Options revisited: Gold fever
"Your plan already answers your own question in the best possible way: If you want to be able to make the most possible profit from a large downward move in a stock (in this case, a stock that tracks gold), with a limited, defined risk if there is an upward move, the optimal strategy is to buy a put option.  There are a few Exchange Traded Funds (ETFs) that track the price of gold.  think of them as stocks that behave like gold, essentially.  Two good examples that have options are GLD and IAU. (When you talk about gold, you'll hear a lot about futures.  Forget them, for now.  They do the same essential thing for your purposes, but introduce more complexity than you need.) The way to profit from a downward move without protection against an upward move is by shorting the stock.   Shorting stock is like the opposite of buying it.    You make the amount of money the stock goes down by, or lose the amount it goes up by.   But, since stocks can go up by an infinite amount, your possible loss is unlimited. If you want to profit on a large downward move without an unlimited loss if you're wrong and it goes up, you need something that makes money as the stock drops, but can only lose so much if it goes up.   (If you want to be guaranteed to lose nothing, your best investment option is buying US Treasuries, and you're technically still exposed to the risk that US defaults on its debt, although if you're a US resident, you'll likely have bigger problems than your portfolio in that situation.) Buying a put option has the exact asymmetrical exposure you want.   You pay a limited premium to buy it, and at expiration you essentially make the full amount that the stock has declined below the strike price, less what you paid for the option.   That last part is important - because you pay a premium for the option, if it's down just a little, you might still lose some or all of what you paid for it, which is what you give up in exchange for it limiting your maximum loss. But wait, you might say.  When I buy an option, I can lose all of my money, cant I?  Yes, you can.    Here's the key to understanding the way options limit risk as compared to the corresponding way to get ""normal"" exposure through getting long, or in your case, short, the stock: If you use the number of options that represent the number of shares you would have bought, you will have much, much less total money at risk. If you spend the same ""bag 'o cash"" on options as you would have spent on stock, you will have exposure to way more shares, and have the same amount of money at risk as if you bought the stock, but will be much more likely to lose it. The first way limits the total money at risk for a similar level of exposure; the second way gets you exposure to a much larger amount of the stock for the same money, increasing your risk. So the best answer to your described need is already in the question:   Buy a put.  I'd probably look at GLD to buy it on, simply because it's generally a little more liquid than IAU. And if you're new to options, consider the following: ""Paper trade"" first.  Either just keep track of fake buys and sells on a spreadsheet, or use one of the many online services where you can track investments - they don't know or care if they're real or not. Check out www.888options.com.  They are an excellent learning resource that isn't trying to sell you anything - their only reason to exist is to promote options education.   If you do put on a trade, don't forget that the most frustrating pitfall with buying options is this:  You can be basically right, and still lose some or all of what you invest.  This happens two ways, so think about them both before you trade: If the stock goes in the direction you think, but not enough to make back your premium, you can still lose.  So you need to make sure you know how far down the stock has to be to make back your premium.  At expiration, it's simple: You need it to be below the strike price by more than what you paid for the option. With options, timing is everything.  If the stock goes down a ton, or even to zero - free gold! - but only after your option expires, you were essentially right, but lose all your money.  So, while you don't want to buy an option that's longer than you need, since the premium is higher, if you're not sure if an expiration is long enough out, it isn't - you need the next one. EDIT to address update: (I'm not sure ""not long enough"" was the problem here, but...) If the question is just how to ensure there is a limited, defined amount you can lose (even if you want the possible loss to be much less than you can potentially make, the put strategy described already does that - if the stock you use is at $100, and you buy a put with a 100 strike for $5, you can make up to $95.   (This occurs if the stock goes to zero, meaning you could buy it for nothing, and sell it for $100, netting $95 after the $5 you paid).   But you can only lose $5. So the put strategy covers you. If the goal is to have no real risk of loss, there's no way to have any real gain above what's sometimes called the ""risk-free-rate"".  For simplicity's sake, think of that as what you'd get from US treasuries, as mentioned above. If the goal is to make money whether the stock (or gold) goes either up or down, that's possible, but note that you still have (a fairly high) risk of loss, which occurs if it fails to move either up or down by enough.  That strategy, in its most common form, is called a straddle, which basically means you buy a call and a put with the same strike price.  Using the same $100 example, you could buy the 100-strike calls for $5, and the 100-strike puts for $5.  Now you've spent $10 total, and you make money if the stock is up or down by more than $10 at expiration (over 110, or under 90).   But if it's between 90 and 100, you lose money, as one of your options will be worthless, and the other is worth less than the $10 total you paid for them both." You'll still lose a little bit if you buy a put option at the current price.  No such thing as free hedging. Let's say you have 100 shares of IAU that you bought for exactly $12.50 per share.  This is $1,250.  Now let's say you bought a put option with a strike price of $13 that expires in April 2011.  The current price for this option is $1.10 per share, or $110.  You can sell your IAU for $1,300 any time before the expiration date, but this leaves $60 in time value. The price of the options will always have a time component that is a premium on the difference between the current price and the strike price.  (Oh, forgot to add in commissions to this.) gold is incredibly volatile, I tried spreadbetting on it.  During the month of its highest gain, month beginning to month end, I was betting it would go up - and I still managed to lose money. It went down so much, that my stop loss margin would kick in.   Don't do things with gold in the short term its a very small and liquid market. My advice with gold, actually buy some physical gold as insurance. Make a portfolio with gold and put options for gold. If the price rises again, sell a part of your gold and use it to buy new put options. If the price goes down, then use your put options to sell gold at a favorable price.
So have different rules for industries whose product cycles are 2 to 3 years.  * Computer software patents are good for a year * Computer hardware patents are good for two years * Pick some other industries that need adjustment. * Leave the rest as is. * Revisit every 5 to 10 years to assign patent lengths on a per-industry basis. "Corporate restructuring makes everything a flux, so you might as well revisit some core fundamental questions. Here's how to do this professionally: Start floating your CV now. Line up interviews in competing companies. Attend to them. Score a job offer, and have it put into writing, with exact salary, which should be at least 10%++ of your current one. Take a clear empty page, and write on top: ""Business value provided"". Put down your major contributions, and achievements. Wherever possible, put the company's expected dollar value near to it. For bonus points, sum it up on the bottom, and minus your current salary. Difference is ""Profit provided directly to the company's bottom line"". Float this to your manager's desk. At this position, you have only one fundamental question to your boss: ""match or pass?"" :) A corporate spin-off is a good time to do this: 1, to ensure, that your position will not be made redundant; 2, if it is, you have a backup plan. If the parent company's ""getting rid of you"", however, there are even more fundamental questions you might want to ask yourself: is this really a profitable division, or merely a loss leader? Does this company have a future, and the adequate growing options for you, personally?  To answer these questions, you must have an opportunity cost estimation; and for that, you must have second (and preferably, third) options -hence, the strategy above. To conclude, the best time to do your job research is every other month; and the best time to ask for a raise is always now :) Good luck!" &gt;This whole article sounds like it was paid off by cable and internet providers. Don’t get me wrong these web companies definitely need to be hammered down on specially after what happened this past election.  &gt;However this article is trying to make a point that getting rid of net neutrality is the right thing to do. Net neutrality is the rule that prevents cable/internet companies to charge you more for access to certain websites than others, in a similar way they do with television today. The same cable/internet companies that lobbied and won the right to sell your browsing history the same way these web companies do.  &gt;And if we talk about monopolies we should also be looking at AT&amp;T, Comcast, Verizon and various other companies that have a strong hold on today’s consumers.   To me, the article says nothing that you assert...  &gt;The FCC is right to revisit the illogical “public utility” rules imposed on broadband companies by former FCC Chair Tom Wheeler, who seemed eager to do The Web Trust’s bidding. Unlike search or social media, connectivity is an innovative, fluid market with competing wired and wireless options that have continually improved consumers’ ability to reach anybody or anything, anywhere. We now have not just companies, but whole systems and technologies like cable, fiber, satellite, cellular, DSL and other options that compete for your attention. The FCC is right to reject obsolete Ma Bell era regulation that denies this basic fact.  &gt;But the more pressing question is: **What obligations should be imposed on the Web Trust giants as they embed themselves ever further into our lives?** How do we assure ourselves that the “users” they connect us to are human or that the search results they feed us are based on merit — not pay for play (or worse, algorithmic racism).  &gt;It’s time to consider whether to break up the Google search and advertising functions, or to deny safe harbors that protect the tech platforms if they turn a blind eye to sex trafficking or commercial piracy. **We need a new privacy Bill of Rights to demystify the algorithms that track and tag you and shape your on-line experience.**    &gt;In these partisan times, it speaks to how dangerous The Web Trust has become that both Republicans and Democrats are calling for action and reform. *If Congress and the administration want to preserve a truly open internet, they need to become the trustbusters for a new, digital generation.*  Actually, no where in the article does it express anything about opposition to NN. The article is about breaking a Monopoly, which does not correlate to opposing NN. --See highlighted line.  This article is not anti-NN, this article is anti-monopoly!  You must be with Google. Generally speaking, buying a fancy new car out of college is dumb. Buying a 3 year old flashy car with a 60 month loan is going to eat up your income, and when the thing starts breaking down, you'll get sick of buying $900 mufflers and $1,000 taillights pretty quickly. Buy a car that nobody wants for cheap and save up some money. Then buy yourself your dream car. Edit based on question update. You're posting to a Q&A site about money, and you're asking if spending over $30k (don't forget taxes) on a luxury car when you're making $60k is a good idea. You have car fever, and you're trying to sell this transaction as a good deal from a financial POV. At the end of the day, there is no scenario where buying an expensive car is a good financial transaction.  For example, since you're planning on driving too many miles for a lease to make sense, the certified pre-owned warranty is a non-factor, because you'll have no warranty when the car breaks down in 4 years. The only reason CPO programs exist is to boost residual values to make leases more attractive -- luxury car makers are in the car leasing (as opposed to selling) business. "A brief review of the financial collapses in the last 30 years will show that the following events take place in a fairly typical cycle: Overuse of that innovation (resulting in inadequate supply to meet demand, in most cases) Inadequate capacity in regulatory oversight for the new volume of demand, resulting in significant unregulated activity, and non-observance of regulations to a greater extent than normal Confusion regarding shifting standards and regulations, leading to inadequate regulatory reviews and/or lenient sanctions for infractions, in turn resulting in a more aggressive industry ""Gaming"" of investment vehicles, markets and/or buyers to generate additional demand once the market is saturated ""Chickens coming home to roost"" - A breakdown in financial stability, operational accuracy, or legality of the actions of one or more significant players in the market, leading to one or more investigations A reduction in demand due to the tarnished reputation of the instrument and/or market players, leading to an anticipation of a glut of excess product in the market ""Cold feet"" - Existing customers seeking to dump assets, and refusing to buy additional product in the pipeline, resulting in a glut of excess product ""Wasteland"" - Illiquid markets of product at collapsed prices, cratering of associated portfolio values, retirees living below subsistence incomes Such investment bubbles are not limited to the last 30 years, of course; there was a bubble in silver prices (a 700% increase through one year, 1979) when the Hunt brothers attempted to corner the market, followed by a collapse on Silver Thursday in 1980.   The ""poster child"" of investment bubbles is the Tulip Mania that gripped the Netherlands in the early 1600's, in which a single tulip bulb was reported to command a price 16 times the annual salary of a skilled worker. The same cycle of events took place in each of these bubbles as well. Templeton's caution is intended to alert new (especially younger) players in the market that these patterns are doomed to repeat, and that market cycles cannot be prevented or eradicated; they are an intrinsic effect of the cycles of supply and demand that are not in synch, and in which one or both are being influenced by intermediaries. Such influences have beneficial effects on short-term profits for the players, but adverse effects on the long-term viability of the market's profitability for investors who are ill-equipped to shed the investments before the trouble starts." Very interesting. I would like to expand beyond just precious metals and stocks, but I am not ready just to jump in just yet (I am a relatively young investor, but have been playing around with stocks for 4 years on and off). The problem I often find is that the stock market is often too overvalued to play Ben Graham type strategy/ PE/B, so I would like to expand my knowledge of investing so I can invest in any market and still find value. After reading Jim Rogers, I was really interested in commodities as an alternative to stocks, but I like to play really conservative (generally). Thank you for your insight. If you don't mind, I would like to add you as a friend, since you seem quite above average in the strategy department. I know nothing about mining. Is it possible that technological improvements can lead to over supply? Or are you determined that even with this much craze, that it's production will be held relatively constant.  I'd also like to point out, that maybe only King Midas has ever enjoyed owning gold. "For diversification against local currency's inflation, you have fundamentally 3 options: Depending on how sure you are on your prediction, and what amount of money you're willing to bet to ""short the country"", you might also consider a mix of approaches from the above. Good luck."