A US investor has purchased Sterling Treasury bills and wishes to hedge against the falling value of Sterling. Buying the out-of-the-money put (strike price $1.8500) will protect against a fall below that figure. The sale of the out-of-the-money call at $1.8900 will mean that the investor will benefit from any rise in Sterling to $1.8900 but not above that figure. The cost of buying the put is off-set by the revenue from writing the call, resulting in this instance in a zero cost strategy.

The reader will note that if Sterling rises above $1.8900, the written call position will make a loss. This is off-set by the rising value in dollar terms of the underlying Sterling investment. Conversely, if Sterling falls below $1.8850, the puts make a profit which off-sets the currency losses on the investment in the Sterling Treasury bills. Read more »

Posted: June 22nd, 2008 under Commodities Futures, Currency Futures, Equity Futures, Future Fund, Futures Contracts, Futures Options, Futures Spreads, Futures Trader, Futures Trading System, Managed Futures, S&P Futures.
Comments: 4

This section explains two of the many uses of options that rely upon the ability of the option buyer to abandon the option at no extra cost. The first is the purchase of options to insure against a fall in the value of a currency. The second is the hedging of the currency risk in a foreign currency tender.

Purchasing options as a form of insurance

If a US investment manager has strong expectations of a rise in the value of Sterling but wishes to insure against being totally wrong, slightly out-of-the money puts will provide the required insurance. Read more »

Posted: June 21st, 2008 under Commodities Futures, Equity Futures, Foreign Exchange Futures, Future Fund, Future Investing, Futures Options, Futures Prices, Futures Spreads, Futures Trading System, Managed Futures, Stock Futures, Stock Market Futures.
Comments: 5

Term structure based option-pricing models

Term structure models of pricing contingent claims have followed one of two approaches. One approach followed by Cox, Ingersoll and Ross (1985) actually model the expected returns from movements in the term structure in order to price the contingent claims. In effect, the term structure becomes endogenous to the pricing of the contingent claim.

The second approach followed by Ho and Lee (1986), Heath, Jarrow and Morton (1989), Black, Derman and Toy (1990) and Hull and White (1990) utilizes the volatilities of the various sectors of the term structure to derive a probability distribution of an arbitrage-free binomial, trinomial or multinomial lattice of the term structure. From this lattice, contingent claims are priced. These models all have one thing in common: they allow for the whole-term structure to be stochastic instead of the price of a single underlying instrument or a single interest rate. The whole-term structure is represented at each node of the binomial, trinomial or even multinomiaf lattice. Read more »

Posted: June 15th, 2008 under Currency Futures, Future Fund, Future Management, Future Trading, Futures Index, Futures Market, Futures Prices, Futures Spreads, Futures Trader, Futures Trading System, Managed Futures, S&P Futures, Stock Futures, investment.
Comments: 3

Currency swaps, which were developed before interest rate swaps, were derivations of the 1970s practice of establishing parallel loans between two parties whereby, for example, company A would lend its domestic currency to company B, in return for a loan of company B’s domestic currency. These parallel loans were often used to manage exchange risk or to circumvent exchange control regulations.

This system of mutual lending had two serious drawbacks. First, there was no automatic off-set of the cash flows between parties. Thus, if company A defaulted on its loan from B, company B would still have to honour its commitment to A. Secondly, although the two loans effectively cancelled each other out, they were still shown on the balance sheets of each company. Read more »

Posted: June 14th, 2008 under Commodities Futures, Crude Oil Futures, Equity Futures, Future Exchange, Future Fund, Future Investing, Future Management, Future Trading, Futures Contracts, Managed Futures, Swap Futures.
Comments: 3

Another new area of the swaps market is that of commodity swaps. The mechanics of these swaps are similar to interest rate swaps, in that the swap establishes a fixed commodity price and a floating commodity index, with which the fixed price can be compared. There is a notional principal physical quantity of the commodity which establishes the value of the periodic cash flows. To illustrate these mechanics and give some insight into the use of commodity swaps as risk management instruments, consider the following scenario regarding a manufacturer that is a substantial consumer of copper. Read more »

Posted: June 9th, 2008 under Commodities Futures, Future Broker, Future Exchange, Future Fund, Future Investing, Future Management, Future Trading, Futures Contracts, Futures Quotes, Futures Trader, Managed Futures, Swap Futures.
Comments: 5

The valuation of equity swaps may, at first sight, seem more complex than the pricing of interest rate swaps because the total return to the index is not known at the outset. However, as the equity index is a carryable asset, it is possible to develop an arbitrage-free value of the equity side of the swap in a manner analogous to the pricing a long-term futures contract.

For example, if a party were to pay the equity returns, it is effectively going short the equity market. This position could be hedged by buying the underlying index with the proceeds of a floating rate loan. The interest costs of the loan will be serviced from the LIBOR receipts under the swap. Read more »

Posted: June 8th, 2008 under Future Exchange, Future Fund, Future Investing, Future Management, Future Trading, Futures Contracts, Futures Market, Futures Quotes, Futures Trader, Managed Futures, Swap Futures.
Comments: 4

For the uninitiated, Paul Tudor Jones has had, and is still having, a spectacular career as a futures trader. If you had invested $1,000 in the Tudor Future Fund at its inception in September 1984, you would have had $17,482 by October of 1988. He combined five consecutive years in a row of triple-digit annual returns. During the month no one on Wall Street forgets, October 1987, his fund registered a 62 percent gain.

Unfortunately, he is no longer accepting money. As a matter of fact, he’s making distributions. This is one of the important “catch 22s” of the managed futures industry. Once a money manager becomes famous, he or she is no longer accessible because his or her minimum investment is out of the reach of everyone but the largest investors. If the CTA is not famous, there is probably a good reason—untested or weak stats.

What happens in managed money is not unlike what happens in any high stakes, competitive undertaking, or sport. If there is skill and luck involved, all the money flows to the superstars. Equity pours down the sieve from the many to the few that outperform all others. At some point, the few become overloaded. Excess venture capital must search for new talent. Great new traders enter the competition and work their way to the top. Read more »

Posted: March 4th, 2008 under Future Exchange, Future Fund, Futures Market, Futures Trader, Managed Futures.
Comments: 4

Direct Participation Programs

The next level up in size and complexity is direct participation programs, or DPPs. You may think of them as tax shelters or limited partnerships (LPs). They are constructed to pass through all of their income, gains, losses, and tax benefits to their owners. The partnership itself pays no taxes because the partners accept liability. Gas-oil exploration and real estate development are common LPs.

Unlike those big sisters, the commodity trading limited partnership is not a tax shelter. It is structured to provide limited liability to investors. The syndicator is the CTA or a CPO, and usually the general partner as well. These can be public or private. Private LPs are usually formed by a small group of wealthy investors, while public LPs attract large numbers of small ($2,000 to $5,000 minimum) investors. The latter requires a full-fledged prospectus and is more stringently watched by federal regulators. Both must be registered with the SEC. Read more »

Posted: March 2nd, 2008 under Corn Futures, Crude Oil Futures, Future Fund, Future Management, Future Trading, Futures, Futures Contracts, Futures Market, Futures Prices, Interest Rate Futures, Managed Futures, S&P Futures, Stock Market Futures, market.
Comments: 4

In Europe, as elsewhere in the world, institutions like when possible either to deal with specialist boutique operations or with operations the same size (or at least with the same standing in their particular industry) as themselves. Thus a middle-sized fund group with, say US$ 10m or US$ 25m under management is going to find itself with a very hard sell indeed. In these circumstances it is important, from a marketing standpoint, to quote all the capital/corporate size available. Thus if the middle-sized fund group is a subsidiary of a larger brokerage or banking operation, the capital worth of the parent should be brought into play.

If no parent company exists, attention should be focused on the specialist characteristics of the fund group and its investment programmes (words like flexibility and innovative are useful here) in an attempt to portray the fund group as a niche business. (This technique is often used by consultancy groups seeking to act for investment management groups.) Read more »

Posted: February 17th, 2008 under Future Fund.
Comments: 5

European Institutions

The preparedness of European institutions to purchase either managed derivatives funds or programmes varies across the continent and is dependent upon a series of factors some of which may be addressed by marketing.

1. The regulatory (and tax) environment;
2. general familiarity with the derivatives and managed derivatives industry;
3. familiarity with the fund management group attempting to sell product;
4. presence and format of a track record (at least for past funds if a new product is offered);
5. money under management within the fund group;
6. technical expertise within the fund group;
7. performance aspirations for the fund or investment programme;
8. quality and content of the explanatory/sales materials;
9. financial considerations such as fees implicit within the fund or programme.

Read more »

Posted: February 16th, 2008 under Foreign Exchange Futures, Future Fund, Futures Trading System, Oil Futures.
Comments: 5