Can anybody explain “cut their exposure to equities” and “fat and flat range” for me, please?
"Someone's (or, a bank's) ""exposure to equities"" refers to the amount of value which has a risk that fluctuates with the equities market (ie: the stock market). In very broad terms, I think it might make sense to say that exposure to equities could mean, for example, owning many rental properties, if the rental market was ""highly correlated"" with the equities market. That is - if house prices go down when the equities market goes down, and if that relationship is very strong, then owning a house means you are exposed to the equities market.  However, in the sense it is used there, it seems to mean direct exposure to equities - ie: owning stocks and stock-based funds."
"So, the term ""ready market"" simply means that a market exists in which there are legitimate buy/sell offers, meaning there are investors willing to own or trade in the security. A ""spot market"" means that the security/commodity is being delivered immediately, rather at some predetermined date in the future (hence the term ""futures market"").  So if you buy oil on the spot market, you'd better be prepared to take immediate delivery, where as when you buy a futures contract, the transaction doesn't happen until some later date.  The advantage for futures contract sellers is the ability to lock in the price of what they're selling as a hedge against the possibility of a price drop between now and when they can/will deliver the commodity.  In other words, a farmer can pre-sell his grain at a set price for some future delivery date so he can know what he's going to get regardless of the price of grain at the time he delivers it.  The downside to the farmer is that if grain prices rise higher than what he sold them for as futures contracts then he loses that additional money.  That's the advantage to the buyer, who expects the price to rise so he can resell what he bought from the farmer at a profit. When you trade on margin, you're basically borrowing the money to make a trade, whether you're trading long (buying) or short (selling) on a security.  It isn't uncommon for traders to pledge securities they already own as collateral for a margin account, and if they are unable to cover a margin call then those securities can be liquidated or confiscated to satisfy the debt.  There still may even be a balance due after such a liquidation if the pledged securities don't cover the margin call. Most of the time you pay a fee (or interest rate) on whatever you borrow on margin, just like taking out a bank loan, so if you're going to trade on margin, you have to include those costs in your calculations as to what you need to earn from your investment to make a profit. When I short trade, I'm selling something I don't own in the expectation I can buy it back later at a lower price and keep the difference.  For instance, if I think Apple shares are going to take a steep drop at some point soon, I can short them.  So imagine I short-sell 1000 shares of AAPL at the current price of $112.  That means my brokerage account is credited with the proceeds of the sale ($112,000), and I now owe my broker 1000 shares of AAPL stock.  If the stock drops to $100 and I ""cover my short"" (buy the shares back to repay the 1000 I borrowed) then I pay $100,000 for them and give them to my broker.  I keep the difference ($12,000) between what I sold them for and what I paid to buy them back, minus any brokerage fees and fees the broker may charge me for short-selling. In conclusion, a margin trade is using someone else's money to make a trade, whether it's to buy more or to sell short.  A short trade is selling shares I don't even own because I think I can make money in the process. I hope this helps." "What exactly do you need explained?  Short term returns show ""fat tails"" in their distribution.  Long term returns converge towards a gaussian distribution.  The authors think there's a connection between this and the ""long memory"" of volatility (i.e. that the autocorrelation of absolute volatilities also has a fat tail)." "Ah ok, I can appreciate that. I'm fluent in English and Mr. Graham's command of English can be intimidating (even for me). The edition I have has commentary by Mr. Jason Zweig who effectively rewrites the chapters into simpler English and updates the data (some of the firms listed by Mr. Graham don't exist either due to bankruptcy or due to consolidation). But I digress.  Let's start with the topics you took; they're all very relevant, you'd be surprised, the firm I work for require marketing for certain functions. But not being good at Marketing doesn't block you from a career in Finance. Let's look at the other subjects.  You took high level Maths, as such I think a read through Harry Markowitz's ""Portfolio Selection"" would be beneficial, here's a link to the paper:  https://www.math.ust.hk/~maykwok/courses/ma362/07F/markowitz_JF.pdf  Investopedia also has a good summary:  http://www.investopedia.com/walkthrough/fund-guide/introduction/1/modern-portfolio-theory-mpt.aspx  This is Mr. Markowitz's seminal work; while it's logical to diversify your portfolio (remember the saying ""don't put all your eggs in one basket""), Mr. Markwotiz presented the relationship of return, risk and the effects of diversification via mathematical representation. The concepts presented in this paper are taught at every introductory Finance course at University. Again a run through the actual paper might be intimidating (Lord knows I never read the paper from start to finish, but rather read text books which explained the concepts instead), so if you can find another source which explains the concepts in a way you understand, go for it. I consider this paper to be a foundation for other papers.  Business economics is very important and while it may seem like it has a weak link to Finance at this stage; you have to grasp the concepts. Mr. Michael Porter's ""Five Forces"" is an excellent link between industry structure (introduced in Microeconomics) and profit potential (I work in Private Equity, and you'd be surprised how much I use this framework):  https://hbr.org/2008/01/the-five-competitive-forces-that-shape-strategy  There's another text I used in University which links the economic concept of utility and investment decision making; unfortunately I can't seem to remember the title. I'm asking my ex-classmates so if they respond I'll directly send you the author/title.  To finish I want to give you some advice; a lot of subjects are intimidating at first, and you might feel like you're not good enough but keep at it. You're not dumber than the next guy, but nothing will come for free. I wasn't good at accounting, I risked failing my first year of University because of it, I ended up passing that year with distinction because I focused (my second highest grade was Accounting). I wasn't good in economics in High School, but it was my best grades in University. I wasn't good in financial mathematics in University but I aced it in the CFA. English is your second language, but you have to remember a lot of your peers (regardless of their command of the language) are being introduced to the new concepts just as you are. Buckle down and you'll find that none of it is impossible." More questions!  1.) I thought the criticism of the Dow was that it's much smaller than other indexes and thus less representative of the market as a whole?  2,) When you say private investors are you talking about a few specific people? Or anyone who invests at all?  Thanks In fact markets are not efficient and participants are not rational. That is why we have booms and busts in markets. Emotions and psychology play a role when investors and/or traders make decisions, sometimes causing them to behave in unpredictable or irrational ways. That is why stocks can be undervalued or overvalued compared to their true value.  Also, different market participants may put a different true value on a stock (depending on their methods of analysis and the information they use to base their analysis on). This is why there are always many opportunities to profit (or lose your money) in liquid markets. Doing your research, homework, or analysis can be related to fundamental analysis, technical analysis, or a combination of the two. For example, you could use fundamental analysis to determine what to buy and then use technical analysis to determine when to buy. To me, doing your homework means to get yourself educated, to have a plan, to do your analysis (both FA and TA), to invest or trade according to your plan and to have a risk management strategy in place. Most people are too lazy to do their homework so will pay someone else to do it for them or they will just speculate (on the latest hot tip) and lose most of their money. Buy and hold doesn't have an exact definition, as far as I know.  In my opinion, it's offered as a contrast to those who trade too frequently, or panic every time the market drops 2%.  For the general market, e.g. your S&P index holdings. You sell to rebalance to your desired asset allocation. As a personal example, at 50, I was full up invested, 95%+ in stocks. When my wife and I were retired (i.e. let go from company, but with no need to go back to work) I started shifting to get to a more sane allocation, 80/20. The ideal mix may be closer to 60/40.  Also, there are times the market as a whole is overvalued as measure by P/E and/or CAPE, made popular by Nobel Prize winning Robert Shiller. During these times, an allocation shift might make sense.  For the individual stocks, you had best have a strategy when you buy. Why did you buy XYZ? Because they had promise, decent company with a good outlook for their product? Now that they are up 300%, can they keep gaining share or expand their market? Sometimes you can keep raising the bar, and keep a company long term, really long. Other times, the reason you bought no longer applies, they are at or above the valuation you hoped to achieve.  Note - I noticed from another question, the OP is in the UK. I answer this my from US centric view, but it should still apply to OP in general. The question was not tagged UK when I replied. "https://www.fool.com/investing/general/2013/07/30/2-types-of-risk-2-types-of-bubbles.aspx (mirror): The Wall Street Journal reviews: What Mr. Bernstein calls ""shallow risk"" is a temporary drop in an asset's market price; decades ago, the great investment analyst Benjamin Graham referred to such an interim decline as ""quotational loss."" ""Deep risk,"" on the other hand, is an irretrievable real loss of capital, meaning that after inflation you won't recover for decades -- if ever. So quotational loss = loss not explained by change of actual value of a firm." "First it is worth noting the two sided nature of the contracts (long one currency/short a second) make leverage in currencies over a diverse set of clients generally less of a problem.  In equities, since most margin investors are long ""equities"" making it more likely that large margin calls will all be made at the same time. Also, it's worth noting that high-frequency traders often highly levered make up a large portion of all volume in all liquid markets ~70% in equity markets for instance.  Would you call that grossly artificial?  What is that volume number really telling us anyway in that case? The major players holding long-term positions in the FX markets are large banks (non-investment arm), central banks and corporations and unlike equity markets which can nearly slow to a trickle currency markets need to keep trading just for many of those corporations/banks to do business.  This kind of depth allows these brokers to even consider offering 400-to-1 leverage.  I'm not suggesting that it is a good idea for these brokers, but the liquidity in currency markets is much deeper than their costumers." "I think that ""memoryless"" in this context of a given stock's performance is not a term of art. IMO, it's an anecdotal concept or cliche used to make a point about holding a stock. Sometimes people get stuck... they buy a stock or fund at 50, it goes down to 30, then hold onto it so they can ""get back to even"". By holding the loser stock for emotional reasons, the person potentially misses out on gains elsewhere." "A kid can lose everything he owns in a crap shoot and live. But a senior citizen might not afford medical treatment if interest rates turn and their bonds underperform. In modern portfolio theory, risk/""aggression"" is measured by beta and you get more return by increasing risk. Risk-adjusted return is measured by the Sharpe ratio and the efficient frontier shows how much return you get for each level of risk. For simplicity, we will assume that choosing beta is the only investment choice you make. You are buying a house tomorrow all cash, you should set aside that much in liquid assets today. (Return = who cares, Beta = 0) Your kids go to college in 5 years, so you invest funds now with a 5 year investment horizon to produce, with a reasonable level of certainty, the needed cash then. (Beta = low) You wish to leave money in your estate. Invest for the highest return with a horizon of your lifetime. (Return = maximum, Beta = who cares) In other words, you set risk based on how important your expenses are now or later. And your portfolio is a weighted average. On paper, let's say you have sold yourself into indentured servitude. In return you have received a paid-up-front annuity which pays dividends and increases annually. For someone in their twenties: This adds up to a present value of $1 million. When young, the value of lifetime remaining wages is high. It is also low risk, you will probably find a job eventually in any market condition. If your portfolio is significantly smaller than $1 million this means that the low risk of future wages pulls down your beta, and therefore: Youth invest aggressively with available funds because they compensate large, low-risk future earnings to meet their desired risk appetite." &gt;If we are looking to offset risk in location A where we are not able to buy forward with location W, and they are the same commodity is this even a common practice in risk management?  Let me prephase this by saying I don't do work directly in this area, but sometimes I analyze what's happening in less liquid markets compared to more liquid markets in various commodities to get a better sense of the supply and demand dynamics of the market.   It's normal - but just looking at the ratios - it looks like the spread is quite volatile - it looks like the price at location W went from trading at 130% of location A to 170% of the price at location A. (I also don't use R so I don't know which time period was the start and which was the end)  What moved in one direction can definitely reverse. If you don't know what is driving this movement in the spread then adding the hedge could be riskier than not having any hedge on. And there are scenarios where the price of the commodity you want to buy at location A is going to rise towards the price at liquid location W and if you are unable to buy it and store it then there isn't much you can do to hedge your company's exposure. "Modern portfolio theory dramatically underestimates the risk of the recommended assets.  This is because so few underlying assets are in the recommended part of the curve.  As investors identify such assets, large amounts of money are invested in them.  This temporarily reduces measured risk, and temporarily increases measured return.  Sooner or later, ""the trade"" becomes ""crowded"".  Eventually, large amounts of money try to ""exit the trade"" (into cash or the next discovered asset).  And so the measurable risk suddenly rises, and the measured return drops. In other words, modern portfolio theory causes bubbles, and causes those bubbles to pop. Some other strategies to consider:" "**Modern portfolio theory**  Modern portfolio theory (MPT), or mean-variance analysis, is a mathematical framework for assembling a portfolio of assets such that the expected return is maximized for a given level of risk, defined as variance. Its key insight is that an asset's risk and return should not be assessed by itself, but by how it contributes to a portfolio's overall risk and return.  Economist Harry Markowitz introduced MPT in a 1952 essay, for which he was later awarded a Nobel Prize in economics.  ***  **Option (finance)**  In finance, an option is a contract which gives the buyer (the owner or holder of the option) the right, but not the obligation, to buy or sell an underlying asset or instrument at a specific strike price on a specified date, depending on the form of the option. The strike price may be set by reference to the spot price (market price) of the underlying security or commodity on the day an option is taken out, or it may be fixed at a discount in a premium. The seller has the corresponding obligation to fulfill the transaction—to sell or buy—if the buyer (owner) ""exercises"" the option. An option that conveys to the owner the right to buy at a specific price is referred to as a call; an option that conveys the right of the owner to sell at a specific price is referred to as a put.  ***  ^[ [^PM](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=kittens_from_space) ^| [^Exclude ^me](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiTextBot&amp;message=Excludeme&amp;subject=Excludeme) ^| [^Exclude ^from ^subreddit](https://np.reddit.com/r/finance/about/banned) ^| [^FAQ ^/ ^Information](https://np.reddit.com/r/WikiTextBot/wiki/index) ^| [^Source](https://github.com/kittenswolf/WikiTextBot)   ^] ^Downvote ^to ^remove ^| ^v0.27" "Well there are a few comments that need to be made here I suppose. Though at work now so this will be short.   First there is the difference between banking, which indeed mostly looks at capital adequacy ratios and uses VaR as one of the methods to get to the risk-weighted assets. Then there is the buy side which is more interested in ""how much would I stand to lose in portfolio X if markets head south, and how does that relate to what a have promised my client?"" In the first situation it is the bank itself taking on the risk, in the second the risk lies entirely with the client. An asset manager could lose 100% on your regular old equity mandate and it wouldn't hit him except for loss in fees, whereas a significant trading loss for a bank can put it out of business..   My personal view is that all of these metrics are merely useful instruments and for a large part they all tell me the same thing. A higher duration on a fixed income mandate will give a higher VaR, a higher shortfall, more negative results on rates stress scenarios etcetera. They only really become useful when imposing limits on them, or using them to steer based on whatever the prevailing risk appetite is at a certain point in time. Or when looking at trends, or relative risk of portfolio A vs B  Don't get me wrong, I too can debate for hours about VaR parameters. Confidence intervals, look back periods, return frequency, decay factors, parametric or historical / monte carlo simulation, etcetera. But I think in practise that is really of limited use. If you take any ex ante risk measure and you thoroughly understand it, make an informed choice about risk appetite and steer on it, you basically have done your job as a risk manager.  Sorry I know I am not answering your questions in a structured way but am on my phone so it's hard to keep overview. PM me if you want to discuss things in detail." "When you invest in a single index/security, you are completely exposed to the risk of that security. Diversification means spreading the investments so the losses on one side can be compensated by the gains on the other side. What you are talking about is one thing called ""risk apettite"", more formally known as Risk Tolerance: Risk tolerance is the degree of variability in investment returns that an investor is willing to withstand. (emphasis added) This means that you are willing to accept some losses in order to get a potential bigger return. Fidelity has this graph:  As you can see in the table above, the higher the risk tolerance, the bigger the difference between the best and worst values. That is the variability. The right-most pie can be one example of an agressive diversified portfolio. But this does not mean you should go and buy exactly that security compostion. High-risk means playing with fire. Unless you are a professional stuntman, playing with fire usually leaves people burnt. In a financial context this usually means the money is gone. Recommended Reading: Investopedia; Risk and Diversification: The Risk-Reward Tradeoff Investopedia; How to construct a High Risk portfolio Fidelity: Guide to Diversification KPMG: Understanding and articulating Risk Appetite (pdf)"