query: Would the effects of an anticipated default by a nation be mostly symbolic?

positive: It will affect Greeks as any bankruptcy affects the bankrupt. They already started reducing their welfare policies and government hand-outs. Default would mean that the government isn't able to meet its obligations. It's not only the external obligations, it's also the internal obligations - pensions, social security benefits, healthcare, public services, military (and the Greeks are in constant confrontation with the neighboring Turkey, with several armed conflicts throughout the years) - all that will get hit. Yes, they will get affected much more, definitely.

positive: It's only symbolic if things continue as if nothing had happened.  Once large segments of people start becoming poor, it ceases to be symbolic and starts becoming real. Will a Greek default be felt in the US?  Hard to say, but probably not.  Will it be felt in Greece?  You bet it will.

negative: Most national banks are required by the regulations of their host countries to hold significant reserves in the form of government debt. A default would likely wipe out their capital and your common stock would become worthless. The common stock only has positive value today because of the option value based on the possibility the host country will evade a default.

negative: Patrick, This article points out three likely effects (direct and indirect) sovereign default can have on the individual: http://tutor2u.net/blog/index.php/economics/comments/the-sovereign-default-option-is-costly/ This looks at how a default may not look like a default - even if it is. But again, how defaults can impact the man in the street: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703323704574602030789251824.html The fascinating Argentine default is described in a blow-by-blow format here, including brief references to things like unemployment and personal savings: http://theinflationist.com/sovereign-default/argentine-sovereign-default-2002-argentina-financial-crisis Remember, though. Not all defaults are the same. And a modern-European country's default may look very different to what has occurred elsewhere.

negative: "But do you know about a US state risking to go default now or in the past? Ultimately, a US state could go into default.  However, I doubt that such a scenario would be allowed to transpire. This seems to happen to California with some regularity.  That is, risking default.  What would happen is not quite well known: ""There is no provision for a state to go bankrupt,"" Kyser said. ""I don't think anyone really knows what will happen or even if the state will go into receivership if it does default. I can tell you this, officials are looking at all the (current) laws."" (source) I believe that the answer to your question is that it could happen, but likely would not be allowed to occur.  The nature of the EU and US are quite different.  The individual states forming the US are not separate nations.  For better or for worse, the US is a stronger federation than the EU. (Something that is lamented at times when the Feds mess with the purview of the locals.)"

negative: I have been through default in Ukraine august 1998. That was a real nightmare. The financial system stopped working properly for 1 month, about 30% of businesses went bankrupt because of chain effect, significant inflation and devaluation of currency. So, it is better to be prepared, because this type of processes result in unpredictable situation.

negative: "Sovereigns cannot go bankrupt. Basically, when a sovereign government (this includes nations and US States, probably political subdivisions in other countries as well) becomes insolvent, they default.  Sovereigns with the ability to issue new currency have the option to do so because it is politically expedient. Sovereigns in default will negotiate with creditor committees to reduce payments. Creditors with debt backed by the ""full faith and credit"" of the sovereign are generally first in line. Creditors with debt secured by revenue may be entitled to the underlying assets that provide the revenue. The value of your money in the bank in a deposit account may be at risk due to currency devaluation or bank failure. A default by a major country would likely lock up the credit markets, and you may see yourself in a situation where money market accounts actually fall in value."

negative: "For political reasons, almost all governments (including the US) spend more money than they get from taxes etc.  There are a number of things a government can do to cover the difference: Most governments opt for selling bonds.  The ""National Debt"" of a country can be thought of as being the sum of all the ""Bonds"" that are still paying interest, and that the Government hasn't Redeemed. It can all go horribly wrong.  If the Government gets into a situation where it cannot pay the interest, or it cannot Redeem the Bonds it has promised to, then it may have to break its promise (""Default"" on its payments).  This makes the owners of the Bonds unhappy and means potential buyers of future Bond sales are less likely to want to buy the Governments new Bonds - effectively meaning the Government has to promise to pay more interest in the future.  Recent examples of this include Argentina; and may include Greece soon. The US is in the fortunate position that not many people believe it will Default.  Therefore the new Bonds it sells (which it does on a regular basis) are still in demand, even though its interest payments, and promises to Redeem Bonds are huge."

negative: US or EU states are sovereigns which cannot go bankrupt. US states have defaulted in the 1840's, but in most of those cases creditors were eventually repaid in full. (I'm not 100% sure, but I believe that Indiana was an exception with regard to costs incurred building a canal system) The best modern example of a true near-default was New York City in the late 1970's. Although New York City isn't a state, the size and scope of its finances is greater than many US states. What happened then in a nutshell: Basically, a default of a major state or a city like NYC where creditors took major losses would rock the financial markets and make it difficult for all states to obtain both short and long term financing at reasonable rates. That's why these entities get bailed out -- if Greece or California really collapse, it will likely create a domino effect that will have wide reaching effects.

negative: "Ok, now if someone could explain to my why Argentina didn't do the following:  * Set out a schedule of payments for the 100% of the debt, and pay everybody (Mr. Singer included);  * When they hit the haircut % amount, declare ""default"".  The parties that had agreed to the haircut would be fine, as they had already agreed to the haircut.   Mr. Singer would be left out to dry for the rest of the money, due to the default.   It would technically count as a default, but only the vulture-funds would experience the actual default, and so the markets would see that haircuts for the majority actually apply for everybody, and henceforth encouraging all bond-holders to negotiate hair-cuts rather than encourage vultures to buy nonds for a nickle and demand the full dollar."

negative: "This is a speculative question and there's no ""correct"" answer, but there are definitely some highly likely outcomes. Let's assume that the United States defaults on it's debt. It can be guaranteed that it will lose its AAA rating. Although we don't know what it will drop to, we know it WILL be AA or lower.  A triple-A rating implies that the issuer will never default, so it can offer lower rates since there is a guarantee of safety there.People will demand a higher yield for the lower perceived security, so treasury yield will go up.  The US dollar, or at least forex rates, will almost certainly fall. Since US treasuries will no longer be a safe haven, the dollar will no longer be the safe currency it once was, and so the dollar will fall. The US stock market (and international markets) will also have a strong fall because so many institutions, financial or otherwise, invest in treasuries so when treasuries tumble and the US loses triple-A, investments will be hurt and the tendency is for investors to overreact so it is almost guaranteed that the market will drop sharply. Financial stocks and companies that invest in treasuries will be hurt the most. A notable exception is nations themselves. For example, China holds over $1 trillion in treasuries and a US default will hurt their value, but the Yuan will also appreciate with respect to the dollar. Thus, other nations will benefit and be hurt from a US default. Now many people expect a double-dip recession - worse than the 08/09 crisis - if the US defaults. I count myself a member of this crowd. Nonetheless, we cannot say with certainty whether or not there will be another recession or even a depression - we can only say that a recession is a strong possibility. So basically, let's pray that Washington gets its act together and raises the ceiling, or else we're in for bad times. And lastly, a funny quote :) I could end the deficit in 5 minutes.   You just pass a law that says that   anytime there is a deficit of more   than 3% of GDP all sitting members of   congress are ineligible for   reelection.   - Warren Buffett"

negative: "Sovereign states borrow money explicitly in a two primary ways: A sovereign cannot be compelled to repay debt, and there isn't a judicial process like bankruptcy to erase debt. When sovereigns default, they negotiate new terms with creditors and pay back some fraction of the actual debt owed.  They can also print money to repay debt, which has other nasty consequences. But, while a state cannot be compelled to repay a debt, creditors cannot be compelled to loan money to the state either! Any enterprise of sufficient size needs access to capital via loans to meet daily obligations in anticipation of revenue -- even when times are good. Defaulting makes borrowing impossible or expensive, and is avoided. Regarding using your military to avoid repaying debt... remember what Napoleon said: ""An army travels on its stomach"". Military campaigns are expensive... no borrowing ability means the soldiers don't get paid and the food, fuel and ammo don't get delivered. Smaller countries have other risks as well. Many nations are essentially forced to use US Dollars as a reserve currency, or are forced by the market to borrow money in a foreign currency. This creates a situation where any risk of non-payment results in a deep devaluation of the local currency. When your debt is denominated in dollars, these shifts can dramatically increase your debt obligations from a local currency point of view. You also run the risk that a larger or richer company will park warships in your harbor and seize assets as payment -- the US and Britain engaged in this several times during the 19th and 20th centuries. In general, not paying the bills has a cascading effect. Bad situations get worse, and they do so quickly."

negative: There is no simple way to convert an ISIN into a stock ticker symbol. The only way to even attempt to do so is to map the ISIN to a CUSIP or SEDOL or other national identifier and then map that identifier to a stock ticker symbol.

negative: People ITT struggling with the concept of a status symbol.  There's nobody more concerned with outward appearance than Hollywood celebs and a bunch of them drive the Prius.  Status symbol doesn't only mean how much you paid.  The environmental factor weighs in.  The coolness factor.  The fact that so many people are anticipating what Tesla will do next.  It's not just price tag.

negative: Typically the debt is held by individuals, corporations and investment funds, not by other countries. In cases where substantial amounts are held by other countries, those countries are typically not in debt themselves (e.g. China has huge holdings of US Treasuries). If the debts were all cancelled, then the holders of the debt (as listed above) would lose out badly and the knock-on effects on the economy would be substantial. Also, governments that default tend to find it harder to borrow money again in the future.

negative: "The only party that can pay back a government bond is the government that issued it itself. In the case of Argentina, US vulture funds have won cases against it, but it has yet to pay.  The best one can do to collect is to sue in a jurisdiction that permits and hope to seize the defaulted government's assets held in such jurisdiction. One could encourage another state to go to war to collect, but this is highly unlikely since a state that doesn't repay is probably a poor state with nothing much to loot; besides, most modern governments do not loot the conquered anymore.  Such a specific eventuality hasn't happened in at least a lifetime, anyways.  It is highly unlikely that any nation would be foolish enough to challenge the United States considering its present military dominance. It is rare for nations with medium to large economies to spurn their government obligations for long with Argentina as the notable exception.  Even Russia became current when they spontaneously disavowed their government debt during the oil collapse of 1998. Countries with very small economies such as Zimbabwe are the only remaining nations that try to use their central banks to fund debt repayments if they even repay at all, but they quickly see that the destruction caused by hyperinflation neither helps with government debt nor excessive government expenditure. Nevertheless, it could be dangerous to assume that no nation would default on its debt for any period of time, and the effects upon countries with defaulted government debt show that it has far reaching negative consequences. If the US were to use its central bank to repay its government obligations, the law governing the Federal Reserve would have to be changed since it is currently mandated to ""maintain long run growth of the monetary and credit aggregates commensurate with the economy's long run potential to increase production, so as to promote effectively the goals of maximum employment, stable prices and moderate long-term interest rates."" The United States Treasury has no power over the Federal Reserve thus cannot force the Federal Reserve to betray its mandate by purchasing government debt. It should be noted that while Japan has a government debt twice its GDP, it also has a persistent slight deflation which has produced incredibly low interest rates, allowing it to finance government debt more easily, a situation the US does not enjoy. For now, the United States seems to be able to pay expenditures and finance at low interest rates.  At what ratio of government debt to GDP that would cause interest rates to climb thus put pressure on the US's ability to repay does not seem to be well known."

negative: "The default scenario that we're talking about in the Summer of 2011 is a discretionary situation where the government refuses to borrow money over a certain level and thus becomes insolvent. That's an important distinction, because the US has the best credit in the world and still carries enormous borrowing power -- so much so that the massive increases in borrowing over the last decade of war and malaise have not affected the nation's ability to borrow additional money. From a personal finance point of view, my guess is that after the ""drop dead date"" disclosed by the Treasury, you'd have a period of chaos and increasing liquidity issues after government runs out of gimmicks like ""borrowing"" from various internal accounts and ""selling"" assets to government authorities.  I don't think the markets believe that the Democrats and Republicans are really willing to destroy the country. If they are, the market doesn't like surprises."

negative: "Please clarify your question. What do you mean by ""..loan in Greece""? If you are referring to taking a mortgage loan to purchase residential property in Greece, there are two factors to consider: If the loan originates from a Greek bank, then odds are likely that the bank will be nationalized by the government if Greece defaults. If the loan is external (i.e. from J.P. Morgan or some foreign bank), then the default will certainly affect any bank that trades/maintains Euros, but banks that are registered outside of Greece won't be nationalized. So what does nationalizing mean for your loan? You will still be expected to pay it according to the terms of the contract. I'd recommend against an adjustable rate contract since rates will certainly rise in a default situation. As for property, that's a different story. There have been reports of violence in Greece already, and if the country defaults, imposes austerity measures, etc, odds are there will be more violence that can harm your property. Furthermore, there is a remote possibility that the government can attempt to acquire your private property. Unlikely, but possible. You could sue in this scenario on property rights violations but things will be very messy from that point on. If Greece doesn't default but just exits the Euro Zone, the situation will be similar. The Drachma will be weak and confidence will be poor, and unrest is a likely outcome. These are not statements of facts but rather my opinion, because I cannot peek into the future. Nonetheless, I would advise against taking a mortgage for property in Greece at this point in time."

negative: One place you might consider looking for answers is in case studies from Harvard Business School.  When I was working an MBA, we studied the default of Argentina as part of our economics coursework. Other sources for your consideration might include:

negative: If we hadn't blockaded Cuba for 60 years, it would likely look a lot like China, albeit not as overall productive.  Keep in mind both nations had communist revolutions at roughly the same time, the main difference being the US effectively shut out all trade with the island nation.

negative: Similar action is being undertaken in Europe following the example of Cyprus. As WND recently pointed out, finance ministers of the 27-member European Union in June had approved forcing bondholders, shareholders and large depositors with more than 100,000 euros in their accounts to make the financial sacrifice before turning to the government for help with taxpayer funds.  Do they get compensation later if the bank recovers?

negative: The default of the country will affect the country obligations and what's tied to it. If you have treasury bonds, for example - they'll get hit. If you have cash currency - it will get hit. If you're invested in the stock market, however, it may plunge, but will recover, and in the long run you won't get hit. If you're invested in foreign countries (through foreign currency or foreign stocks that you hold), then the default of your local government may have less affect there, if at all. What you should not, in my humble opinion, be doing is digging holes in the ground or probably not exchange all your cash for gold (although it is considered  a safe anchor in case of monetary crisis, so may be worth considering some diversifying your portfolio with some gold). Splitting between banks might not make any difference at all because the value won't change, unless you think that one of the banks will fail (then just close the account there). The bottom line is that the key is diversifying, and you don't have to be a seasoned investor for that. I'm sure there are mutual funds in Greece, just pick several different funds (from several different companies) that provide diversified investment, and put your money there.

negative: Keep in mind that the only portion of the MBS that was rated AAA was the most senior tranche. It achieved this rating due to the buffer to principal losses provided by the equity and mezzanine tranches. So for the principal to be at risk for the AAA senior tranche, 10% of the mortgages in the pool would have to default. Since this number was way higher than historical default rates - it seemed safe. Obviously looking back we know that risk management underestimated the effect that lowered lending standards would have on the default rates (if they did project a rise in default rates, they did not project a large enough rise).  As well, while the MBS is exposed to systemic risk - as happened, when the entire country was affected by the collapse - they were packaged to avoid other risks. For example, the pool would spread out mortgages across the country and other various factors would be hedged so that if a natural disaster hits state X and everyone defaults on their mortgage, you are only losing a small part of the underlying.  I assume (hope) that at some point the quantitative analysis people in risk management at the major investment banks realized that the default rates would rise given the lower lending standards being employed - but chose to ignore it. They chose to ignore it because investors still wanted to buy it, and the banks make money by collecting fees on issuing securities.

negative: Smallest risk of default would depend on where Alice and Bob live I suppose, but lets assume they are in a lower yielding nation where default is not a big concern.  Remember for instance that Greece was a lower yielding nation at one point and that the US has defaulted before. Let's start with Bob because he is easier to analyze.  Yield curves inversions generally pre-date recessions which is generally not so good for Bob as rates tend to drop during recessions and he will be at the short end of the curve so his bonds will be less sensitive.  However, he will generally get higher yields in good times to make up for this, but these higher yields come with a price in that he is generally much more sensitive to yield changes and can get much larger swings in portfolio value. First off as JB mentioned Alice would likely own inflation-linked (IL) bonds.  Which behave fairly differently from Bob's bonds. However, to keep this simple lets say they live in a place without IL bonds or IL bonds are not a consideration.  Then generally Alice has lower yielding bonds in good times but may do very well when the fed steps in during a crisis. So, who wins in the long run?  Likely Christi who owns a mix of a broad index of stocks and bonds in a risk mix where she wouldn't have to sell in downturns.  Especially, as Christi wouldn't have to pay the trading costs of moving her whole portfolio between long and short bonds.  Between Bob and Alice however Bob would likely win in the long run as the markets generally reward risk taking in the long run.  Still inflation (even without the IL bonds) and general rate trends (long-term rates are historically low right now) could have Bob losing for uncomfortably long periods.

negative: "This is a hard question to answer.  Government debt and mortgages are loosely related.  Banks typically use yields on government bonds to determine mortgage interest rates.  The banks must be able to get higher rates from the mortgage otherwise they would buy government bonds. Your question mentions default so I'm assuming a country has reneged on its promise to pay either the principal or interest on government bonds. The main thing to consider is ""Who does not get their money?"".  In other words, who does the government decide not to pay.  This is the important part.  The government will have some money so they could pay some bond holders.  They must decide who to shaft. For example, let's look at who holds Greek government debt.  Around 70% of Greek government debt is held outside Greece.  See table below.  The Greek government could decide to default only on the debt to foreign holders.  In that case the banks in France and Switzerland would take the loss on their bonds.  This could cause severe problems in France and Switzerland depending on the percentage of Greek bonds that make up the banks' assets.  Greek banks would still face losses, however, since the price of their Greek bond holdings would drop sharply when the government defaults.  Interestingly, the losses for the Greek banks may be smaller than the losses faced by the French and Swiss banks.  This is usually the favored option chosen by government since the French and Swiss don't vote in Greece. Yields on Greek government bonds would rise dramatically.  If your Greek mortgage is an adjustable rate mortgage then you could see some big adjustments upward.  If you live in France or Switzerland then the bank that owns your mortgage may go under if Greece defaults.  During liquidation the bank will sell their assets which includes mortgages and you will probably not notice any difference in your mortgage. As I stated earlier: this is a hard question to answer since the two financial instruments involved (bonds and mortgages) are similar but may or may not be related."

negative: Something tells me the people buying Tesla aren't doing it because they care about the environment... It's more of a side effect.  There's definitely a subset that do but everyone I know around DC who's on the list (and it's at least a few dozen) want the status symbol.  Tesla is an icon at this point and if it was a $20k, 500mi range econobox, I guarantee none of these people would be buying despite how much better that would be as a car.

negative: In principle, a default will have no effect on your bank account. But if the US's credit rating is downgraded, the knock-on effects might cause some more bank failures, and if the debt ceiling is still in place then the FDIC insurance might not be able to pay out immediately.

negative: ok if you haven't rolled in the 401k assets yet, you're fine and should put them into a traditional.  if your earnings + roth conversions will put you at or below your anticipated tax bracket during retirement, then the roth conversion might make sense.  in some cases, employers will give you a roth 401k option, but you are right that it's not the default.

negative: Every year stories like this come out. Every year the US does not default on its debt. We all should know by now that the US, as a financially sovereign nation that issues its own currency, cannot default on its debt. This fearmongering is just a click-baity waste of time, and yes, a waste of money.

negative: "In your example, no one has exchanged anything yet: > All we have up to this point are promises, but no one has done any work yet.  When something goes wrong, no exchange has taken place so there is no direct economic impact, because no one is in debt. The farmer needs to get his barrel from somewhere else, but he has not lost anything other than time.  However in otherwiseyep's example, the cobbler has exchanged a pair of shoes for the promissory note: >Tell you what: if you can write me a promise to pay twelve Loddars in October, I can give that to the shoe-maker.""  When something goes wrong, there is a direct economic impact, because the farmer is in debt to the hunter, and the hunter is in debt to the cobbler.  I think otherwiseyep explains it best [in his response to another post](http://www.reddit.com/r/finance/comments/utf5u/where_has_all_the_money_in_the_world_gone/c4ypy2q)."

negative: Have seen analysis that at least one state won't be able to repay their obligations using reasonable assumptions, I'm sure it applies to more.  A lot of greed went into securitizing those payments the way they did.

negative: "Thanks for pointing out [the study](http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1748851). It's a slightly different cause than what I was describing when I posted this. Specifically, they show an effect not when the names get confused, but rather when the name similarity simply brings more attention to the stock. I was surprised nobody mentioned that in response to my post.  But also interesting is that they had to control for simple confusion between stock symbols, which implies that ticker confusion has a known effect. So I dug into research on that and quickly found [this study](http://www.efmaefm.org/0EFMAMEETINGS/EFMA%20ANNUAL%20MEETINGS/2010-Aarhus/EFMA2010_0161_fullpaper.pdf) found ""a high positive correlation between returns on two matching stocks with similar ticker symbols""."

negative: > What government is more likely to default:  > A developed, relatively transparent European government with mature industries and an educated populous.  Honestly sometimes I find this really weird. it would seem to me that an educated populace (like iceland?) would realize how large of a dick is being shoved up their ass and how many decades they'll need to be in slavery to pay back their enormous debts...  > Or a developing, relatively opaque SouthEast Asian government with a large amount of its populous uneducated, living in poverty.  While this type of country would have elites ready to fleece the commoner, push the country into debt for their own profit, and keep the uneducated poverty-stricken peasants slaving away for the benefit of said elites, including continuing to pay down the enormous debts incurred in the process.   But maybe I'm wrong and the market is right.

negative: You'd have to buy that information. Quoting from this page, Commercial Historical Data Higher resolution and more complete datasets are generally not available for free. Below is a list of vendors which have passed our quality screening (in total, we screened over a dozen vendors). To qualify, the vendor must aggregate data from all US national/regional exchanges as only complete datasets are suitable for research use. The last point is especially important as there are many vendors who just get data from a couple sources and is missing important information such as dark pool trades. They offer some alternatives for free data: Daily Resolution Data 1) Yahoo! Finance– Daily resolution data, with split/dividend adjustments can be downloaded from here. The download procedure can be automated using this tool. Note, Yahoo quite frequently has errors in its database and does not contain data for delisted symbols. 2) QuantQuote Free Data– QuantQuote offers free daily resolution data for the S&P500 at this web page under the Free Data tab. The data accounts for symbol changes, splits, and dividends, and is largely free of the errors found in the Yahoo data. Note, only 500 symbols are available unlike Yahoo which provides all listed symbols. And they list recommendations about who to buy the data from.


query: Buying puts without owning underlying

positive: Yes, it's completely normal to buy (and sell) puts and other options without holding the underlying.  However, every (US) brokerage I know of only permits this within a margin account.  I don't know why...probably a legal reason.  You don't actually have to use the margin in a margin account.  If you want to trade options, though, you will need a margin account.

positive: In the money puts and calls are subject to automatic execution at expiration. Each broker has its own rules and process for this.  For example, I am long a put. The strike is $100. The stock trades at the close, that final friday for $90. I am out to lunch that day. Figuratively, of course. I wake up Saturday and am short 100 shares. I can only be short in a margin account. And similarly, if I own calls, I either need the full value of the stock (i.e. 100*strike price) or a margin account.  I am going to repeat the key point. Each broker has its own process for auto execution. But, yes, you really don't want a deep in the money option to expire with no transaction.  On the flip side, you don't want to wake up Monday to find they were bought out by Apple for $150.

negative: "Covered calls, that is where the writer owns the underlying security, aren't the only type of calls one can write. Writing ""uncovered calls,"" wherein one does NOT own the underlying, are a way to profit from a price drop. For example, write the call for a $5 premium, then when the underlying price drops, buy it back for $4, and pocket the $1 profit."

negative: Two ways to mitigate this risk are to buy a put at a lower premium to the written call, or manage your trade by buying back your call if you see the underlying price going against you - a bit similar to having a stop loss.

negative: You are long the puts. By exercising them you force the underlying stock to be bought from you at your strike price. Let's say your strike it $100 and the stock is currently $25. Buy 100 shares and exercise 1 (bought/long) put. That gives you $7500 of new money, so do the previous sentence over again in as many 'units' as you can.

negative: Any portfolio, even one composed of risk-free assets is subject to risk. That said, to short an equity without margin risk, puts can provide.  To replicate a short without excess margin, an at the money put should be used.  To take on less leverage, a deep in the money put can be used.  Puts are not available on equities deemed illiquid by regulation. A long/short portfolio can help mitigate variance risk, but then the problem becomes the risk of a lack of volatility since options decline in value over time and without a beneficial change in the underlying.

negative: consider capital requirements and risk timeframes. With options, the capital requirements are far smaller than owning the underlying securities with stops. Options also allow one to constrain risk to a timeframe of ones own choosing (the expiration date of the contract). If you own or are short the underlying security, there is no time horizon.

negative: Being long the call is being long the option. The call is a type of option. A put is a type of option If you buy a call, you are long an option and long the underlying asset. If you buy a put, you are long an option and short the underlying asset.

negative: The only use of options that I will endorse is selling them. If you believe the market is going down then sell covered, out of the money, calls.  Buying calls or buying puts usually wastes money. That is because of a quality called Theta. If the underlying security stays the same the going price of an option will decrease, every day, by the Theta amount.  Think of options as insurance. A person only makes money by selling insurance, not by buying it.

negative: "There's no free lunch. Here are some positions that should be economically equivalent (same risk and reward) in a theoretically-pure universe with no regulations or transaction costs: You're proposing to buy the call. If you look at the equivalent, stock plus protective put, you can quickly see the ""catch""; the protective put is expensive. That same expense is embedded in the call option. See put-call parity on Wikipedia for more: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Put%E2%80%93call_parity You could easily pay 10% a year or more for the protection, which could easily eat up most of your returns, if you consider that average returns on a stock index might be about 10% (nominal, not real). Another way to look at it is that buying the long call and selling a put, which is a synthetic long position in the stock, would give you the put premium. So by not selling the put, you should be worse off than owning the stock - worse than the synthetic long - by about the value of the put premium. Or yet another way to look at it is that you're repeatedly paying time value on the long call option as you roll it. In practical world instead of theory world, I think you'd probably get a noticeable hit to returns just from bid-ask and commissions, even without the cost of the protection. Options cost more. Digressing a bit, some practical complications of equivalency between different combinations of options and underlying are: Anyway, roughly speaking, any position without the ""downside risk"" is going to have an annual loss built in due to the cost of the protection. Occasionally the options market can do something weird due to supply/demand or liquidity issues but mostly the parity relationships hold, or hold closely enough that you can't profit once expenses are considered. Update: one note, I'm talking about ""vanilla"" options as traded in the US here, I guess there are some somewhat different products elsewhere; I'm not sure exactly which derivatives you mean. All derivatives have a cost though or nobody would take the other side of the trade."

negative: Put options are contracts to sell. You pay me a fee for the right to put the stock (or other underlying security) in my hands if you want to. That happens on a specific date (the strike date) and a specified price (the strike price). You can decide not to exercise that right, but I must follow through and let you sell it to me if you want to. Put options can be used by the purchaser to cap losses. For example: You purchase a PUT option for GE Oct19 13.00 from me. On October 19th, you can make me let you sell your GE stock to me for $13.00 a share. If the price for GE has fallen to $12.00, that would be a good idea. If its now at $15.00 a share, you will probably keep the GE or sell it at the current market price. Call options are contracts to buy. The same idea only in the other direction: You pay me a fee for the right to call the stock away from me. Calls also have a strike date and strike price. Like a put, you can choose not to exercises it. You can choose to buy the stock from me (on the strike date for the strike price), but I have to let you buy it from me if you want to.  For example: You purchase a CALL option for GE Oct19 16.00 option from me. On October 19th, you can buy my GE stock from me for $16.00 a share. If the current price is $17.50, you should make me let you buy if from me for $16.00. If its less than $16.00, you could by it at the current market price for less. Commonly, options are for a block of 100 shares of the underlying security. Note: this is a general description. Options can be very complicated. The fee you pay for the option and the transaction fees associated with the shares affects whether or not exercising is financially beneficial. Options can be VERY RISKY. You can loose all your money as there is no innate value in the option, only how it relates to the underlying security. Before your brokerage will let you trade, there are disclosures you must read and affirm that you understand the risk.

negative: "You are likely making an assumption that the ""Short call"" part of the article you refer to isn't making: that you own the underlying stock in the first place. Rather, selling short a call has two primary cases with considerably different risk profiles. When you short-sell (or ""write"") a call option on a stock, your position can either be: covered, which means you already own the underlying stock and will simply need to deliver it if you are assigned, or else uncovered (or naked), which means you do not own the underlying stock. Writing a covered call can be a relatively conservative trade, while writing a naked call (if your broker were to permit such) can be extremely risky. Consider: With an uncovered position, should you be assigned you will be required to buy the underlying at the prevailing price. This is a very real cost — certainly not an opportunity cost. Look a little further in the article you linked, to the Option strategies section, and you will see the covered call mentioned there. That's the kind of trade you describe in your example."

negative: "Okay. An ETF is an ""Exchange Traded Fund"". It trades like a stock, on the stock market.  Basically by buying one ETF, you can have ownership in the underlying companies that make up the ETF. So, if you buy QCLN, a green energy ETF, you own Tesla, First Solar Inc, SunPower Corporation, Vivint Solar, Advanced energy industries and a bunch of other companies that are involved in clean energy.   It allows you to gain exposure to a sector without having to buy individual companies.  There are ETFs for lots of different things. Technology ETFs, Healthcare ETFs, Consumer Staples ETFs, Utilities ETFs, etc.  REITS are essentially the same thing, except they own real estate."

negative: "Long here does not mean you wish for the underlying stock to increase in value, in fact, as the chart shows, just the opposite is true.  ""Long means you bought the derivative, and you own the option. The guy that sold it to you is at your mercy, he is short the put, and it's your decision to put the stock to him should it fall in value.  The value of the put itself rises with the falling stock price, you are long the put and want the put, itself, to rise in value."

negative: If you buy puts, there are no guaranteed proceeds though.  If you short against the box, you've got immediate proceeds with a nice capital loss if it doesn't work out.  Conversely, you could write a covered call, take the contract proceeds, and write off the long position losses.  Nobody ever factors tax consequences into the equation here.

negative: "You need to interpret ""security"" appropriately in Wikipedia's definition.  You should think of it as saying: to be long in a put, means the holder of the position owns the put   and will profit if the price of the put goes up And what makes the price of the put go up?  -- the price of the underlying stock going down."

negative: "How do option market makers actually hedge their positions so that they do not have a price risk? You cannot complete hedge away price risk of a sold call simply by buying the underlying and waiting.  As the price of the underlying decreases, the ""Delta"" (price risk) decreases, so as the underlying decreases, you would gradually sell some of the underlying to reduce your price risk from the underlying to match the price risk of the option. The opposite is true as well - as the price of the underlying increases, you'd buy more of the underlying to maintain a ""delta neutral"" position. If you want to employ this strategy, first you need to fully understand what ""delta"" is and how to calculate it.  Then you can use delta hedging to reduce your price risk."

negative: Do you need to buy car insurance?  If you do, you are buying to open a put option.

negative: Suppose you're writing a put with a strike price of 80. Say the share's(underlying asset) price goes down to 70. So the holder of the put will exercise the option. Ie he has a 'right to sell' a share worth 70 for rs 80. Whereas a put option writer has an 'obligation to buy' at rs 80 a share trading at rs 70. Always think from the perspective of the holder. If the holder exercises the option, the writer will suffer a loss. Maximum loss he suffers will be the break even FSP, which is Strike price reduced by the premium paid.. If he doesn't exercise the option the writer will make a profit, which can maximum be the put premium received.

negative: "You're forgetting the fundamental issue, that you never have to actually exercise the options you buy.  You can either sell them to someone else or, if they're out of the money, let them expire and take the loss. It isn't uncommon at all for people to buy both a put and call option (this is a ""straddle"" when the strike price of both the put and call are the same). From Investopedia.com: A straddle is an options strategy in which the investor holds a position in both a call and put with the same strike price and expiration date, paying both premiums. This strategy allows the investor to make a profit regardless of whether the price of the security goes up or down, assuming the stock price changes somewhat significantly.   Read more: Straddle http://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/straddle.asp#ixzz4ZYytV0pT"

negative: $15 - $5 = $10 How did you possibly buy a put for less than the intrinsic value of the option, at $8.25 So we can infer that you would have had to get this put when the stock price was AT LEAST $6.75, but given the 3 months of theta left, it was likely above $7 The value of the put if the price of the underlying asset (the stock ABC) meandered between $5 - $7 would be somewhere between $10 - $8 at expiration. So you don't really stand to lose much in this scenario, and can make a decent gain in this scenario. I mean decent if you were trading stocks and were trying to beat the S&P or keep up with Warren Buffett, but a pretty poor gain since you are trading options! If the stock moves above $7 this is where the put starts to substantially lose value.

negative: The only way to hedge a position is to take on a countervailing position with a higher multiplier as any counter position such as a 1:1 inverse ETF will merely cancel out the ETF it is meant to hedge yielding a negative return roughly in the amount of fees & slippage. For true risk-aversion, continually selling the shortest term available covered calls is the only free lunch.  A suboptimal version, the CBOE BuyWrite Index, has outperformed its underlying with lower volatility. The second best way is to continually hedge positions with long puts, but this can become very tax-complicated since the hedged positions need to be rebalanced continually and expensive depending on option liquidity. The ideal, assuming no taxes and infinite liquidity, is to sell covered calls when implied volatility is high and buy puts when implied volatility is low.

negative: Hi.  Straddle:  Buy a call and a put with an identical strike price. The strike is the price at which you can exercise the option. You pay a premium (cash) to buy the options. Typically you need a large amount of volatility in pricing movement in order to breakeven on the combined premium paid.  Strangle: Purchasing a call and a put option with a non-identical strike price. Once again it is a volatility trading play. You need some type of price movement in the underlying security in order to break even or profit on the trade.

negative: You'll still lose a little bit if you buy a put option at the current price.  No such thing as free hedging. Let's say you have 100 shares of IAU that you bought for exactly $12.50 per share.  This is $1,250.  Now let's say you bought a put option with a strike price of $13 that expires in April 2011.  The current price for this option is $1.10 per share, or $110.  You can sell your IAU for $1,300 any time before the expiration date, but this leaves $60 in time value. The price of the options will always have a time component that is a premium on the difference between the current price and the strike price.  (Oh, forgot to add in commissions to this.)

negative: "Whether or not you make money here depends on whether you are buying or selling the option when you open your position.  You certainly would not make money in the scenario where you are buying options at the open.  If fact you would end up loosing quite a lot of money. You do not specify whether you are buying or selling the options, so let's assume that you are buying both the call and the put.  We'll look a profitable trade at the bottom of my answer. Buying an in-the-money Call option with a strike price of $90 when the underlying asset price is $150 would cost you a small fraction over $6000 = (100 x $60) since the intrinsic value value of the option is $60.  Add to this cost any commission charged by your broker. Buying an out-of-the-money Put option with a strike price of $110 when the underlying asset price is $150 would cost you a ""small"" premium - lets say a premium of something like $0.50.  The option has no intrinsic value, only time value and a volatility value, so the exact cost would depend on the time to expiry and the implied volatility of the underlying asset. Since the strike price is ""well out of the money"", being about 27% below the underlying asset price, the premium would be small.  So, assuming the premium of $0.50, you would pay $50 for the option plus any commission applicable. The cash settlement on expiry, with an underlying settlement price of $100, would be a premium of $10 for each of the two options, so you would receive cash of 100 x ($10 + $10) = $2000, less any commission applicable.  However, you have paid $6000 + $50 to purchase the options, so you realise a net loss of $6050 - $2000 = $4050 plus any commissions applicable. Thus, you would make a profit on the put option, but you would realise a very large loss on the call option. On the other hand, if you open your position by selling the call option and buying the put option, then you would make money. For the sale of the call option you would receive about $6000.  For the purchase of the put option you would pay about $50. On settlement, you would pay $1000 to buy back the call option and you would receive about $1000 when selling the put option. Thus you net profit would be about ($6000 - $1000) for the call position, and ($1000 - $50) for the put position.  The net profit would then total $5950 less an commissions payable."

negative: "A straddle is an options strategy in which one ""buys"" or ""sells"" options of the same maturity (expiry date) that allow the ""buyer"" or ""seller"" to profit based on how much the price of the underlying security moves, regardless of the direction of price movement. IE: A long straddle would be: You buy a call and a put at the same strike price and the same expiration date. Your profit would be if the underlying asset(the stock) moves far enough down or up(higher then the premiums you paid for the put + call options) (In case, one waits till expiry) Profit = Expiry Level - Strike Price - (Premium Paid for Bought Options) Straddle"

negative: "A ""covered put"" of the form of being short, and buying at the strike price if the ""put ... is put"" (excercise), is off the table simply because you can't do shorts in the retirement account. Even if you feel you ""win"" the argument that you're hedged by being short, any broker can say, ""we simply forbid shorts"" and that's that. A ""covered put"" of the form of posting the cash, and spending it to buy at the strike price if the ""put ... is put"" (excercise), might be forbidden by brokerages because, frankly, how do you account for the ""dedicated"" cash? Is it locked down like margin is, or escrow, or what? I don't know offhand how I would address that in my very own firm. Thus, any broker could say, ""we forbid it"" and that's that. The other answers are very interesting in conjunction with this. JoeTaxpayer says, very paraphrased, 'just cuz it's legal doesn't mean we have to offer it.' Jaydles says (again, completely paraphrasing), 'complex stuff for a safe little retirement savings account;' 'difficult to administer' (as I said, how do you account for it); and 'tradition' So maybe look at Scott, per Thorn's answer, LOL. It appears that you can shop around on this issue."

negative: Options can have a negligible time premium. For American1 calls the time premium is never negative. If it had a negative premium it would be profitable to exercise it immediately. A deep in the money call has a delta of exactly one. That is, it's price movements completely mirror the price movements of the underlying stock. That means an option seller can buy stock and completely hedge his short option position. The seller of the option may be in an position to buy with very little margin and take your money and invest it. For example, consider a stock trading at $7.50, with its January 2014   $4 call option trading at $3.50. For one option, representing 100 shares, a trader could take your 350 dollars and invest it, and only use a small portion of the money to buy the stock on margin. Market-makers can typically borrow money at very low interest rates. If you have high borrowing costs, or are unable to buy on margin, then buying deep in the money calls can be a good strategy. Long story short, option sellers are making money off selling these deep in the money calls even with almost zero time premium. So, in general, there's no way to make money by buying them. 1. An American call is a call that can be exercised at any time up to and including its expiration date.

negative: "This is a really bad idea. You are asking to be forced to pay for something at a time when you most likely NOT want to buy it. Why? There is no stability (much less any degree of predictability) to give up the right to control when and for how much you would be willing to own the S&P500. Just don't do it.....""generate stable income"" and ""selling puts"" is an oxymoron.  ===retired investment advisor"

negative: "The most fundamental answer is that when you short a stock (or an ETF), you short a specific number of shares on a specific day, and you probably don't adjust this much as the price wobbles goes up and down. But an inverse fund is not tied to a specific start date, like your own transaction is.  It adjusts on an ongoing basis to maintain its full specified leverage at all times.  If the underlying index goes up, it has to effectively ""buy in"" because its collateral is no longer sufficient to support its open position.  On the other hand, if the underlying index goes down, that frees up collateral which is used to effectively short-sell more of the underlying.  So by design it will buy high and sell low, and so any volatility will pump money out of the fund. I say ""effectively"" because inverse funds use derivatives and contracts, rather than actually shorting the underlying security.   Which brings up the less fundamental issue.  These derivatives and contracts are relatively opaque; the counter-parties are in it for their own benefit, not yours; and the people who run the fund get their expenses regardless of how you do, and they are hard for you to monitor.  This is a hazardous combination."

negative: The risk situation of the put option is the same whether you own the stock or not.  You risk $5 and stand to gain 0 to $250 in the period before expiration (say $50 if the stock reaches $200 and you sell).   Holding the stock or not changes nothing about that.  What is different is the consideration as to whether or not to buy a put when you own the stock.  Without an option, you are holding a $250 asset (the stock), and risking that money.  Should you sell and miss opportunity for say $300? Or hold and risk loss of say $50 of your $250?  So you have $250 at risk, but can lock in a sale price of $245 for say a month by buying a put, giving you opportunity for the $300 price in that month.  You're turning a risk of losing $250 (or maybe only $50 more realistically) into a risk of losing only $5 (versus the price your stock would get today).

negative: Options reflect expectations about the underlying asset, and options are commonly priced using the Black-Scholes model:  N(d1) and N(d2) are probability functions, S is the spot (current) price of the asset, K is the strike price, r is the risk free rate, and T-t represents time to maturity.  Without getting into the mathematics, it suffices to say that higher volatility or expectation of volatility increases the perceived riskiness of the asset, so call options are priced lower  and put options are priced higher. Think about it intuitively. If the stock is more likely to go downwards, then there's an increased chance that the call option expires worthless, so call options must be priced lower to accommodate the relative change in expected value of the option.  Puts are priced similarly, but they move inversely with respect to call option prices due to Put-Call parity. So if call option prices are falling, then put option prices are rising (Note, however, that call prices falling does not cause put prices to rise. The inverse relationship exists because of changes in the underlying factors and how pricing works.) So the option action signifies that the market believes the stock is headed lower (in the given time frame). That does not mean it will go lower, and option traders assume risk whenever they take a particular position. Bottom line: gotta do your own homework! Best of luck.

negative: "It will be helpful to establish some definitions: Long ""Long"" is financial slang for ""to have possession of an asset"", legally, and ""to debit an asset"", financially.   Short ""Short"" is financial slang for ""to be liable for an asset"", legally, and ""to credit an asset"", financially. Option ""Option"" is financial slang for ""to have the right but not obligation to force the liable to perform action"", legally.  Without limits and when taken to absurdity, this can mean slavery.  For equities, this means ""to have the right but not the obligation to force the liable to buy/sell a specified asset at a specified price with a specified expiration for that right"" for a call/put, respectively. By the above, a call option is ""the right but not the obligation to force the liable to buy a specified asset at a specified price with a specified expiration for that right"". By the definition of ""long"" above, a call option is actually not long the underlying. By the definitions above and with a narrower scope applied to equities & indexes, to be ""long"" the call means ""to have the right but not the obligation to force the liable to buy a specified asset at a specified price with a specified expiration for that right"" while to be ""short"" the call means ""to have the obligation to be forced to sell a specified asset at a specified price with a specified expiration for that right"". So, to be ""long"" a call means to simply own the call."

negative: You can buy out of the money put options that could minimize your losses (or even make you money)  in the event of a huge crash. Put options are good in that you dont have to worry about not getting filled, or not knowing what price you might get filled with a stop-loss order, however, put options cost money and their value decays over time. It's just like buying insurance, you always have to pay up for it.


query: What is the best way to invest in gold as a hedge against inflation without having to hold physical gold?

positive: "GLD, IAU, and SGOL are three different ETF's that you can invest in if you want to invest in gold without physically owning gold. Purchasing an ETF is just like purchasing a stock, so you're fine on that front.  Another alternative is to buy shares of companies that mine gold. An example of a single company is Randgold Resources (GOLD), and an ETF of mining companies is GDX. There are also some more complex alternatives like Exchange traded notes and futures contracts, but I wouldn't classify those for the ""regular person.""  Hope it helps!"

positive: Since GLD is priced as 1/10 oz of gold, I'd call it the preferred way to buy if that's your desire. I believe gold is entering classic bubble territory. Caveat emptor.  A comment brought me back to this question. My answer still applies, the ETF the best way to buy gold at the lowest transaction cost. The day I posted and expressed my 'bubble' concern, gold was $1746. Today, nearly 5 years later, it's $1350, a drop of 23%, plus an additional 2% of accumulated expenses. Note, GLD has a .4% annual expense. On the other hand, the S&P is up 80% from that time. In other words, $10K invested that day would be worth less than $7,700 had it been invested in gold, and $18,000 in stock. It would take a market crash, gold soaring or some combination of the two for gold to have been the right choice then. No one can predict short term movement of either the market or metals, my answer here wasn't prescient, just lucky.

positive: "Definitely look at CEF.   They have tax advantages over GLD and SLV, and have been around for 50 years, and are a Canadian company.  They hold their gold in 5 distributed vaults. Apparently tax advantage comes because with GLD, if you supposedly approach them with enough money, you can take out a ""bar of gold"".  Just one problem (well, perhaps more): a bar of gold is an enormous sum of money (and as such not very liquid), and apparently gold bars have special certifications and tracking, which one would mess up if one took it to there personal collection, costing additional sums to re-certify. many, many articles on the web claiming that the gold GLD has is highly leveraged, is held by someone else, and tons of other things that makes GLD seem semi-dubious. I've used CEF for years, talked to them quite a few times; to me, and short of having it my possession, they seem the best /safest / easiest alternative, and are highly liquid/low spread betwen bid and ask. The do also have a pure gold ""stock"" and a pure silver ""stock"", but these often trade at higher premiums.  CEF's premium varies between -2% and +4%.   I.e. sometimes it trades at a premium to the gold and silver it holds, sometimes at a discount.  Note that CEF generally shoots to have a 50/50 ratio of gold / silver holdings in their possession/vaults, but this ratio has increased to be heavier gold weighted than silver, as silver has not performed quite as well lately.  You can go to their web-site and see exactly what they have, e.g. their NAV page:  http://www.centralfund.com/Nav%20Form.htm"

positive: "Investing in gold without having physical gold is not really a hedge against inflation. GLD is really more for speculation, not protection against serious inflation. If there is any kind of inflation worth really protecting yourself against then one thing you will notice at its onset is a divergence in the price of physical and GLD; with GLD offering very little protection if any against inflation. Ultimately holders of GLD will demand physical metal and the physical price will rise and the paper price will fall. I would advise you to study physical gold before you purchase GLD for that reason. EDIT: Just adding this to my answer - I don't know why I didn't put it in before, and I hasten to add that I'm not an expert though a little investigation will show you that this is at least one option for owning gold. If you think of having the physical gold yourself at one end of the spectrum and buying GLD at the other; so that you don't need to take physical delivery, there is another scenario which I understand is in between (and sorry I don't actually know what it's referred to as) but it's where you buy the physical gold but instead of taking delivery the bars are stored for you in a vault - these bars are numbered and you actually own what you have paid for and theoretically you could go and visit your gold and actually remove it because it's your gold - as opposed to having paper GLD which in my understanding is a ""right to take physical delivery"" of gold - and this is slightly different - of course unlike GLD you actually have to pay a storage fee and of course unlike having the physical gold buried in your garden or something you are not entirely secure against say a robbery of the vault, and you are also depending on the company not to sell the same bar to more than one person - but that's the only think that their reputation is built on, and a company like that would live or die by the reputation - ( and of course you might lose the proverbial gold buried in the garden either, so nothing's 100% secure anyway really )"

negative: "Over on Quantitative Finance Stack Exchange, I asked and answered a more technical and broader version of this question, Should the average investor hold commodities as part of a broadly diversified portfolio?  In short, I believe the answer to your question is that gold is neither an investment nor a hedge against inflation. Although many studies claim that commodities (such as gold) do offer some diversification benefit, the most credible academic study I have seen to date, Should Investors Include Commodities in Their Portfolios After All? New Evidence, shows that a mean-variance investor would not want to allocate any of their portfolio to commodities (this would include gold, presumably). Nevertheless, many asset managers, such as PIMCO, offer funds that are marketed as ""real return"" or ""inflation-managed"" and include commodities (including gold) in their portfolios.  PIMCO has also commissioned some research, Strategic Asset Allocation and Commodities, claiming that holding some commodities offers both diversification and inflation hedging benefits."

negative: "Over time, gold has mainly a hedge against inflation, based on its scarcity value. That is, unless finds some ""killer app"" for it that would also make it a good investment. The ""usual"" ones, metallurgical, electronic, medicine, dental, don't really do the trick. It should be noted that gold performs its inflation hedge function over a long period of time, say $50-$100 years.  Over shorter periods of time, it will spike for other reasons. The latest classic example was in 1979-80, and the main reason, in my opinion, was the Iranian hostage crisis (inflation was secondary.) This was a POLITICAL risk situation, but one that was not unwarranted. An attack on 52 U.S. hostages (diplomats, no less), was potenially an attack on the U.S. dollar. But gold got so pricey that it lost its ""inflation hedge"" function for some two decades (until about 2000). Inflation has not been a notable factor in 2011. But Mideastern political risk has been. Witness Egypt, Libya, and potentially Syria and other countries. Put another way, gold is less of an investment that a ""hedge."" And not just against inflation."

negative: Gold since the ancient time ( at least when it was founded) has kept its value. for example the french franc currency was considered valuable in the years 1400~ but in 1641 lost its value. However who owned Gold back then still got value.  The advantage of having gold is you can convert it to cash easily in the world. it hedges against inflation: it is value rise when inflation happend. Gold has no income,no earnings. its not like a stock or a bond. its an alternative way to store value the Disadvantages of investing in Gold  Gold doesnt return income , needs physical storage and insurance, Capital gains tax rates are higher on most gold investments. the best way to invest gold when there is inflation is expected. source

negative: Diversify, diversify, diversify. Gold, USD, Swiss Franc and one thing that hasn't really been mentioned yet: equities.  Yes, they may go down if the recession gets worse but at the end of the day you have a claim to a company. That's a physical asset. It's also a hedge against inflation/devaluation just like foreign currencies and precious metals. Make sure that you invest in companies that actually produce something that will always be needed though. I.e. Siemens, Novartis, Caterpillar etc. NOT the Zyngas and Facebooks of the world!

negative: "The general argument put forward by gold lovers isn't that you get the same gold per dollar (or dollars per ounce of gold), but that you get the same consumable product per ounce of gold. In other words the claim is that the inflation-adjusted price of gold is more-or-less constant. See zerohedge.com link for a chart of gold in 2010 GBP all the way from 1265. (""In 2010 GBP"" means its an inflation adjusted chart.) As you can see there is plenty of fluctuation in there, but it just so happens that gold is worth about the same now as it was in 1265. See caseyresearch.com link for a series of anecdotes of the buying power of gold and silver going back some 3000 years. What this means to you: If you think the stock market is volatile and want to de-risk your holdings for the next 2 years, gold is just as risky If you want to invest some wealth such that it will be worth more (in real terms) when you take it out in 40 years time than today, the stock market has historically given better returns than gold If you want to put money aside, and it to not lose value, for a few hundred years, then gold might be a sensible place to store your wealth (as per comment from @Michael Kjörling) It might be possible to use gold as a partial hedge against the stock market, as the two supposedly have very low correlation"

negative: "There are gold index funds. I'm not sure what you mean by ""real gold"". If you mean you want to buy physical gold, you don't need to. The gold index funds will track the price of gold and will keep you from filling your basement up with gold bars. Gold index funds will buy gold and then issue shares for the gold they hold. You can then buy and sell these just like you would buy and sell any share. GLD and IAU are the ticker symbols of some of these funds. I think it is also worth pointing out that historically gold has a been a poor investment."

negative: "I do not know anything about retail investing in India, since I am in the US. However, there are a couple of general things to keep in mind about gold that should be largely independent of country. First, gold is not an investment. Aside from a few industrial uses, it has no productive value. It is, at best, a hedge against inflation, since many people feel more comfortable with what they consider ""real"" money that is not subject to what seems to be arbitrary creation by central banks. Second, buying tiny amounts of gold as coin or bullion from a retail dealer will always involve a fairly significant spread from the commodity spot price. The spot price only applies to large transactions. Retail dealers have costs of doing business that necessitate these fees in order for them to make a profit. You must also consider the costs of storing your gold in a way that mitigates the risk of theft. (The comment by NL7 is on this point. It appeared while I was typing this answer.) You might find this Planet Money piece instructive on the process, costs, and risks of buying gold bullion (in the US). If you feel that you must own gold as an inflation hedge, and it is possible for residents of India, you would be best off with some kind of gold fund that tracks the price of bullion."

negative: "Okay - but that's about gold as an investment in today's world, and during  an extremely unstable financial situation.  Many other types of investments could be used similarly. Those who advocate gold as a hedge don't advocate buying it during a crisis, they advocate keeping some as part of an investment strategy... but again, that's gold as gold, not gold as currency.  Leveraging your investments based on current financial situations is what investing is about.   Gold as a medium for currency is a totally different thing.   What you just described would be called ""arbitrage"" - in moving markets (or other situations I guess) looking for no-lose situations where you can trade things around and increase your net value doing it.    it helps stabilize markets - as people take advantage of this situation it counters the effect and self-corrects... think about it ;)"

negative: "And you have hit the nail on the head of holding gold as an alternative to liquid currency. There is simply no way to reliably buy and sell physical gold at the spot price unless you have millions of dollars. Exhibit A) The stock symbol GLD is an ETF backed by gold. Its shares are redeemable for gold if you have more than 100,000 shares then you can be assisted by an ""Authorized Participant"". Read the fund's details. Less than 100,000 shares? no physical gold for you. With GLD's share price being $155.55 this would mean you need to have over 15 million dollars, and be financially solvent enough to be willing to exchange the liquidity of shares and dollars for illiquid gold, that you wouldn't be able to sell at a fair price in smaller denominations. The ETF trades at a different price than the gold spot market, so you technically are dealing with a spread here too. Exhibit B) The futures market. Accepting delivery of a gold futures contract also requires that you get 1000 units of the underlying asset. This means 1000 gold bars which are currently $1,610.70 each. This means you would need $1,610,700 that you would be comfortable with exchanging for gold bars, which: In contrast, securitized gold (gold in an ETF, for instance) can be hedged very easily, and one can sell covered calls to negate transaction fees, hedge, and collect dividends from the fund. quickly recuperating any ""spread tax"" that you encounter from opening the position. Also, leverage: no bank would grant you a loan to buy 4 to 20 times more gold than you can actually afford, but in the stock market 4 - 20 times your account value on margin is possible and in the futures market 20 times is pretty normal (""initial margin and maintenance margin""), effectively bringing your access to the spot market for physical gold more so within reach. caveat emptor."

negative: Precious metals also tend to do well during times of panic. You could invest in gold miners, a gold or silver ETF or in physical bullion itself.

negative: Owning physical gold (assuming coins): Owning gold through a fund:

negative: Investing $100k into physical gold (bars or coins) is the most prudent option; given the state of economic turmoil worldwide.  Take a look at the long term charts; they're pretty self explanatory.   Gold has an upward trend for 100+ years.  http://www.goldbuyguide.com/price/ A more high risk/high reward investment would be to buy $100k of physical silver.  Silver has a similar track record and inherent benefits of gold.  Yet, with a combination of factors that could make it even more bull than gold (ie- better liquidity, industrial demand).   Beyond that, you may want to look at other commodities such as oil and agriculture.  The point is, this is troubled times for worldwide economies.  Times like this you want to invest in REAL things like commodities or companies that are actually producing essential materials.

negative: If you want to buy physical gold, I would suggest pawn shops.  Just have an idea of the price of gold and how to calculate value from carat weight.  Also the type of gold affects resale value.  I would buy the darker colored Indian or Thai gold.  Thai Bot chains are probably the best.

negative: "Gold is not an investment.  Gold is a form of money.  It and silver have been used as money much longer than paper.  Paper money is a relatively recent invention (less than 350 years old) with a horrible track record of preserving wealth.  When I exchange my paper US dollars for gold I'm exchanging one form of money for another.  US dollars, or US Federal Reserve Notes to be more precise, can be printed ad nauseam by one bank that is totally private and is never audited.  Keeping all of your savings in US dollars is ignoring history, it is believing the US Federal Reserve has your best interest in mind, it is hoping that somehow things will be different this time, it is believing that the US dollar will somehow magically be the first fiat currency to last a person's lifetime. TIPS may seem like a good hedge against inflation.  However, the government offering TIPS is also the same government that is calculating the inflation rate used to adjust TIPS.  What a great deal.  If you do some research you discover that the method for calculating the consumer price index is always ""modified"" since it is always found to over estimate inflation.  It is never found to under estimate inflation.  Imagine that.  Here is a chart showing the inflation rate as if it were calculated the same way as it was calculated in 1980. Buying any government debt is also a way to guarantee you or your children will be taxed in the future since the government will have to obtain the money from someone to pay back bonds.  It's like voting for future taxes."

negative: Best thing to do is convert your money into something that will retain value. Currency is a symbol of wealth, and can be significantly devalued with inflation. Something such as Gold or Silver might not allow you to see huge benefit, but its perhaps the safest bet (gold in particular, as silver is more volatile), as mentioned above, yes you do pay a little above spot price and receive a little below spot when and if you sell, but current projections for both gold and silver suggest that you won't lose money at least. Safe bet. Suggesting it is a bad idea at this time is just silly, and goes against the majority of advisers out there.

negative: The point of what you heard is likely that gold is thought by some to hold its value well, when the money market would provide negative interest rates. These negative interest rates are a sign of deflation, where cash money is worth more in the future than it is today.  Normally, under inflation, cash money is worth less in the future than it is today. Under 'normal' circumstances where inflation exists, interest paid by the bank on money held there generally keeps up with inflation + a little bit extra. Now, we are seeing many banks offering interest rates in the negatives, which is an acknowledgement of the fact that money will be worth more in the future than it is today. So in that sense, holding physical gold 'fights' deflation [or, negative interest rates], in the same way that holding physical cash does [because if you hold onto a $10k bundle of bills, in 10 years you can walk into a bank and it will be worth $10k in future dollars - which in a deflationary market would be more than it is worth today]. Some view gold as being better at doing this than just holding cash, but that discussion gets into an analysis of the value of paper money as a currency, which is outside the scope of this answer.  Suffice to say, I do not personally like the idea of buying gold as an investment, but some do, and partly for this reason.

negative: I think most financial planners or advisors would allocate zero to a gold-only fund. That's probably the mainstream view. Metals investments have a lot of issues, more elaboration here: What would be the signs of a bubble in silver? Also consider that metals (and commodities, despite a recent drop) are on a big run-up and lots of random people are saying they're the thing to get in on. Usually this is a sign that you might want to wait a bit or at least buy gradually.  The more mainstream way to go might be a commodities fund or all-asset fund. Some funds you could look at (just examples, not recommendations) might include several PIMCO funds including their commodity real return and all-asset; Hussman Strategic Total Return; diversified commodities index ETFs; stuff like that has a lot of the theoretical benefits of gold but isn't as dependent on gold specifically. Another idea for you might be international bonds (or stocks), if you feel US currency in particular is at risk. Oh, and REITs often come up as an inflation-resistant asset class. I personally use diversified funds rather than gold specifically, fwiw, mostly for the same reason I'd buy a fund instead of individual stocks. 10%-ish is probably about right to put into this kind of stuff, depending on your overall portfolio and goals. Pure commodities should probably be less than funds with some bonds, stocks, or REITs, because in principle commodities only track inflation over time, they don't make money. The only way you make money on them is rebalancing out of them some when there's a run up and back in when they're down. So a portfolio with mostly commodities would suck long term. Some people feel gold's virtue is tangibility rather than being a piece of paper, in an apocalypse-ish scenario, but if making that argument I think you need physical gold in your basement, not an ETF.  Plus I'd argue for guns, ammo, and food over gold in that scenario. :-)

negative: "As proposed: Buy 100 oz of gold at $1240 spot = -$124,000 Sell 1 Aug 2014 Future for $1256 = $125,600 Profit $1,600 Alternative Risk-Free Investment: 1 year CD @ 1% would earn $1240 on $124,000 investment. Rate from ads on www.bankrate.com ""Real"" Profit All you are really being paid for this trade is the difference between the  profit $1,600 and the opportunity for $1240 in risk free earnings.  That's only $360 or around 0.3%/year.   Pitfalls of trying to do this: Many retail futures brokers are set up for speculative traders and do not want to deal with customers selling contracts against delivery, or buying for delivery. If you are a trader you have to keep margin money on deposit.  This can be a T-note at some brokerages, but currently T-notes pay almost 0%.   If the price of gold rises and you are short a future in gold, then you need to deposit more margin money.  If gold went back up to $1500/oz, that could be $24,400.  If you need to borrow this money, the interest will eat into a very slim profit margin over the risk free rate.   Since you can't deliver, the trades have to be reversed.  Although futures trades have cheap commissions ~$5/trade, the bid/ask spread, even at 1 grid, is not so minimal.  Also there is often noisy jitter in the price.  The spot market in physical gold may have a higher bid/ask spread. You might be able to eliminate some of these issues by trading as a hedger or for delivery.  Good luck finding a broker to let you do this... but the issue here for gold is that you'd need to trade in depository receipts for gold that is acceptable for delivery, instead of trading physical gold.  To deliver physical gold it would likely have to be tested and certified, which costs money. By the time you've researched this, you'll either discover some more costs associated with it or could have spent your time making more money elsewhere."

negative: You are really tangling up two questions here: Q1: Given I fear a dissolution of the Euro, is buying physical gold a good response and if so, how much should I buy? I see you separately asked about real estate, and cash, and perhaps other things.  Perhaps it would be better to just say: what is the right asset allocation, rather than asking about every thing individually, which will get you partial and perhaps contradictory answers.  The short answer, knowing very little about your case, is that some moderate amount of gold (maybe 5-10%, at most 25%) could be a counterbalance to other assets. If you're concerned about government and market stability, you might like Harry Browne's Permanent Portfolio, which has equal parts stocks, bonds, cash, and gold. Q2: If I want to buy physical gold, what size should I get? One-ounce bullion (about 10 x 10 x 5mm, 30g) is a reasonably small physical size and a reasonable monetary granularity: about $1700 today. I think buying $50 pieces of gold is pointless: However much you want to have in physical gold, buy that many ounces.

negative: "Since you are going to be experiencing a liquidity crisis that even owning physical gold wouldn't solve, may I suggest bitcoins? You will still be liquid and people anywhere will be able to trade it. This is different from precious metals, whereas even if you ""invested"" in gold you would waste considerable resources on storage, security and actually making it divisible for trade. You would be illiquid. Do note that the bitcoin currency is currently more volatile than a Greek government bond."

negative: Hyperinflation doesn't mean armaggedon. There have been hundreds of fiat currencies that have ended in hyperinflation i.e. wiemar republic (which the germans fully recovered from in less than 10 years before trying to take over europe).   Most all pawn shops buy gold/silver, especially during hyperinflation will people be buying gold/silver. You can't have hyperinflation without demand of commodities going through the roof, that is the driver of inflation. When this happens you can be gauranteed people will buy your gold/silver.  In the Wiemar republic, some people bought gold/silver for 1/10,000,000 what they sold it for. But they still lost 99% of their value because the mark still devalued another 1,000,000 times. Because of this, many people aren't even looking to sell it, until they absolutely need it's value. I.e. it's a piggy bank.   The best way to deal with a gold/silver stash is to hide it, you can't steal what you can't find. There's a reason pirates are famous for burying their stuff, when they don't have the law on their side.

negative: ">They will want to step away for a few years. Then will quickly realize, or already knew, holding cash is just as bad of an investment. They will then turn to hedges against inflation, real assets, further devaluing the dollar. They will turn to commodities and energy the only things in the past decade besides entrepreneurial investments which have increased in value.  This is where you differ from the Fed. Not saying either one of you is wrong, but the Fed wants inflation in order to force individuals and, more importantly, businesses to invest their capital in CapEx, equities or other ""risky"" assets in order to combat inflation.  You bring up a good point that if they chose to invest solely in inflation hedges, it may compound the problem. What happens when supply and demand are forced back towards equilibrium though? Gold is a different animal, but for other metals with industrial uses, would demand through inflation hedging be able to fend off decreased industrial and actual demand for the physical material?"

negative: Make a portfolio with gold and put options for gold. If the price rises again, sell a part of your gold and use it to buy new put options. If the price goes down, then use your put options to sell gold at a favorable price.

negative: "There's a few layers to the Momentum Theory discussed in that book. But speaking in general terms I can answer the following: Kind of. Assuming you understand that historically the Nasdaq has seen a little more volatility than the S&P. And, more importantly, that it tends to track the tech sector more than the general economy.  Thus the pitfall is that it is heavily weighted towards (and often tracks) the performance of a few stocks including: Apple, Google (Alphabet), Microsoft, Amazon, Intel and Amgen.  It could be argued this is counter intuitive to the general strategy you are trying to employ. This could be tougher to justify.  The reason it is potentially not a great idea has less to do with the fact that gold has factors other than just risk on/off and inflation that affect its price (even though it does!); but more to do with the fact that it is harder to own gold and move in and out of positions efficiently than it is a bond index fund.   For example, consider buying physical gold.  To do so you have to spend some time evaluating the purchase, you are usually paying a slight premium above the spot price to purchase it, and you should usually also have some form of security or insurance for it.  So, it has additional costs.  Possibly worth it as part of a long-term investment strategy; if you believe gold will appreciate over a decade. But not so much if you are holding it for as little as a few weeks and constantly moving in and out of the position over the year. The same is true to some extent of investing in gold in the form of an ETF.  At least a portion of ""their gold"" comes from paper or futures contracts which must be rolled every month.  This creates a slight inefficiency.  While possibly not a deal breaker, it would not be as attractive to someone trading on momentum versus fundamentals in my opinion. In the end though, I think all strategies are adaptable.  And if you feel gold will be the big mover this year, and want to use it as your risk hedge, who am I or anyone else to tell you that you shouldn't."

negative: You mean in response to OP? Investors should buy physical gold and silver, and wait out the storm. The US Bond market is negative when you factor in inflation, that's a bubble that's going to burst eventually. Riding the gold horse will keep you high and dry.  But if you mean in response to Fearan? I would say that the way to reduce income inequality is to stop all the market distortions and malinvestment due to regulations. The countries with the most income disparity are the ones with the most regulations.

negative: "Ok, I think what you're really asking is ""how can I benefit from a collapse in the price of gold?""  :-) And that's easy. (The hard part's making that kind of call with money on the line...) The ETF GLD is entirely physical gold sitting in a bank vault. In New York, I believe. You could simply sell it short.  Alternatively, you could buy a put option on it. Even more risky, you could sell a (naked) call option on it. i.e. you receive the option premium up front, and if it expires worthless you keep the money. Of course, if gold goes up, you're on the hook. (Don't do this.)   (the ""Don't do this"" was added by Chris W. Rea. I agree that selling naked options is best avoided, but I'm not going to tell you what to do. What I should have done was make clear that your potential losses are unlimited when selling naked calls. For example, if you sold a single GLD naked call, and gold went to shoot to $1,000,000/oz, you'd be on the hook for around $10,000,000. An unrealistic example, perhaps, but one that's worth pondering to grasp the risk you'd be exposing yourself to with selling naked calls. -- Patches) Alternative ETFs that work the same, holding physical gold, are IAU and SGOL. With those the gold is stored in London and Switzerland, respectively, if I remember right.  Gold peaked around $1900 and is now back down to the $1500s. So, is the run over, and it's all downhill from here? Or is it a simple retracement, gathering strength to push past $2000? I have no idea.  And I make no recommendations."

negative: "Look at a broader diversification. Something like: For physical gold, I'd look at a mix of gold coins and bullion. Study the pricing model for coins -- you'll probably find that the spreads on small coins make them too expensive. There are a few levels of risk with storing in a vault -- the practical risk is that your government will close banks in the event of a panic, and your money will be inaccessible. You need to balance that risk with the risk to your personal security that comes with having lots of gold or cash in your home. My recommendation is to avoid wasting time on the ""Mad Max"" scenarios. If the world economy collapses into utter ruin, we're all screwed. A few gold coins won't do much for you."

negative: "I was able to find a fairly decent index that trades very close to 1/10th the actual price of gold by the ounce. The difference may be accounted to the indexes operating cost, as it is very low, about 0.1%. The index is the ETFS Gold Trust index (SGOL). By using the SGOL index, along with a Standard Brokerage investment account, I was able to set up an investment that appropriately tracked my gold ""shares"" as 10x their weight in ounces, the share cost as 1/10th the value of a gold ounce at the time of purchase, and the original cost at time of purchase as the cost basis. There tends to be a 0.1% loss every time I enter a transaction, I'm assuming due to the index value difference against the actual spot value of the price of gold for any day, probably due to their operating costs.  This solution should work pretty well, as this particular index closely follows the gold price, and should reflect an investment in gold over a long term very well. It is not 100% accurate, but it is accurate enough that you don't lose 2-3% every time you enter a new transaction, which would skew long-term results with regular purchases by a fair amount."

negative: "A good time to invest in gold WAS about ten years ago, when it had reached a 20-year bottom around $300 an ounce. That's when I was buying (gold stocks, not physical gold). Since then, it's gone up 5-6 times in ten years. It might continue to go up of course, but it also has long way down to go, because it has come up ""too far, too fast."" I have since sold my gold stocks. Alternatives to gold include other metals such as silver and copper (which actually belong in the same chemical family) as well as platinum and palladium. But they, too, have run up a lot in price over the past ten years."

negative: From Wikipedia: Investment has different meanings in finance and economics. In Finance   investment is putting money into something with the expectation of   gain, that upon thorough analysis, has a high degree of security for   the principal amount, as well as security of return, within an   expected period of time. In contrast putting money into something with   an expectation of gain without thorough analysis, without security of   principal, and without security of return is speculation or gambling. The second part of the question can be addressed by analyzing the change in gold price vs inflation year by year over the long term. As Chuck mentioned, there are periods in which it didn't exceed inflation. More important, over any sufficiently long length of time the US stock market will outperform. Those who bought at the '87 peak aren't doing too bad, yet those who bought in the last gold bubble haven't kept up with inflation. $850 put into gold at the '80 top would inflate today to $2220 per the inflation calculator. You can find with a bit of charting some periods where gold outpaced inflation, and some where it missed. Back to the definition of investment. I think gold fits speculation far better than it does investment. I've heard the word used in ways I'd disagree with, spend what you will on the shoes, but no, they aren't an investment, I tell my wife. The treadmill purchase may improve my health, and people may use the word colloquially, but it's not an investment.

negative: What you are seeing is the effects of inflation. As money becomes less valuable it takes more of it to buy physical things, be they commodities, shares in a company's stock, and peoples time (salaries).  Just about the only thing that doesn't track inflation to some degree is cash itself or money in an account since that is itself what is being devalued.  So the point of all this is, buying anything (a house, gold, stocks) that doesn't depreciate (a car) is something of a hedge against inflation. However, don't be tricked (as many are) into thinking that house just made you a tidy sum just because it went up in value so much over x years. Remember 1) All the other houses and things you'd spend the money on are a lot more expensive now too; and 2) You put a lot more money into a house than the mortgage payment (taxes, insurance, maintenance, etc.) I'm with the others though. Don't get caught up in the gold bubble. Doing so now is just speculation and has a lot of risk associated with it.

negative: "Nothing necessarily has to ""benefit."" Right now, what primarily drives demand for gold is its perceived use as a hedge against the inflation of fiat currency. I.e. when inflation strikes, the price of gold goes up rapidly. Thus, for a given currency, gold decreasing in price is almost always a signal that the currency is increasing in value. However, it may be that at some point in time people everywhere just decide that gold is no longer worth using as an inflation hedge, and thus the price collapses simply because demand collapsed. No corresponding ""benefit""."