- UID
- 223313
- 帖子
- 282
- 主题
- 121
- 注册时间
- 2011-7-11
- 最后登录
- 2013-8-19
|
Reading level III texts, I felt that the CFAI quite often points to derivatives as the solution to every problem, without properly considering their risks. First of all, like every zero-sum game, only one party can be right. Secondly, liquidity of derivatives may be no more than that of the underlying, and can dry up just as suddenly. Thirdly, there are almost continuous transaction costs - explicit or implicit - as you adjust the hedges. And most importantly, for OTC transactions, your counterparty can screw you over.
It’s not that CFAI hides these risks, but they underemphasize them. It’s just assumed that, for exampe, if the 30-year corporates are scarce, derivatives will fill the gap. Or that it’s less expensive to adjust beta or duration using derivatives rather than cash instruments. I find it hard to believe that ETFs based on an index will be any less liquid than futures on that index, or more expensive to trade. Note that gains on both are taxable when traded so it’s not like derivatives give you a tax alpha.
I wonder how much of this academic material is influenced by the attractiveness of derivatives trading for the exchanges and investment banks, compared to the modest profits they can get from cash trading. |
|