantopian and share in profits.    You can also deploy your algorithms through the website onto various trading platforms such as Robinhood and another broker and run your algorithms yourself.    Lots of cool stuff being developed in the finance sector right now.  Modern corporate finance and investment knowledge is built on quite old theorems and insights so expect a lot of things to change in today's world.  ---  With a math degree, finance should be like algebra I back in the day.  You just gotta get familiar with all of the different rules and ideas and concepts.  There isn't that much difficult math until you begin getting into higher level finance and theory, which mostly deals with statistics anyways like covariance and regression and other statistic-related concepts.  Any other math is simple arithmetic.

negative: "Sure, but it doesn't revolve around facebook or reddit, it doesn't revolve around twitter or snapchat or instagram stories..... the truth is all of these ""techies"" generally don't actually know a thing themselves about coding or computers, they just know how to touch screens and get results from algorithms the rich created.   That skill of doing basically nothing replaced a ton of real human capital that got things done."

negative: The study of technical analysis is generally used (sometimes successfully) to time the markets. There are many aspects to technical analysis, but the simplest form is to look for uptrends and downtrends in the charts.  Generally higher highs and higher lows is considered an uptrend.  And lower lows and lower highs is considered a downtrend.  A trend follower would go with the trend, for example see a dip to the trend-line and buy on the rebound. A simple strategy for this is shown in the chart below:  I would be buying this stock when the price hits or gets very close to the trendline and then it bounces back above it. I would then have sold this stock once it has broken through below the trendline. This may also be an appropriate time if you were looking to short this stock. Other indicators could also be used in combination for additional confirmation of what is happening to the price. Another type of trader is called a bottom fisher. A bottom fisher would wait until a break above the downtrend line (second chart) and buy after confirmation of a higher high and possibly a higher low (as this could be the start of a new uptrend). There are many more strategies dealing with the study of technical analysis, and if you are interested you would need to find and learn about ones that suit your investment styles, whether you prefer short term trading or longer term investing, and your appetite for risk. You can develop strategies using various indicators and then paper trade or backtest these strategies. You can also manually backtest a strategy in most charting packages. You can go back in time on the chart so that the right side of the chart shows a date in the past (say one year ago or 10 years ago), then you can click forward one day at a time (or one week at a time if using weekly charts). With your indicators on the chart you can do virtual trades to buy or sell whenever a signal is given as you move forward in time. This way you may be able to check years of data in a day to see if your strategy works. Whatever you do, you need to document your strategies in writing in a written trading or investment plan together with a risk management strategy. You should always follow the rules in your written plan to avoid you making decisions based on emotions. By backtesting or paper trading your strategies it will give you confidence that they will work over the long term.  There is a lot of work involved at the start, but once you have developed a documented strategy that has been thoroughly backtested, it will take you minimal time to successfully manage your investments. In my shorter term trading (positions held from a couple of days to a few weeks) I spend about half an hour per night to manage my trades and am up about 50% over the last 7 months. For my longer term investing (positions held from months to years) I spend about an hour per week and have been averaging over 25% over the last 4 years. Technical Analysis does work for those who have a documented plan, have approached it in a systematic way and use risk management to protect their existing and future capital. Most people who say that is doesn't work either have not used it themselves or have used it ad-hock without putting in the initial time and work to develop a documented and systematic approach to their trading or investing.

negative: Well, if you only own the option, you are only limited to loosing the premium. With futures, at least with the brokers I talked to, most of the time you need to sign a margin contract just to trade futures. I don't want to go into debt, and I don't think I would do too well to be fairly honest. I am a college student, and want to limit my risk, and so just trading the option would help me get access to the commodity markets without having to get margin like many brokers want me to do. I am not trying to do any hedging or anything (which I am aware you can do). All I want to do is do an inflation trade, and I believe commodities are the best way. To me honest, if I had my way I would just buy and hold, and that is the strategy I want to emulate closest, even though I know I can't hold it forever. Basically, I want to avoid debt, but still trade commodities.

negative: why sell?  Because the stock no longer fits your strategy.  Or you've lost faith in the company. In our case, it's because we're taking our principal out and buying something else.  Our strategy is, basically, to sell (or offer to sell) after the we can sell and get our principal out, after taxes.  That includes dividends -- we reduce the sell price a little with every dividend collected.

negative: You have an incredibly narrow definition of AI. I'm currently researching ATC systems as a potential thesis topic and genetic algorithms are very commonly used in this area. I would argue that any definition of AI that doesn't include genetic algorithms is too narrow. A large chunk of my AI course was dedicated to genetic algorithms.

negative: I'm not that familiar with them, but as I understand it Eladian is mostly run by Automated Trading Desk guys. (Don't get me wrong ADT was definitely a strong firm at its prime, but I think Citi really gutted it).  I'm sure they have some ex-Citadel people there, but I'm not sure how important they were (I could be wrong, like I said I don't know who's at Eladian). Without dropping names, Headwinds snagged the researcher who pretty much wrote all of Citadel's core HFT algorithms.

negative: "I feel like he's just doing this for the kicks and doesn't really believe in it. But then I see the numerous talks, the book etc and I can't decide. His entire basis for a ""idea meritocracy"" is that everyone should be truthful or ""radical transparency"". I do not see the connection at all. You cannot build an idea meritocracy because it inherently means you can judge if an idea succeeds or fails before implementing it. If you want to bias yourself toward successful ideas, it requires nothing more than allowing people to implement what they think and then rewarding the ones who succeed. Basically, I cannot see the point of this ""radical transparency"" etc.  Except for one possibility - his computer algorithm. I feel like that is his grasp at immortality and the algorithm requires stupid tons of data to function. So why not give it to the best source for such data? Top ivy league graduates and brilliant people hired by the one of the biggest hedge funds on the planet. And then sell them on this idea that ""radical transparency"" is the basis for all success in the firm, and ask them to start inputting data on it."

negative: In trade shows, only being there and not putting effort put your company in a bad expense. Your key strategies in your trade show marketing plan will make you able to compete with the rest of the exhibitors, specially those in line of your industry. Here's a good trade show tip to guide your way in a more productive trade show marketing and successful exhibiting. Blog resource is provided by Xtreme Exhibits, a St. Louis trade show displays and exhibit solutions provider.

negative: Many would suggest that Trump's strategy for trade is outdated and there are the sensational claims he's an isolationist or nationalist. Whatever you want to call him. I believe he is trying to create jobs and a self relying economy within our own country and simply put he is putting our needs first. Instead of focusing on multilateral trade agreements he uses his bilateral strategy to negotiate. He is after a businessman and not a politician. I think its too early to tell if his trade stance is consistent with economic growth. Whatever we were doing was not working.

negative: > corporate strategy vs. corporate finance vs business development?  Broadly speaking there are different functional roles (regardless of title) that are involved in:  - Financial Planning and Analysis (FPA).  Forecasting, variance analysis (demand, supply etc.), pricing strategy, etc.  Depending on your skill set, they can be viewed as basic excel work or more complex optimization problems.  - Strategic planning, M&A.  Build or buy analysis.  Market analysis, etc.  This area is more on the capital allocation side in terms of whether or not a company should buy a competitor or build their own product line/service in a given area, geography, etc.  Investment banking backgrounds are helpful here.  - Communication.  There is a side of the business involved in presenting the company's business strategy to outside parties whether that be creditors or investors (stock holders).  The 'marcom / IR' (marketing communications, investor relations) side of the business involves presenting the company's strategy, forecast and results to outside parties.  This could also include the board of directors or senior management.  If you have a strong quantitative background at the engineering level, your ability to take differential equations and translate that to forecasting/econometric time series won't be difficult.  But for a lot of people that will be overkill and they only want basic Excel skills and understanding of finance/accounting.

negative: I don't really consider algorithms a form of intelligence, as they are generally static in their outputs. AI would change the algorithm or would design a new one.  But I really don't know enough about this stuff, and I need to read up on it.

negative: Option prices are computed by determining the cost of obtaining the option returns using a strategy that trades the underlying asset continuously.  It sounds like what you are describing is rapidly trading the option in order to obtain returns similar to those of the stock.  The equality goes both ways.   If the option is appropriately priced, then a strategy that replicates stock returns using the option will cost the same as buying the stock. Because you can't trade continuously, you won't actually be able to replicate the stock return, and it may seem like you are making arbitrage profit (puts may seem abnormally expensive), but you do so by bearing tail risk (i.e., selling puts loses more money than owning the associated stock if an unusually bad event occurs).

negative: "I think that any ETF is ""open source"" -- the company issues a prospectus and publishes the basket of stocks that make up the index. The stuff that is proprietary are trading strategies and securities or deriviatives that aren't traded on the open market. Swaps, venture funds, hedge funds and other, more ""exotic"" derivatives are the things that are closed. What do you mean by ""open source"" in this context?"

negative: "But speculation is absolutely intended to happen, and is considered necessary for healthy a investment environment.  What I am saying, however, is that this desire to rid the world of HFT appears to be moral rather than logical. There is very little reason to eliminate HFT as it stands, although there appears to be a propensity for very emotional responses to the basic concept. Ones I can appreciate. However I am suggesting they are misguided as the people who should be upset with HFT are the hedge fund managers and day traders they are outwitting, not you or me who buy and sell shares on a whim every so often. If you want to ban day traders that is a separate argument I don't want to go into.  The idea that these computer algorithms are all set to ""sell,sell,sell"" is provably nonsensical. If that were the case, all of the HFT participants would have gone massively bankrupt during the flash crashes. Also, it is quite patently the case that somebody has to be buying in order for anybody to sell. Saying ""this is what caused some of the crashes"" is just your desire for a simple explanation. It must have been more complex than this, and to my knowledge none of these crashes have been adequately explained although some poorly designed algorithms have been implicated. Note that in one of these cases IIRC a fund closed its doors due to the losses, and the market was largely unaffected. So it seems like a problem that self corrects in this case, and one that only *harms* the participant that erred.  Also, to correct a basic misunderstanding, selling happens all of the time, and does not inherently drive the price down. There are by definition an *equal number of sales to purchases*. What drives the price down is *the people buying being willing to pay less*.  EDIT: as another aside, a point I have made elsewhere and seems suitable to make here: flash crashes, whilst causing panic, are again something only the professional intra-day trading community are likely to be affected by. Their very name implies so. The reason being that anybody investing based on the *long term investment potential* of a company will only benefit in the temporary drop in price, as they can purchase more of the company at a bargain price. Any intelligent investor will not be fazed by the drop in price, as price has *no bearing on a company's real value*, and stocks do tend towards this value over time, whatever happens over the short term. The only case in which it could is if the company owns a large portfolio of stock that itself devalues dramatically that they intended to sell and as a result experience cash flow problems. This is so incredibly unlikely with a flash crash as to be ignored."

negative: "There are people (well, companies) who make money doing roughly what you describe, but not exactly. They're called ""market makers"". Their value for X% is somewhere on the scale of 1% (that is to say: a scale at which almost everything is ""volatile""), but they use leverage, shorting and hedging to complicate things to the point where it's nothing like a simple as making a 1% profit every time they trade. Their actions tend to reduce volatility and increase liquidity. The reason you can't do this is that you don't have enough capital to do what market makers do, and you don't receive any advantages that the exchange might offer to official market makers in return for them contracting to always make both buy bids and sell offers (at different prices, hence the ""bid-offer spread""). They have to be able to cover large short-term losses on individual stocks, but when the stock doesn't move too much they do make profits from the spread. The reason you can't just buy a lot of volatile stocks ""assuming I don't make too many poor choices"", is that the reason the stocks are volatile is that nobody knows which ones are the good choices and which ones are the poor choices. So if you buy volatile stocks then you will buy a bunch of losers, so what's your strategy for ensuring there aren't ""too many""? Supposing that you're going to hold 10 stocks, with 10% of your money in each, what do you do the first time all 10 of them fall the day after you bought them? Or maybe not all 10, but suppose 75% of your holdings give no impression that they're going to hit your target any time soon. Do you just sit tight and stop trading until one of them hits your X% target (in which case you start to look a little bit more like a long-term investor after all), or are you tempted to change your strategy as the months and years roll by? If you will eventually sell things at a loss to make cash available for new trades, then you cannot assess your strategy ""as if"" you always make an X% gain, since that isn't true. If you don't ever sell at a loss, then you'll inevitably sometimes have no cash to trade with through picking losers. The big practical question then is when that state of affairs persists, for how long, and whether it's in force when you want to spend the money on something other than investing. So sure, if you used a short-term time machine to know in advance which volatile stocks are the good ones today, then it would be more profitable to day-trade those than it would be to invest for the long term. Investing on the assumption that you'll only pick short-term winners is basically the same as assuming you have that time machine ;-) There are various strategies for analysing the market and trying to find ways to more modestly do what market makers do, which is to take profit from the inherent volatility of the market. The simple strategy you describe isn't complete and cannot be assessed since you don't say how to decide what to buy, but the selling strategy ""sell as soon as I've made X% but not otherwise"" can certainly be improved. If you're keen you can test a give strategy for yourself using historical share price data (or current share price data: run an imaginary account and see how you're doing in 12 months). When using historical data you have to be realistic about how you'd choose what stocks to buy each day, or else you're just cheating at solitaire. When using current data you have to beware that there might not be a major market slump in the next 12 months, in which case you won't know how your strategy performs under conditions that it inevitably will meet eventually if you run it for real. You also have to be sure in either case to factor in the transaction costs you'd be paying, and the fact that you're buying at the offer price and selling at the bid price, you can't trade at the headline mid-market price. Finally, you have to consider that to do pure technical analysis as an individual, you are in effect competing against a bank that's camped on top of the exchange to get fastest possible access to trade, it has a supercomputer and a team of whizz-kids, and it's trying to find and extract the same opportunities you are. This is not to say the plucky underdog can't do well, but there are systematic reasons not to just assume you will. So folks investing for their retirement generally prefer a low-risk strategy that plays the averages and settles for taking long-term trends."

negative: "A 'Call' gives you the right, but not the obligation, to buy a stock at a particular price. The price, called the ""strike price"" is fixed when you buy the option. Let's run through an example - AAPL trades @ $259. You think it's going up over the next year, and you decide to buy the $280 Jan11 call for $12.  Here are the details of this trade. Your cost is $1200 as options are traded on 100 shares each. You start to have the potential to make money only as Apple rises above $280 and the option trades ""in the money."" It would take a move to $292 for you to break even, but after that, you are making $100 for each dollar it goes higher. At $300, your $1200 would be worth $2000, for example. A 16% move on the stock and a 67% increase on your money. On the other hand, if the stock doesn't rise enough by January 2011, you lose it all.  A couple points here - American options are traded at any time. If the stock goes up next week, your $1200 may be worth $1500 and you can sell. If the option is not ""in the money"" its value is pure time value. There have been claims made that most options expire worthless. This of course is nonsense, you can see there will always be options with a strike below the price of the stock at expiration and those options are ""in the money."" Of course, we don't know what those options were traded at.  On the other end of this trade is the option seller. If he owns Apple, the sale is called a ""covered call"" and he is basically saying he's ok if the stock goes up enough that the buyer will get his shares for that price. For him, he knows that he'll get $292 (the $280, plus the option sale of $12) for a stock that is only $259 today. If the stock stays under $280, he just pocketed $12, 4.6% of the stock value, in just 3 months. This is why call writing can be a decent strategy for some investors. Especially if the market goes down, you can think of it as the investor lowering his cost by that $12. This particular strategy works best in a flat to down market. Of course in a fast rising market, the seller misses out on potentially high gains.  (I'll call it quits here, just to say a Put is the mirror image, you have the right to sell a stock at a given price. It's the difference similar to shorting a stock as opposed to buying it.) If you have a follow up question - happy to help. EDIT - Apple closed on Jan 21, 2011 at $326.72, the $280 call would have been worth $46.72 vs the purchase price of $12. Nearly 4X return (A 289% gain) in just over 4 months for a stock move of 26%. This is the leverage you can have with options. Any stock could just as easily trade flat to down, and the entire option premium, lost."

negative: > Not to mention that pnl is really all you have to judge a trader  Annnnd this is how I know your only experience is retail trading.  Voice trading still represents a large amount of volume in the market (especially in OTC products) and having existing relationships is a guarantee for better points.  I see the reality of this every fucking day.    Not to mention traders performance is also susceptible to in house analysis and risk management... both of which at a major firm are determined and managed by different individuals (research and risk officers).  It's not like Two Sigma welcomes you in, gives you a $500 mio FI portfolio and lets you do whatever the fuck you want.  Hedge fund traders operate under the strategy that was profiled to the investors.  Traders are there to execute profit earning transactions within the guidelines of the overall strategy of the firm and within their risk profile... Meaning if you're managing a pension fund on a global macro strategy at one firm and achieve moderate returns of 15-20%, you're going to be viewed far more favorably than at another firm making 20-25% managing an alternative investments/listed derivatives fund.

negative: Technical expertise does not translate to domain expertise.. I'm definitely not going to employ someone with specific skills in Excel, R, whatever; if they have no idea about the underlying algorithms and how to implement them in other languages.  I'll employ the dude who understands the algorithms (and can correctly explain with pseudo code or verbally) over someone who is regurgitating a lecture and can only provide textbook answers.

negative: This is price-setting algorithms running amok. From the page you link, follow the '2 new from $49,991.11' link and you will see that (at the time of writing), there are two vendors offering this item for $49991.11 (plus $16.37 shipping) and $49999.99. These are clearly not 'real' prices and yet they are suspiciously close to each other. This blog post examines this phenomenon in some detail. Basically, at most one of these vendors actually has this item in stock, but to drive traffic and sales they both offer it for sale anyway. If someone actually ordered it from the one who doesn't have it, they would have to buy it first - from someone else offering it for sale... who is setting their prices based on wider market pricing. You can say how a crazy price spiral might develop.

negative: So would Uber change the algorithm so surges don't happen as easily, or leave things as they are an collect a cut of every increased fare?  Another option would be to try and encourage drivers not to game the system, either giving them incentives to stay logged in or penalize them for logging out and back in.  Then with any penalty or nerf to the algorithm would piss off drivers, and likely cause a real loss of drivers, making it easier to create surges anyways.

negative: Okay what I meant was that if you catch someone and find out they own a certain address, they cannot escape the trail. If they want to move funds from a criminal wallet to a safe wallet, there will always be a trail.  And that's just the transaction network. The stock market equivalent counterparty operates on a similar ledger system.   > the parallel is clear  Except that with blockchain technology its 100% transparent and global by default and doesn't need a third party to audit the system because its all done algorithmically and openly.   Also no need for a clearing house or companies to give you access to the stock market through their services (like e trade).

negative: I wouldn't buy banks personally for the following reasons:  * Secular declines in trading revenue - this is a big part of bank income. We are at an all time low in volatility for the year (like EVER), and with active investing being proven not to be as profitable as buy-and-hold and passive investing (I.e. ETFs), trading may never return to its former glory.   * fintech firms and blockchain technology - these are big, big deals. If an algorithm can do financial analysis better, raise money cheaper, and improve security better, then banks will lose a lot of purpose and heavy bargaining power for fees. This is certainly on the horizon and will affect banks.   * low growth - the US consumer is not making more money, and S&P says companies are now leveraged at levels since before the recession. The point is I don't think there will be a large renewed credit cycle of heavy borrowing anytime soon as everyone is tapped out.

negative: "There are a LOT of reasons why institutional investors would own a company's stock (especially a lot of it). Some can be: The company is in one of the indices, especially big ones. Many asset management companies have funds that are either passive (track index) or more-or-less closely adhere to a benchmark, with the benchmark frequently being (based on/exactly) an index. As such, a stock that's part of an index would be heavily owned by institutional investors. Conclusion: Nothing definitive. Being included in an equity index is usually dependent on the market cap; NOT on intrinsic quality of the company, its fundamentals or stock returns.  The company is considered a good prospect (growth or value), in a sector that is popular with institutional investors. There's a certain amount of groupthink in investing. To completely butcher a known IT saying, you don't get fired for investing in AAPL :)  While truly outstanding and successful investors seek NON-popular assets (which would be undervalued), the bulk is likely to go with ""best practices""... and the general rules for valuation and analysis everyone uses are reasonably similar. As such, if one company invests in a stock, it's likely a competitor will follow similar reasoning to invest in it.  Conclusion: Nothing definitive. You don't know if the price at which those institutional companies bought the stock is way lower than now. You don't know if the stock is held for its returns potential, or as part of an index, or some fancy strategy you as individual investor can't follow. The company's technicals lead the algorithms to prefer it. And they feed off of each other. Somewhat similar in spirit to #2, except this time, it's algorithmic trading making decisions based on technicals instead of portfolio managers based on funamentals.  Obviously, same conclusion applies, even more so. The company sold a large part of the stock directly to institutional investor as part of an offering. Sometimes, as part of IPO (ala PNC and BLK), sometimes additional capital raising (ala Buffett and BAC) Conclusion: Nothing definitive. That investor holds on to the investment, sometimes for reason not only directly related to stock performance (e.g. control of the company, or synergies). Also, does the fact that Inst. Own % is high mean that the company is a good investment and/or less risky? Not necessarily. In 2008, Bear Stearns Inst Own. % was 77%"

negative: I haven't seen anyone mention tax considerations and that's why I'm answering this. The rest of my answer is probably covered in the aggregate of other responses. Here's how I would look at this in a taxable (not an IRA) account: This could be an opportunity to harvest the tax losses to offset taxable gains this year or in future years. Unless I have compelling reasons to believe that the price will recover by at least (Loss% x ApplicableTaxRate) in the next 31 days then I would take the known - IRS tables - opportunities over the unknown. Here's what I would consider for all accounts: Is this the most likely place to earn a good return on my money and is it contributing to a strategy that fits my risk tolerance? You might need to get some emotional distance from the pain to make this determination objectively. As you consider your trading and investment strategy going forward consider that when it hurts and you have to pull yourself up by the bootstraps to think clearly about your situation, you were most likely trading with too much size for you in that particular position. I'm willing to make exceptions to that rule of thumb, but it's a good way to use the painful losses as a gut check on how your strategy fits your real situation. P.S. All traders experience individual losses that hurt and find their way to the most suitable strategies for them through these painful experiences.