How to make money from spread betting

[Liquid validity]

http://www.trade2win.com/boards/general-trading-chat/120168-tsunami-2.html#post1461742

http://www.trade2win.com/boards/general-trading-chat/120168-tsunami-3.html#post1461750

Like it or not that is the reality of capitalism.
For those with strong moral objections, wouldn't it make more
sense to trade it then donate if that is how you feel?

Profit in these situations is not just inevitable, its essential
to mitigate and hedge the risk caused by the disaster in the first place.

Cause and effect, the effect is not the cause...

 

[Lee Shepherd]

FWIW I didn't trade the aftermath of 9/11 although many in my trading group did and profited handsomely as a result.
I simply wasn't comfortable profiting from the death and suffering of so many by shorting the market. The subject can be discussed sensibly and logically and I can see why people were happy to make money but it's a matter of personal choice and life isn't all about only doing the logical thing.
My decision felt right to me and still does all these years later.

I still struggle with this one. This is why I am enjoying this conversation as it's a different viewpoint for which I will only try to understand when it is discussed.

So, Mr Charts:

I challenge you on this on:

Shorting the market after the event, they had already died from this. It was the aftermath of what was to happen, in other words, was it all out war. After all the market is going down because people are panic selling. ALL these people that are selling are thinking ONLY about their money, hence too many sellers drove the market downward.

This is why the markets were shut down to prevent from these further 'over reactions' from all and sundry.

However,what about the buyers that then came in shortly after and brought the market back up to where it almost had been prior to the attack. The dow Jones closed higher that year than what it was prior to the attack. (If my history serves me well)

What I'm getting at here is this:

Unless one stayed out of the market for the weeks prior to the attack and months after the attack then how would you not be or feel a part of this. Either way, going long weeks after would have brought you lots of money from the event that unfolded and going short would have left you out of pocket, unless of course it was prior to the event.

Help me understand your viewpoint, one of the things that separates me from most is that I can admit defeat and change my point of view. I don't expect you to do the same nor am I here to change anyone but by you talking about your specific feelings regarding making money from an event out of your control does interest me.

PS: I am not saying I feel good, nor even neutral about the event, obviously I am very sad it happened and the wars that preceded it and still to this day but like I say, I didn't cause it nor did I have any involvement or prior knowledge.

I also wonder how we trade knowing it could kick off in any part of the world at any point. What if Korea attacked Europe today and we made or lost money. How would we feel then? Obviously losing is bad, we don't like that, but winning, why should that be any different?

Lee

 

[Liquid validity]

Personally I don't think misplaced morality has any place in trading at all.
There is no such thing as an ethical investment / trade, somebody gets the shaft
when somebody wins.

Trade the euro - you are taking part in the Greek misery.
Trade BP - aquatic ecosystem - collateral damage.
Trade in Diamond shares - unwittingly fund blood diamond trade.
Trade in pharmas - profit from death and disease.
Trade in electronics manufacturing - profit from worker exploitation in China.

There is never an ethical trade, the only difference is those that don't benefit
from it aren't as visible, thus appeasing a morality saddled conscience.
Look hard enough, and that will be the case with the vast majority of investments / trades.

 

[Mr. Charts]

I trade, not invest. I make more money that way. I wouldn't be an "ethical" investor even if I did, though I would draw the line at tobacco companies. Just a personal thing.
Lee, you have a PM

 

[Lee Shepherd]

I trade, not invest. I make more money that way. I wouldn't be an "ethical" investor even if I did, though I would draw the line at tobacco companies. Just a personal thing.
Lee, you have a PM

Got it and responded.

Yeah, I agree with you on this one. I too draw an ethical line. So, I wouldn't look to make money (nor lose it) through tobacco companies, nor would I deal in arms or even defence weapons for that matter, I even draw the line on making money from companies that deal with natural disasters, supply tents, equipment and such. This does tend to rule out quite a bit as most companies these days are very interlinked. But I do also admit that I live in ignorance.

It should also be noted that by not trading in these companies does not allow the capitalism that got them to be where they are in the first place, giving the opportunity for survival through disaster. This is ultimately where common place stock markets prevail.

Ultimately where do we draw the line ethically knowing or unethically unknowing or a mix of the two. What about airlines, car manufacturers or steel or diamonds. I believe this was excellently covered by Liquid Validity above in his post. These all produce pollution/harm to living things.

However, staying with the point in hand, there is a stark difference between trading with tobacco companies knowing full well the damage (but allowing free will/free trade) it does to people and trading within a market UNKNOWINGLY of the events that have just unfolded. Like at any time during trading hours, we NEVER know what direction the markets will go in, its all just probabilities and if we get lucky, we win money.

Lee

 

[Liquid validity]

I trade, not invest. I make more money that way. I wouldn't be an "ethical" investor even if I did, though I would draw the line at tobacco companies. Just a personal thing.
Lee, you have a PM

Latest iPad: Apple Still Exploiting Chinese Workers, Activists Say
Trade or invest in Apple, your profit is driven by these practices.
I'm not singling out Apple specifically, you could find the same
kind of thing with most stocks in the S&P, FTSE and so on.
That also means index futures are included as well.

Granted its a fair argument that the Apple example is not
as extreme as profiting from a major disaster.
That is only because the human cost is not as visible
or instant on a large scale.

BTW, I do respect your opinion, just offering a different perspective.

 

[Mr. Charts]

Like I said, I'm a trader and am not going to extend my moral scruples beyond what I feel strongly about.
"Feel" is the operative word. If something feels wrong to me I don't do it. That doesn't mean others shouldn't either or even that it is logical and I wouldn't presume to think I'm "right".
I may well be wrong but I won't do what I think is wrong, even if I'm wrong to feel it's wrong.
OMG, I'm beginning to sound like Donald Rumsfeld with his known unknowns !
Richard

 

[Liquid validity]

Tobacco - tough one, I can see the argument there.
Personally I have traded BATS in the past.
TBH I did not consider the ethical argument at all.

Smoking is a personal choice, although I can see
how practices such as impact boosting certainly cast the issue
of personal choice in a different light, not to mention the basic addictive nature
of nicotine.

However, is the constant advertising campaign of Ford, GM and so on any better
in promoting car sales, leading to massive consumption of natural resources,
in the claim that modern cars are greener due to better fuel consumption?

The irony is, the vast majority of the pollution created by a car throughout
its lifespan actually occurs at the production stage...

So looking at the big picture, you could perhaps logically say that car
manufacturers are more damaging to the world the next generation inherits
than big tobacco.

For me, I long ago gave up any such qualms.
The world is the way it is, I certainly won't, and can't change it.
Therefore I accept it and go along with it.
Who is really to blame, the supplier, or the source of demand?

 

[Liquid validity]

Like I said, I'm a trader and am not going to extend my moral scruples beyond what I feel strongly about.
"Feel" is the operative word. If something feels wrong to me I don't do it. That doesn't mean others shouldn't either or even that it is logical and I wouldn't presume to think I'm "right".
I may well be wrong but I won't do what I think is wrong, even if I'm wrong to feel it's wrong.
OMG, I'm beginning to sound like Donald Rumsfeld with his known unknowns !
Richard

Fair enough, I certainly respect that viewpoint, for me this is just
an interesting discussion, nothing more
I or anyone else does not have the right to say an opposing view is wrong,
not on this issue.

 

[Vasco da Banana]

Tobacco - tough one, I can see the argument there.
Personally I have traded BATS in the past.
TBH I did not consider the ethical argument at all.

Smoking is a personal choice, although I can see
how practices such as impact boosting certainly cast the issue
of personal choice in a different light, not to mention the basic addictive nature
of nicotine.

However, is the constant advertising campaign of Ford, GM and so on any better
in promoting car sales, leading to massive consumption of natural resources,
in the claim that modern cars are greener due to better fuel consumption?

The irony is, the vast majority of the pollution created by a car throughout
its lifespan actually occurs at the production stage...

So looking at the big picture, you could perhaps logically say that car
manufacturers are more damaging to the world the next generation inherits
than big tobacco.

For me, I long ago gave up any such qualms.
The world is the way it is, I certainly won't, and can't change it.
Therefore I accept it and go along with it.
Who is really to blame, the supplier, or the source of demand?

A tough one, but if buying shares in tobacco is morally wrong, does that mean we should short it? There are plenty of people who think all shorting is amoral, though.:?:

 

[Liquid validity]

A tough one, but if buying shares in tobacco is morally wrong, does that mean we should short it? There are plenty of people who think all shorting is amoral, though.:?:

Someone else will have to answer that one.
As long as a company is legal, I don't personally care.
Same with shorting.

 

[Lee Shepherd]

A tough one, but if buying shares in tobacco is morally wrong, does that mean we should short it? There are plenty of people who think all shorting is amoral, though.:?:

Someone else will have to answer that one.
As long as a company is legal, I don't personally care.
Same with shorting.

Interesting as we are on this actual mini subject.

This is true: I used to work for a company (P&H) packing fags into boxes to be delivered to shops so the people at the checkout could sell them. The shops made their profits as did the packing company, more importantly to me, I got paid my wages.

Just wondered as this is very pertinent to what we speak of. Even I find myself in a hypocritical situation. I wouldn't actively trade tobacco shares (Although I feel its a failing market), but yet I would still and have worked in a factory packing them to be sold. Now there's contradiction for you.

If anyone can help me with my own dilemma it would be appreciated.

PS: The two links to threads that Liquid Validity posted are a great read and help to extend this ongoing conversation.

Lee

 

[Liquid validity]

This is true: I used to work for a company (P&H) packing fags into boxes to be delivered to shops so the people at the checkout could sell them. The shops made their profits as did the packing company, more importantly to me, I got paid my wages.

Just wondered as this is very pertinent to what we speak of. Even I find myself in a hypocritical situation. I wouldn't actively trade tobacco shares (Although I feel its a failing market), but yet I would still and have worked in a factory packing them to be sold. Now there's contradiction for you.

If anyone can help me with my own dilemma it would be appreciated.

What you have highlighted is the flip side of the ethical question.
Tobacco and indeed many other morally reprehensible industries do provide
employment, particularly for tobacco farmers.
No industry is all bad.

I'll use the car industry as an example again:
AP IMPACT: Cars made in Brazil are deadly Page 1 of 6 | UTSanDiego.com
I would guess most people would find the above story shocking,
so why are those car manufacturers any better for building sub standard cars?
The only difference is perception, tobacco is seen as worse than the car industry.
Brazilians may have a different view...

Ultimately all industry exists for one purpose,
to meet a demand and turn a profit.
Shades of grey...

 

[D70]

I trade, not invest. I make more money that way. I wouldn't be an "ethical" investor even if I did, though I would draw the line at tobacco companies. Just a personal thing.
Lee, you have a PM

What do you need to say via a PM that cant be said here?

Anyway. Wondering why no one has admitted that on the day of 9/11. Maybe you were not "profiting" (I actually expect none of you made a dime on the day) you either lost money or you were watching the unfolding on tv like the rest of the world.

 

[Trader333]

..who care what events or companies are used to make money, its business, be greedy when others are fearful.

Well I certainly do and this approach is what is wrong with much of the world. Making money out of the misery or fear of others is quite simply evil in practice.

 

[Liquid validity]

Can anyone name one stock, instrument or whatever that has no
morally shady aspect to it?

For a stock, the company would have to have:
1. Perfect environmental record.
2. Zero cases of worker exploitation.
3. Zero cases of safety transgressions / corporate manslaughter.
4. No instance of price fixing, manipulation or cartel behaviour.
5. Product price rises / declines in line with costs / raw materials etc.
6. No consumer health / safety issues.

The only difference with most instruments is some have a greater exposure
to the above elements.
All companies have these factors present to some degree.

How about McDonald's - obesity link and rainforest clearing for livestock:
Cattle Pastures in Deforested Amazon Now the Size of Iceland : TreeHugger
Greenpeace: McDonald's Fueling Rainforest Destruction | Fox News

So can anyone name a stock, instrument or currency that is in no way linked to any of the above?
I still contend there are no morally perfect trades or investments.

 

[Liquid validity]

Well I certainly do and this approach is what is wrong with much of the world. Making money out of the misery or fear of others is quite simply evil in practice.

In essence and from your personal point of view you may well be right.
In reality, its almost impossible to avoid.

 

[the hare]

In essence and from your personal point of view you may well be right.
In reality, its almost impossible to avoid.

The problem is is based on each individuals own moral framework

I might argue that a business such a trading forum that tries to promote the idea that profiting from this business is easy, is unethical (even highly unethical). However that's just a personal opinion

Most of these things are zero sum, if you look hard enough someone always ends up getting shafted some place down the line.

Taleb has some interesting perspectives on this stuff, almost like its impossible to do good without a balancing effect elsewhere.

 

[Lee Shepherd]

Can anyone name one stock, instrument or whatever that has no
morally shady aspect to it?

For a stock, the company would have to have:
1. Perfect environmental record.
2. Zero cases of worker exploitation.
3. Zero cases of safety transgressions / corporate manslaughter.
4. No instance of price fixing, manipulation or cartel behaviour.
5. Product price rises / declines in line with costs / raw materials etc.
6. No consumer health / safety issues.

The only difference with most instruments is some have a greater exposure
to the above elements.
All companies have these factors present to some degree.

How about McDonald's - obesity link and rainforest clearing for livestock:
Cattle Pastures in Deforested Amazon Now the Size of Iceland : TreeHugger
Greenpeace: McDonald's Fueling Rainforest Destruction | Fox News

So can anyone name a stock, instrument or currency that is in no way linked to any of the above?
I still contend there are no morally perfect trades or investments.

BITCOINS

 

[Liquid validity]

BITCOINS

although I spose bitcoin hacking and fraud aside that is correct.