关于银行理财产品
赶超美日 • • 52691 次浏览-
赶超美日 楼主#1
新闻 - 商人投资accumulator亏损超过500万美元Source
Straits Times
Date
04 Nov 2015
AuthorSelina Lum
She claims bank misled her into buying 'useless' options to protect margin positions
A Singapore businesswoman, who lost US$6 million (S$8.4 million) in forex trades, has sued DBS Bank, seeking to restore her accounts to their levels before the bank closed out her trading positions.
Ms Florence Suryawan, 53, alleges that the bank had misled her into buying options meant to protect her against volatile forex markets.
These options, which work like insurance, turned out to be "useless" for hedging her investments.
In September 2011, the falling Australian dollar caused Ms Suryawan, who was acquiring the currency through structured products known as accumulators, to suffer massive losses.
After DBS closed out her positions, the total balance of her accounts with the bank fell from US$6.2 million to about US$410,000.
But the bank says it was not responsible, contending that Ms Suryawan was a sophisticated and experienced investor who relied on her own judgment in deciding to buy the options.
A hearing into the lawsuit started in the High Court yesterday.
Ms Suryawan has diverse business experience, from manufacturing to digital media.
A private banking customer of DBS, she accepted its offer of a margin trading facility with a limit of US$50 million in August 2008. By the end of that year, forex trading became her full-time pursuit.
In 2010, she started investing in accumulators, "buying" the Australian dollar at regular intervals below the prevailing market price for a fixed period of time. If the price rose within a certain range, she would make a profit, but a price drop could lead to huge losses.
Between August and September 2011, as the market was volatile, she bought nine options from DBS. She said the bank's employees described them as insurance to protect her margin positions.
On Sept 22, when an employee called her about her falling margin level, she reminded him of the options and was "astonished" when he replied that the ones she bought did not protect her.
Ms Suryawan said she was dazed that the bank unwound and closed her positions after the phone call.
Her lawyer, Mr Nicholas Narayanan, argued that DBS was negligent in advising her about the options, and made false representations about the protection offered.
He also argued that DBS was not entitled to close out her positions as she did not make a valid margin call on Sept 22.
But Senior Counsel Ang Cheng Hock, for DBS, contends that she understood how the options worked and that the bank was not obliged to give investment advice.
Source: Straits Times Singapore Press Holdings Ltd. Permission required for reproduction.
- See more at: http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/slw/headlinesnews/72506-investor-sues-dbs-over-option-advice.html#sthash.qk8bNEhw.dpufSource
Straits Times
Date
04 Nov 2015
AuthorSelina Lum
She claims bank misled her into buying 'useless' options to protect margin positions
A Singapore businesswoman, who lost US$6 million (S$8.4 million) in forex trades, has sued DBS Bank, seeking to restore her accounts to their levels before the bank closed out her trading positions.
Ms Florence Suryawan, 53, alleges that the bank had misled her into buying options meant to protect her against volatile forex markets.
These options, which work like insurance, turned out to be "useless" for hedging her investments.
In September 2011, the falling Australian dollar caused Ms Suryawan, who was acquiring the currency through structured products known as accumulators, to suffer massive losses.
After DBS closed out her positions, the total balance of her accounts with the bank fell from US$6.2 million to about US$410,000.
But the bank says it was not responsible, contending that Ms Suryawan was a sophisticated and experienced investor who relied on her own judgment in deciding to buy the options.
A hearing into the lawsuit started in the High Court yesterday.
Ms Suryawan has diverse business experience, from manufacturing to digital media.
A private banking customer of DBS, she accepted its offer of a margin trading facility with a limit of US$50 million in August 2008. By the end of that year, forex trading became her full-time pursuit.
In 2010, she started investing in accumulators, "buying" the Australian dollar at regular intervals below the prevailing market price for a fixed period of time. If the price rose within a certain range, she would make a profit, but a price drop could lead to huge losses.
Between August and September 2011, as the market was volatile, she bought nine options from DBS. She said the bank's employees described them as insurance to protect her margin positions.
On Sept 22, when an employee called her about her falling margin level, she reminded him of the options and was "astonished" when he replied that the ones she bought did not protect her.
Ms Suryawan said she was dazed that the bank unwound and closed her positions after the phone call.
Her lawyer, Mr Nicholas Narayanan, argued that DBS was negligent in advising her about the options, and made false representations about the protection offered.
He also argued that DBS was not entitled to close out her positions as she did not make a valid margin call on Sept 22.
But Senior Counsel Ang Cheng Hock, for DBS, contends that she understood how the options worked and that the bank was not obliged to give investment advice.
Source: Straits Times Singapore Press Holdings Ltd. Permission required for reproduction.
- See more at: http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/slw/headlinesnews/72506-investor-sues-dbs-over-option-advice.html#sthash.qk8bNEhw.dpuf -
#2
典型的官司想赢不容易。通常每一页的合约上都有她的签名，通常也不会每一买就输大钱。想赢不容易。通常每一页的合约上都有她的签名，通常也不会每一买就输大钱。
-
赶超美日 楼主#3
理财产品的核心 - 卖出期权获取期权金作为利息
期权听起来陌生，但大部分人都接触过。在房子交易中，卖方卖给买方一个（call）option (to purchase). 这个期权值上千元（期权金，premium），以若干星期为期限（expiry date), 执行价（strike price)是双方议定的价钱。在到期前，买方有选择是否执行的权利，最大损失是期权金。比如如果这几个星期内房子从100万跌倒80万，买方放弃执行，损失期权金。卖方没有拒绝权，最大获利是期权金。比如如果房子这几个星期从80万升到100万，买方不能说不卖了。
资产挂勾票据（equity link notes)实质是银行客户卖出一个看空期权（put option），期权金作为利息回报。
如图，如果股票在到期日高于90，客户赚取期权金（100x12%/4=3）。如果低于90，银行执行期权，以90把股票卖给客户。在当前市价高于87（90-3）的情况下，客户无损失。如果当前市价低于87，客户损失。
其他产品，dual currency是卖出put option，accumulator是卖出put option + call option。
期权特征：
1。买卖双方回报不对称，卖方风险无限。
2。买call option，卖put optio = 看好
买put option，卖call option = 看空
在买理财产品时，可以房子交易类比，把产品分解成期权，从而预估风险和定价。
期权听起来陌生，但大部分人都接触过。在房子交易中，卖方卖给买方一个（call）option (to purchase). 这个期权值上千元（期权金，premium），以若干星期为期限（expiry date), 执行价（strike price)是双方议定的价钱。在到期前，买方有选择是否执行的权利，最大损失是期权金。比如如果这几个星期内房子从100万跌倒80万，买方放弃执行，损失期权金。卖方没有拒绝权，最大获利是期权金。比如如果房子这几个星期从80万升到100万，买方不能说不卖了。
资产挂勾票据（equity link notes)实质是银行客户卖出一个看空期权（put option），期权金作为利息回报。
如图，如果股票在到期日高于90，客户赚取期权金（100x12%/4=3）。如果低于90，银行执行期权，以90把股票卖给客户。在当前市价高于87（90-3）的情况下，客户无损失。如果当前市价低于87，客户损失。
其他产品，dual currency是卖出put option，accumulator是卖出put option + call option。
期权特征：
1。买卖双方回报不对称，卖方风险无限。
2。买call option，卖put optio = 看好
买put option，卖call option = 看空
在买理财产品时，可以房子交易类比，把产品分解成期权，从而预估风险和定价。
-
#4
看了看那段时间澳元对新元波动也不是很大啊怎么会输那么惨怎么会输那么惨
-
#5
对的，我以前研究过银行做的一些配套，一般是卡在盈利方面，
也就是说如果考这个组合无论如何赚钱，银行只给一点小利，而亏损最多也只是期权的成本费-正常利息，
而accumulator的特性应该是指着赚钱，hk有很多，基本上是不建议不懂的客户随便碰。因为这个太依赖交易员的质量和运气和人品了。。有些不良的可以放杠杆一晚上就拼完。。我以前研究过银行做的一些配套，一般是卡在盈利方面，
也就是说如果考这个组合无论如何赚钱，银行只给一点小利，而亏损最多也只是期权的成本费-正常利息，
而accumulator的特性应该是指着赚钱，hk有很多，基本上是不建议不懂的客户随便碰。因为这个太依赖交易员的质量和运气和人品了。。有些不良的可以放杠杆一晚上就拼完。。 -
赶超美日 楼主#6
2011年澳币对美元有一下跌了10%，估计她用了10倍以上杠杆https://sg.finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=AUDUSD%3DX&t=5yhttps://sg.finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=AUDUSD%3DX&t=5y
-
#7
十倍杠杆用在I Kill You Later这么大风险的产品那阵阵是自己找死了怨不得别人
怨不得别人 -
赶超美日 楼主#8
业界50倍杠杆也不少见“Currencies don’t move that much,” says Drew Niv, chief executive officer of FXCM, the largest OTC forex firm in the U.S. “So if you have no leverage, nobody would trade.”“Currencies don’t move that much,” says Drew Niv, chief executive officer of FXCM, the largest OTC forex firm in the U.S. “So if you have no leverage, nobody would trade.”
-
#9
哈哈第一次听叶教授讲到I kill u later的时候还以为是他发明的。原来业界早就有这个叫法。很形象。第一次听叶教授讲到I kill u later的时候还以为是他发明的。原来业界早就有这个叫法。很形象。
-
#10
相当于去金沙赌了一把
-
#11
学习了。。。大家胆子都好大啊
-
赶超美日 楼主#12
这个翻译始于2008年香港，当时众多富豪损失惨重，所以叶教授也知道
-
赶超美日 楼主#13
-
#14
10倍杠杆玩汇率确实是很小了主要是投入多少
应该是输得起主要是投入多少
应该是输得起