3 ms·

As I get older, the more I agree with this sentiment. Before the stock market, businesses made money for the owners. Stocks allowed anyone to share ownership o

As I get older, the more I agree with this sentiment. Before the stock market, businesses made money for the owners. Stocks allowed anyone to share ownership of businesses, who thereby benefited from the influx of capital. An investor could put his money away with long term gains if the company made money. And by diversifying he could shield himself from the ones that didn't. What tangible value do options actually bring anyone besides gambling? Oh they allow shareholders to rent out their shares, or allow you to structure sales before/after the fiscal year? Big deal. All it does is create a market for pseudo science middle men/rent seekers who sell "vehicles" that many use to try to get rich quick. All this does is divert funds from markets that are actually tied to something useful like legitimate businesses that sell products or services

clairity 8y ago
agreed, the legitimate uses of these financial tools (as you noted) are dwarfed by the actions of rent seekers. let's support creators (of all stripes) over rent seekers. there's no need to reward a person for simple ownership over some capital or good. rewards should go to those who wield them effectively by making something useful out of it. it's trickier to do than it sounds, but absolutely worth the effort.
- mikec3010 8y ago
  Also forgot the biggest reason: "they allow you to buy and sell volatility". Ok, but volatility isn't an asset. So this must be the original "synthetic asset", long before all the other exotics came on the scene. On one hand, why should I care what other people do with their money. But what worries me is that with normal markets, assets have intrinsic value: corn, oil, securities. They're all things people want. The market can always assume this is true, but with synthetic "assets" like trading volatility, it's not true and that creates a market built on a false pretense.

clairity 8y ago

agreed, the legitimate uses of these financial tools (as you noted) are dwarfed by the actions of rent seekers. let's support creators (of all stripes) over rent seekers. there's no need to reward a person for simple ownership over some capital or good. rewards should go to those who wield them effectively by making something useful out of it. it's trickier to do than it sounds, but absolutely worth the effort.

mikec3010 8y ago
Also forgot the biggest reason: "they allow you to buy and sell volatility". Ok, but volatility isn't an asset. So this must be the original "synthetic asset", long before all the other exotics came on the scene. On one hand, why should I care what other people do with their money. But what worries me is that with normal markets, assets have intrinsic value: corn, oil, securities. They're all things people want. The market can always assume this is true, but with synthetic "assets" like trading volatility, it's not true and that creates a market built on a false pretense.