How does a portfolio of long stocks and short futures generate profits
"I know some derivative markets work like this, so maybe similar with futures.  A futures contract commits two parties to a buy/sell of the underlying securities, but with a futures contract you also create leverage because generally the margin you post on your futures contract is not sufficient to pay for the collateral in the underlying contract. The person buying the future is essentially ""borrowing"" money while the person selling the future is essentially ""lending"" money. The future you enter into is generally a short term contract, so a perfectly hedged lender of funds should expect to receive something that approaches the fed funds rate in the US. Today that would be essentially nothing."
"By that vein, air is a product you consume on a daily basis. Should someone work to monetize oxygen now? There must be a rational limit on where you draw the line of short term profit versus long term social sustainability.  I'm all for seeking a profit, but any profit calculations should take into account the full cost to the society before declaring something ""profitable."" The cost of seeking these profits is higher prices for everyone, which in turn reduces the availability of the service. This takes money out of local economies, pools resources in the hands of a small group of corporations that exist solely to sit on large piles of money ""just in case,"" and potentially denies vital care to people who may have potentially netted a huge benefit for society. All this so that someone can see a few points improvement in their portfolio.  Note, this does not mean I'm against insurance as a whole. There are plenty of insurance products that I feel are perfectly valid and reasonable; car, home, corporate and so on are all valid examples of ""luxury"" products that you could technically live without. However the social cost of for profit health care and health insurance is such that I do not see how it can potentially justify the cost to society. So while sure, seeking profit on vital services may not be crazy within your limited view, it is certainly crazy to call something ""profit"" just because your analysis of the situation fails to take into account the huge net negatives of such a practice." "When portfolio positions are reported in percentages, those percentages are relative to the portfolio's base equity.  When you start out, that is equal to the cash you have in a portfolio.  Later it's the net equity of the portfolio (i.e., how much money you could withdraw if you were to exit all your positions). If you put $5,000 into your account and are long and short 50%, then you are long $2,500 and short $2,500.  If it's 100% and -100%, then long and short $5,000. ""Leverage"" is often computed gross (as if all positions were long).  So if you have 100% and -100%, then your broker may say you are ""levered 2 to 1.""  That is, your gross exposure is twice as large as your underlying base equity." If there are no traded options in a company you can get your broker to write OTC options but this may not be possible given some restrictions on accounts. Going short on futures may also be an option. You can also open a downside CFD (contract for difference) on the stock but will have to have margin posted against it so will have to hold cash (or possibly liquid assets if your AUM is large enough) to cover the margin which is unutilized cash in the portfolio that needs to be factored into any portfolio calculations as a cost. Diversifying into uncorrelated stock or shorting correlated (but low div yield) stock would also have the same effect. stop loss orders would probably not be appropriate as it is not the price of the stock that you are concerned with but mitigating all price changes and just receiving the dividend on the stock. warning: in a crash (almost) all stocks become suddenly correlated so be aware that might cause you a short term loss. CFDs are complex and require a degree of sophistication before you can trade them well but as you seem to understand options they should not be too hard to understand. "Investing is always a matter of balancing risk vs reward, with the two being fairly strongly linked.  Risk-free assets generally keep up with inflation, if that; these days advice is that even in retirement you're going to want something with better eturns for at least part of your portfolio. A ""whole market"" strategy is a reasonable idea, but not well defined. You need to decide wheher/how to weight stocks vs bonds, for example, and short/long term. And you may want international or REIT in the mix; again the question is how much. Again, the tradeoff is trying to decide how much volatility and risk you are comfortable with and picking a mix which comes in somewhere around that point -- and noting which assets tend to move out of synch with each other (stock/bond is the classic example) to help tune that. The recommendation for higher risk/return when you have a longer horizon before you need the money comes from being able to tolerate more volatility early on when you have less at risk and more time to let the market recover. That lets you take a more aggressive position and, on average, ger higher returns. Over time, you generally want to dial that back (in the direction of lower-risk if not risk free) so a late blip doesn't cause you to lose too much of what you've already gained... but see above re ""risk free"". That's the theoretical answer. The practical answer is that running various strategies against both historical data and statistical simulations of what the market might do in the future suggests some specific distributions among the categories I've mentioned do seem to work better than others. (The mix I use -- which is basically a whole-market with weighting factors for the categories mentioned above -- was the result of starting with a general mix appropriate to my risk tolerance based on historical data, then checking it by running about 100 monte-carlo simulations of the market for the next 50 years.)" What is your time horizon? Over long horizons, you absolutely want to minimise the expense ratio – a seemingly puny 2% fee p.a. can cost you a third of your savings over 35 years. Over short horizons, the cost of trading in and trading out might matter more. A mutual fund might be front-loaded, i.e. charge a fixed initial percentage when you first purchase it. ETFs, traded daily on an exchange just like a stock, don't have that. What you'll pay there is the broker commission, and the bid-ask spread (and possibly any premium/discount the ETF has vis-a-vis the underlying asset value).  Another thing to keep in mind is tracking error: how closely does the fond mirror the underlying index it attempts to track? More often than not it works against you. However, not sure there is a systematic difference between ETFs and funds there. Size and age of a fund can matter, indeed - I've had new and smallish ETFs that didn't take off close down, so I had to sell and re-allocate the money. Two more minor aspects: Synthetic ETFs and lending to short sellers. 1) Some ETFs are synthetic, that is, they don't buy all the underlying shares replicating the index, actually owning the shares. Instead, they put the money in the bank and enter a swap with a counter-party, typically an investment bank, that promises to pay them the equivalent return of holding that share portfolio. In this case, you have (implicit) credit exposure to that counter-party - if the index performs well, and they don't pay up, well, tough luck. The ETF was relying on that swap, never really held the shares comprising the index, and won't necessarily cough up the difference. 2) In a similar vein, some (non-synthetic) ETFs hold the shares, but then lend them out to short sellers, earning extra money. This will increase the profit of the ETF provider, and potentially decrease your expense ratio (if they pass some of the profit on, or charge lower fees). So, that's a good thing. In case of an operational screw up, or if the short seller can't fulfil their obligations to return the shares, there is a risk of a loss.  These two considerations are not really a factor in normal times (except in improving ETF expense ratios), but during the 2009 meltdown they were floated as things to consider. Mutual funds and ETFs re-invest or pay out dividends. For a given mutual fund, you might be able to choose, while ETFs typically are of one type or the other. Not sure how tax treatment differs there, though, sorry (not something I have to deal with in my jurisdiction).  As a rule of thumb though, as alex vieux says, for a popular index, ETFs will be cheaper over the long term. Very low cost mutual funds, such as Vanguard, might be competitive though. If you want to trade to gain from short-term volatility, you can use Derivative-based ETFs that try to track the inverse of a broad index like the S&P 500. Note that these ETFs only track the index over a 1 day period, so you shouldn't hold these. If you're looking for a longer-term investment strategy, look at low-beta stocks, which often do well or produce dividend income during volatile times. Examples include McDonald's Corp and utilities like Consolidated Edison. I was referring to insider information as a seperate means of profiting. So I assumed:  1. Fundamental analysis/picking the direction 2. Insider information 3. Gaming the market (illiquid markets)  If this is true. What makes a good market maker? Stoploss/takeprofit management and hope there are enough players in it *not* to win it (i.e. hedge positions) to take profit from?  Sounds very luck base or is there something im missing?  Thanks Yes it is viable but uncommon. As with everything to do with investment, you have to know what you are doing and must have a plan. I have been successful with long term trading of CFDs for about 4 years now. It is true that the cost of financing to hold positions long term cuts into profits but so do the spreads when you trade frequently. What I have found works well for me is maintaining a portfolio that is low volatility, (e.g. picking a mix of positions that are negatively correlated) has a good sharpe ratio, sound fundamentals (i.e. co-integrated assets - or at least fairly stable correlations) then leveraging a modest amount.