Is this trick enough to totally prevent bankrupcy in a case of a crash?
When you buy a stock, the worst case scenario is that it drops to 0.  Therefore, the most you can lose when buying a stock is 100% of your investment. When you short a stock, however, there's no limit on how high the stock can go.  If you short a stock at 10, and it goes up to 30, then you've lost 200% on your investment.  Therefore shorting stocks is riskier than buying stocks, since you can lose more than 100% of your investment when shorting. because the price might go up, but it will never be as big of a change as a regular price drop i suppose... That is not true.  Stocks can sometimes go up significantly (50-100% or more) in a very short amount of time on a positive news release (such as an earnings or a buyout announcement).  A famous example occurred in 2008, when Volkswagen stock quintupled (went up 400%) in less than 2 days on some corporate news: Porsche, for some reason, wants to control Volkswagen, and by building up its stake has driven up the price. Hedge funds, figuring the share price would fall as soon as Porsche got control and stopped buying, sold a lot of VW shares short. Then last weekend, Porsche disclosed that it owned 42.6 percent of the stock and had acquired options for another 31.5 percent. It said it wanted to go to 75 percent. The result: instant short-squeeze. The German state of Lower Saxony owns a 20 percent stake in VW, which it said it would not sell. That left precious few shares available for anyone else. The shorts scrambled to cover, and the price leaped from about €200, or about $265, to above €1,000. "Your strategy fails to control risk. Your ""inversed crash"" is called a rally. And These kind of things often turn into bigger rallies because of short squeezes, when all the people that are shorting a stock are forced to close their stock because of margin calls - its not that shorts ""scramble"" to close their position, the broker AUTOMATICALLY closes your short positions with market orders and you are stuck with the loss. So no, your ""trick"" is not enough. There are better ways to profit from a bearish outlook." Adding to the answers above, there is another source of risk: if one of the companies you are short receives a bid to be purchased by another company, the price will most probably rocket...
"This type of structured product is called a capital protection product.  It's like an insurance product - where you give up some upside for protection against losses in certain cases.   From the bank's perspective they take your investment, treat it as an ""interest-free loan"" and buy derivatives (like options) that give them an expected return greater then  They make their money: With this product, you are giving up some potential upside in order to protect against losses (other than catastrophic losses if the lower index drops by 50% or more).   What's the catch? There's not really a catch. It's a lot like insurance, you might come out ahead (e.g. if the market goes down less than 50%), but you might also give up some upside.  The bank will sell enough of these in various flavors to reduce their risk overall (losses in your product will be covered by gains in another). Note that this product won't necessarily sell for $1,000. You might have to pay $1,100 (or $1,005, or whatever the bank can get people to buy them for) for each note whenever it's released.  That's where the gain or loss comes into play.  If you pay $1,100 but only get $1,000 back because the index didn't go up (or went down) you'd have a net loss of $100. It's subtle, but it is in the prospectus: The estimated value of the notes is only an estimate determined by reference to several factors.  The original issue price of the notes will    exceed the estimated value of the notes because costs associated with selling, structuring and hedging the notes are included in the original issue price of the notes.  These costs include the selling commissions, the projected profits, if any, that our affiliates expect to realize for assuming risks inherent in hedging our obligations under the notes and the estimated cost of hedging our obligations under the notes." "One practical application would be to protect yourself from a ""flash crash"" type scenario where a stock suddenly plunges down to a penny due to transient market glitches. If you had a stop-loss order that executed at a penny (for a non-penny stock) it would be probably be voided by the exchange, but you might not want to take that risk." here is what I have learned with multiple close encounters with bankruptcies: ask yourself.. what if I save vs what if I spend? say you like a new shirt.. ask yourself what can you do saving $40 vs rewarding yourself/your well wishers right away? you will end up spending. just like you the other person needs money. he/she is doing a work. ask yourself what if you are in his/her situation. you would obviously want others to be happy. so spend. I think these two should be good. I must add that you should NOT be wasteful. Eg.. buying a handmade shoes vs corporation made shoes? choose handmade one because it fits above two. buying a corporate one would be more polluting and less rewarding because you just gave your money to someone who already has lots and cares least about you. in what way are you saying mortgage is good? I see that as a waste. you can pay back your mortgage only when someone takes even bigger mortgage (check with some maths before refuting)... in other words you have taken part in ponzi scheme.! I would suggest making a house vs buying one is better spending. finally spending is a best saving.. don't forget that you are getting money only because someone is spending wisely. stop feeding your money to corporates and interests and everyone will have plenty to spend. "If you engage in any kind of dangerous activity, the training courses will often state that an accident is not the result of a simple error.  Examples of this include SCUBA and motorcycle training.  Properly maintained equipment and training will mitigate many emergencies.  Recently my dive buddy was 60' down, and ran out of air due to a tank O ring failure.  She did not panic, and all of the dive team rallied to get her to the surface without anyone getting hurt, or even coming close to it. Financial tragedies are similar.  In some cases, a single event triggers an avalanche of events that leads to tragedy.  For example, hard economic times may lead to an employer doing 5% pay cuts across the board.  However, they also cut bonuses and other ancillary pay items.  This leads to a real cut of 20-25% of income.  Leading a true cash flow emergency.  As such cutbacks are needed, and this might put a strain on an already shaky relationship, this leads to that relationship ending, requiring more cash.  Perhaps a car dies in this process or some household item needs repairing.  Sure one can borrow money, but this tends to exasperate the avalanche rather than solve it.    Having a low debt and a liquid emergency fund stops the avalanche in its tracks. In the case cited above issues would have been solved if the person lived off of 50% of their income rather than the way most people live (paycheck-to-paycheck).  Also if there were savings for the car repair then that becomes a pain, but not a true stress. Think of a liquid emergency fund as ""properly maintained equipment"".  It allows you to build a financial life on a solid foundation.   In my own case, I attempted to live and invest without an emergency fund.  It just did not work.  I often had to liquidate investments at in opportune times, and could never really hold onto money.  With the foundation of an emergency fund, one can build a prosperous life for one's self. You are welcome to try it your way, but if you fall, hopefully you will remember this answer and build your foundation first." You bet if it was so simple. This is when financial acumen comes into its true form. The bank would never ever want to go insolvent. What it does is, take insurance against the borrower defaulting.  Remember the financial crisis of 2008 which was the outcome of borrowers defaulting. The banks had created derivatives based on the loans distributed. CDO, CDS are some of the simple derivatives banks sell to cover their backs in case of defaults. There are derivatives using these derivatives as underlyings which they then sold it across to other buyers including other banks. Google for Fabrice Tourre and you would realise how much deep the banks go to save themselves from defaulters. If everything fails then go to the government for help. That was what happened when the US government doled out $600 billion to save the financial sector. I agree. I have physical cash hidden in my house, a trick I learned from an elderly neighbor whose husband demanded they do it and it paid off for them twice. I have that and then will rely on credit if needed. My only question is if the statistic they mention is ALL savings or just what is in liquid assets. "Yes... but it is a matter of balancing risks.  It is wiser to keep a small amount of ""ready cash"" as an emergency/buffer -- and to suffer the gradual loss to inflation...  Than it is risk becoming ""stuck"" in an emergency with zero dollars in any (low or no cost) source of funds -- those kinds of ""emergencies"" ($500 or $1,000 ""unexpected/unbudgeted"" expenses) are fairly frequent and virtually inevitable.  You lose vastly MORE money when you are forced to borrow those amounts (interest -- even **low-rate** loans -- is virtually always higher than the average inflation rate)." However, is it a risk that they may withhold liquidity in a market panic crash to protect their own capital?  Two cases exist here. One is if you access the direct market, then they cannot. Secondly if you are trading in the internal market created by them, yes they can do to save their behind, but that is open to question. They don't make money on your profit or loss, their money comes from you trading. So as long as you maintain the required margin in your accounts, you can go ahead. I had a mail exchange with IG Index regarding this and they categorically refuted on this point. Will their clients be unable to sell at a fair market price in a panic crash? No. Also, do CFD providers sometimes make an occasional downward spike to cream off their clients' cut-loss order?  Need proof regarding this, not saying it cannot happen. They wouldn't antagonize the people bringing them business without any reason. They would be putting their money at risk. But you should know, their traders are also in the market. Which might look skimming your money, it would be their traders making money in the free market. After all Google, Facebook etc also sell your personal data for profit, why shouldn't the CFD firm also. Since they are market makers, what is to prevent them from attempting these tricks? Are these concerns also valid for forex brokers serving the retail public? What you consider as tricks are legitimate use of information to make money. You can't both enforce saving and have access to the money -- from what you say, it's clear that if you can access the money you will spend it. Can you find an account that allows one withdrawal every six months but no more, which should help to cut down on the impulse buys but still let you get at your money in an emergency? The bank depends on the laws of large numbers.  They don't need to make money on every customer -- just on average. There are several ways that zero interest makes sense to them: You asked about banks, and I don't think you see this last scheme in use very much by a bank.  Here's why.   First, customers absolutely hate it - and when you drop the interest bomb, they will warn their friends away, blow you up on social media, call the TV news consumer protectors, and never, ever, ever do business with you again.  Which defeats your efforts in customer acquisition.  Second, it only works on that narrow range of people who default just a little bit, i.e. who have an auto-pay malfunction.  If someone really defaults, not only will they not pay the punishment interest, they won't pay the principal either!  This only makes sense for secured loans like furniture or cars, where you can repo that stuff - with unsecured loans, you don't really have any power to force them to pay, short of burning their credit.  You can sue them, but you can't get blood from a stone. I have a friend who spent 10 years implementing regulations on high-level internal bank systems before the last crash. Turned out everyone above the system level just did what they wanted anyway. Real big decisions simply bypassed the system and here we are.. "Oddly enough, I started to research the ""Bank on Yourself"" strategy today as well (even before I'd ran across this question!). I'd heard an ad on the radio for it the other day, and it caught my attention because they claimed that the strategy isn't prone to market fluctuations like the stock market. It seemed in their radio ad that their target market was people who had lost serious money in their 401k's. So I set about doing some research of my own. It seems to me that the website bankonyourself.com gives a very superficial overview of the strategy without truly ever getting to the meat of it. I begin having a few misgivings at the point that I realized I'd read through a decent chunk of their website and yet I still didn't have a clear idea of the mechanism behind it all. I become leery any time I have to commit myself to something before I can be given a full understanding of how it works. It's shady and reeks of someone trying to back you into a corner so they can bludgeon you with their sales pitch until you cry ""Mercy!"" and agree to their terms just to stop the pain (which I suspect is what happens when they send an agent out to talk to you). There were other red flags that stood out to me, but I don't feel like getting into them. Anyway, through the use of google I was able to find a thread on another forum that was a veritable wealth of knowledge with regard to the mechanism of ""Bank on Yourself"" how it works.  Here is the link: Bank on Yourself/Infinite Banking... There are quite a few users in the thread who have excellent insights into how all of it works. After reading through a large portion of the thread, I came away realizing that this strategy isn't for me. However, it does appear to be a potential choice for certain people depending upon their situation." "Here's some way of thinking about it, and I'm not really sure if it's completely correct, but sometimes we oversimplify when trying to tell a five year old :)  Say there are two people in the world. You and me. We both have $100. A total of $200 in the world.  Suddenly, a wild bank appears. I deposit my $100 in the bank. I still have $100 and you still have $100. Now you want to buy something from me that costs $150. You go to the bank to loan money. The bank has $100 available so gives you $50. You give me $150. Now I have $250 and you are $50 in debt. I deposit the $150 in the bank.  We do this again and again, until I have $1000 on my bank account, and you are $900 in debt. I want to buy a house of $500 and go to my bank, demanding to take out $500. But there is only $200 in the whole world so the bank can only give me $200.  ""Money"" has been created out of thin air, but it's actually you who are in debt. If you go bankrupt, the bank has a big debt it won't get back, and is in deep shit when I come around to demand my money back. At that point governments step in to loan the bank money for cheap, because if the bank fails, I will lose all my pension savings I put into that bank, as well as my companies and a lot of my employees.  And other banks loaned this bank money, so if this bank fails, the other banks will be in the exact same position and will also fail, because then they will also have debts that won't be paid back.  There are regulations minimizing this - i.e. a bank is required to keep a percentage of the amount of money on its accounts, so there's a maximum limit of ""money created""." If you can make enough ROI from the capital you retain by not paying off your mortgage, then why not? I do, I could pay off a significant chunk of mortgage if I wanted but whilst interest rates are low there's little incentive. As for another crash... Well, there's no reason to expect a crash would result in high interest rates, more the opposite, but you should consider what you would or could do if interest rates did jump to 15% for whatever reason. As long as your investments aren't too risky or difficult to liquidate, etc, you could always consider paying off a big chunk then, when it makes sense. You must mean the current debt ceiling debacle. The meaning of it is: US government is constantly borrowing money (by issuing treasury bonds) and constantly repaying some of the bonds that come to maturity, and also has other obligations it has to meet by law all the time - such as Social Security checks, bonds interest, federal employees' salaries and pensions, etc. By law, total amount of money that can be borrowed at the same time is capped. That means, there can be situation where the government needs to borrow money to pay, say, interest on existing bonds, but can not, since the limit is reached. Such situation is called a default, since the government promised to pay the interest, but is unable to do so. That does not mean the government has no money at all and will completely collapse or couldn't raise money on the market if it were permitted by law to do so (currently, the market is completely willing to buy the debt issued by US government, and with interest that is not very high, though of course that may change). It also does not mean the economy ceases to function, dollars cease to have value or banks instantly go bankrupt. But if the government breaks its promises to investors, it has various consequences such as raising the costs of borrowing in the future. Breaking promises to other people - like Social Security recipients - would also look bad and probably hurt many of them. Going back to your bank account, most probably nothing would happen to the money you store there. Even if the bank had invested 100% of the money in US treasury bonds (which doesn't really happen) they still can be sold on the open market, even if with some discount in the event of credit rating downgrade, so most probably your account would not be affected. As stated in another answer, even if the fallout of all these calamities causes a bank to fail, there's FDIC and if your money is under insured maximums you'll be getting your money back. But if your bank is one of the big ones, nothing of the sort would happen anyway - as we have seen in the past years, government would do practically anything to not allow any big bank failures.