how derivatives transfer risk from one entity to another
By buying the call option, you are getting the benefit of purchasing the underlying shares (that is, if the shares go up in value, you make money), but transferring the risk of the shares reducing in value. This is more apparent when you are using the option to offset an explicit risk that you hold. For example, if you have a short position, you are at unlimited risk of the position going up in value. You could decide you only want to take the risk that it might rise to $X. In that case, you could buy a call option with $X strike price. Then you have transferred the risk that the position goes over $X to the counterpart, since, even if the shares are trading at $X+$Y you can close out the short position by purchasing the shares at $X, while the option counterpart will lose $Y. When you buy a call option, you transfer the risk to the owner of the asset. They are risking losing out on gains that may accumulate in addition to the strike price and paid premium. For example, if you buy a $25 call option on stock XYZ for $1 per contract, then any additional gain above $26 per share of XYZ is missed out on by the owner of the stock and solely benefits the option holder. The important thing to realize is, what would you do, if you didn't have the call? If you didn't have call options, but you wanted to have a position in that particular stock, you would have to actually purchase it. But, having purchased the shares, you are at risk to lose up to the entire value of them-- if the company folded or something like that.  A call option reduces the potential loss, since you are at worst only out the cost of the call, and you also lose a little on the upside, since you had to pay for the call, which will certainly have some premium over buying the underlying share directly. Risk can be defined as reducing the variability of outcomes, so since calls/shorts etc. reduce potential losses and also slightly reduce potential gains, they pretty much by definition reduce risk. It's also worth noting, that when you buy a call, the seller could also be seen as hedging the risk of price decreases while also guaranteeing that they have a buyer at a certain price. So, they may be more concerned about having cash flow at the right time, while at the same time reducing the cost of the share losing in value than they are losing the potential upside if you do exercise the option. Shorts work in the same way but opposite direction to calls, and forwards and futures contracts are more about cash flow management: making sure you have the right amount of money in the right currency at the right time regardless of changes in the costs of raw materials or currencies. While either party may lose on the transaction due to price fluctuations, both parties stand to gain by being able to know exactly what they will get, and exactly what they will have to pay for it, so that certainty is worth something, and certainly better for some firms than leaving positions exposed. Of course you can use them for speculative purposes, and a good number of firms/people do but that's not really why they were invented.
"Why? Because they can get away with it, of course. In short - why not? You may want to read the answers to this similar question (my answer is the one accepted by the OP). Who has the money? The banks, who else. I have found that some banks are capable of sending/receiving ACH transfers faster than others. I have accounts in two banks, lets call them A and B. If I send money (push) from A to B, it may take several days. But if I decide to pull the money from A to B by originating the transaction through my account at B - the money arrives the next day! So the actual transfer only takes a night, one business day. Its just the direction that matters - if the bank has to give the money out, it will do all it can (including taking 2-3 days for ""processing"") to keep the money as long as possible. But when another bank charges them - they have no choice but to pay. By the way, bank B behaves better - when I send the money from my account at B, it arrives to A the next day as well. Try a similar experiment. Instead of originating the transaction at the sender bank - try to originate it at the receiver bank, see how long it takes then for the money to appear on your account after it disappeared from the other one." What you want is a position transfer, likely by ACATS.   This is a transfer from one IRA to another without having to liquidate positions to do so.  In effect, the brokerage firm is just transferring records from your existing IRA to your new IRA.  You will need to watch out to make sure your new IRA account can hold your positions for this to work.  For example, some brokerages allow you to hold fractional shares but others don't.  (The fractional share amounts would be sold automatically prior to transfer.)  Another example might be different fund families could be allowed between different brokerages. The general process is open your new IRA account, initiate the ACATS xfer from your new account, your old IRA account brokerage sends the positions over, and after a week or so your new IRA brokerage notifies you that everything is transferred. I've switched IRAs a couple times via this mechanism and never been charged a fee, but I've always stuck with the larger brokerages like Fidelity, TD Ameritrade, and Interactive Brokers. "Depends on how far down the market is heading, how certain you are that it is going that way, when you think it will fall, and how risk-averse you are.  By ""better"" I will assume you are trying to make the most money with this information that you can given your available capital. If you are very certain, the way that makes the most money for the least investment from the options you provided is a put.  If you can borrow some money to buy even more puts, you will make even more.  Use your knowledge of how far and when the market will fall to determine which put is optimal at today's prices.  But remember that if the market stays flat or goes up you lose everything you put in and may owe extra to your creditor.  A short position in a futures contract is also an easy way to get extreme leverage.  The extremity of the leverage will depend on how much margin is required.  Futures trade in large denominations, so think about how much you are able to put to risk. The inverse ETFs are less risky and offer less reward than the derivative contracts above.  The levered one has twice the risk and something like twice the reward.  You can buy those without a margin account in a regular cash brokerage, so they are easier in that respect and the transactions cost will likely be lower. Directly short selling an ETF or stock is another option that is reasonably accessible and only moderately risky.  On par with the inverse ETFs." Ditto Bill and I upvoted his answer. But let me add a bit. If everyone knew exactly what the risk was for every investment, then prices would be bid up or down until every stock (or bond or derivative or whatever) was valued at exactly risk times potential profit. (Or more precisely, integral of risk times potential profit.) If company A was 100% guaranteed to make $1 million profit this year, while company B had 50% change to make a $2 million profit and 50% to make $0, and every investor in the world knew that, then I'd expect the total price of all shares of the two stocks to stabilize at the same value. The catch to that, though, is that no one really knows the risk. The risk isn't like, we're going to roll a die and if it comes up even the company makes $1 million and if it comes up odd the company makes $0, so we could calculate the exact probability. The risk comes from lack of information. Will consumers want to buy this new product? How many? What are they willing to pay? How capable is the new CEO? Etc. It's very hard to calculate probabilities on these things. How can you precisely calculate the probability that unforeseen events will occur? So in real life prices are muddled. The risk/reward ratio should be roughly sort of approximately linear, but that's about the most one can say. "Seems like you are concerned with something called assignment risk. It's an inherent risk of selling options: you are giving somebody the right, but not the obligation, to sell to you 100 shares of GOOGL. Option buyers pay a premium to have that right - the extrinsic value. When they exercise the option, the option immediately disappears. Together with it, all the extrinsic value disappears. So, the lower the extrinsic value, the higher the assignment risk. Usually, option contracts that are very close to expiration (let's say, around 2 to 3 weeks to expiration or less) have significantly lower extrinsic value than longer option contracts. Also, generally speaking, the deeper ITM an option contract is, the lower extrinsic value it will have. So, to reduce assignment risk, I usually close out my option positions 1-2 weeks before expiration, especially the contracts that are deep in the money. edit: to make sure this is clear, based on a comment I've just seen on your question. To ""close out an options position"", you just have to create the ""opposite"" trade. So, if you sell a Put, you close that by buying back that exact same put. Just like stock: if you buy stock, you have a position; you close that position by selling the exact same stock, in the exact same amount. That's a very common thing to do with options. A post in Tradeking's forums, very old post, but with an interesting piece of data from the OCC, states that 35% of the options expire worthless, and 48% are bought or sold before expiration to close the position - only 17% of the contracts are actually exercised! (http://community.tradeking.com/members/optionsguy/blogs/11260-what-percentage-of-options-get-exercised) A few other things to keep in mind: certain stocks have ""mini options contracts"", that would correspond to a lot of 10 shares of stock. These contracts are usually not very liquid, though, so you might not get great prices when opening/closing positions you said in a comment, ""I cannot use this strategy to buy stocks like GOOGL""; if the reason is because 100*GOOGL is too much to fit in your buying power, that's a pretty big risk - the assignment could result in a margin call! if margin call is not really your concern, but your concern is more like the risk of holding 100 shares of GOOGL, you can help manage that by buying some lower strike Puts (that have smaller absolute delta than your Put), or selling some calls against your short put. Both strategies, while very different, will effectively reduce your delta exposure. You'd get 100 deltas from the 100 shares of GOOGL, but you'd get some negative deltas by holding the lower strike Put, or by writing the higher strike Call. So as the stock moves around, your account value would move less than the exposure equivalent to 100 shares of stock." Not really. You can have two bonds that have identical duration but vastly different convexity.   Pensions and insurance portfolio managers are most common buyers as they're trying to deal with liability matching and high convexity allows them to create a barbell around their projected liabilities. If a market is efficient then risk/reward should be linear.  In simple markets like stocks and bonds, everyone thinks the same way and the risk/reward calculation is simple, so everyone can have an accurate idea of the risk/reward ratio, unless the company has serious undisclosed problems. But in other markets like derivatives and mortgage bonds, few people understand what they're buying so the risks remain hidden. Someone might think a company will do well, so they buy an derivative on that company. But no one understands risk/reward calculations on derivatives, so the risk/reward on the derivative could be way off the price on the derivative. "Assuming these are standardized and regulated contracts, the short answer is yes.  In your example, Trader A is short while Trader B is long.  If Trader B wants to exit his long position, he merely enters a ""sell to close"" order with his broker. Trader B never goes short as you state.  He was long while he held the contract, then he ""sold to close"". As to who finds the buyer of Trader B's contract, I believe that would be the exchange or a market maker.  Therefore, Trader C ends up the counterparty to Trader A's short position after buying from Trader B.  Assuming the contract is held until expiration, Trader A is responsible for delivering contracted product to Trader C for contracted price.  In reality this is generally settled up in cash, and Trader A and Trader C never even know each other's identity."