Search results

Yeah, completely agreed. That's one of the reasons why I mentioned in an earlier post how Deutsch was behaving as part-investor, part-trader, which is an uneasy mix.

Absolutely... So why bother?

Buy property in a city like London or Singapore... There is no way to protect your domestic assets against a sufficiently motivated government.

Undoubtedly, Deutsch is trying to get Fidelity to pay for his bad bet, using everything that happened as an excuse. i guess it depends on what the rules are about shares already lent out of a margin account which are then moved to a cash account. How long does Fidelity have to recall and were...

The problem is that, clearly, nobody knew what they did and didn't have... The issue I have with Deutsch is that, according to the story, he behaved as some sort of a strange cross between an investor and a trader. That's always a recipe for some sort of nastiness, IMHO.

I wouldn't get too sad... Retail guys have some advantages and there's ample scope to do things, if you're patient, diligent and careful.

See this, as well: http://www.distressed-debt-investing.com/2012/06/distressed-debt-cmedy-and-cayman.html

For some more fun reading on this subject: http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2014-06-17/there-might-be-a-lot-of-insider-trading http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2014/06/16/study-asserts-startling-numbers-of-insider-trading-rogues

If I had to guess, AER probably had to make some public disclosures regarding Deutsch's general activities in the mkt. So my guess is that people, including Hempton, knew on whose behalf AER were acting.

See here: http://brontecapital.blogspot.com/2012/05/stock-called-comedy-joke-is-on-someone_09.html

That's probably why they'd settle as soon as they suspect it could get anywhere near that... Yeah, I thought that was funny. My only question would be who the "client experience" was actually "good" for? Was it the client or Fidelity?

European stocks are probably not overpriced...

Great story... They'll probably quietly settle at a level where everyone's happy. Primarily, because it doesn't look good for Fidelity, regardless of what happened with the Chinese company.

Best of luck... Remember that the right attitude is always to question one's assumptions. Whenever I see something that looks like free/cheap money, I always first assume that I have missed something.

Why don't you perform the calculation first and we can proceed from there?

So let's assume a bid/offer of $0.05, just to use a number. In a given iteration, you will sell at 99.85 and buy at 100.15. That, if I am not mistaken, is a loss of $0.30 per share, correct? If you include commissions that you incur on two transactions and redo the calculation, what do you get?

I see... While your notation is a little unconventional, in this case I agree.

Are you sure about this?

I get 3.82 and change... You should be VERY interested in the breakeven as well as all such questions. I am sure you can figure out why.

Firstly, how certain are you about your $4.60 calculation? With S=100, K=100, T = 21 days, vol of 40%, I don't get 4.6. Secondly, let me rephrase. You specifically mention that you will be using some bands around the strike, in order to avoid trading too frequently. Assume your hedge needs...