sgusers5的部落格

BT readers are not prolific letter writers but when they do send in their views for publication, they usually raise valid and important issues.迷你倉最平 Such was the case with the last missive that appeared in print "Scrutinise financial investment seminars too" on Sept 24 where reader Vincent Khoo makes a strong case for some form of regulation to be introduced to govern the dozens of "free" and paid investment seminars that are regularly advertised in the print and Internet media, particularly those that claim massive (sometimes guaranteed) profits in a short space of time.The reasoning is that if financial advisers have to be licensed under the Securities and Futures Act (SFA) and are strictly limited in what they can say or sell to their clients, then so should those who conduct these "get rich quick" courses and seminars on trading commodities, property, stocks, currencies etc.Granted, speakers at these events do not have a lasting relationship with the audience, at least not of the form that could be construed as being fiduciary, but as Mr Khoo correctly pointed out, a gullible public which pays thousands to attend and then stand to lose thousands after attendance because they think that can surely get rich should still be protected.No argument here. With bank deposit rates hovering just above zero but below inflation, it is understandable that more retail investors are turning to other investments like property, equities, currencies and derivatives to try and earn better real returns.Many however may not have the trading skills, technical understanding or professional expertise to actually make money (or avoid losing too much) when dabbling in these markets, particularly since institutions employ very high-speed computers, enjoy a significant informational advantage and have much greater resources at their disposal to withstand shocks.So it is perhaps not surprising to see the emergence of the "just follow our methods and you'll be fine" investment guru, these being claimed traders-cum-investors endowed with great and secret abilities who, having made already made tremendous amounts of money through exercise of those abilities, are now keen to share their secrets with a naive public. Or, to put it a bit more bluntly, how to get rich quick - all for a modest fee of course.Except that the fees are not that modest - anecdotal evidence is that a three-day seminar costs around $2,000-3,000, which means it can be a very lucrative business depen儲存ing on how many people sign up (Usually thought to be around 30-50 per seminar. Like any decent enterprise, bulk discounts are available, so the more that sign up, the lower the fee).Given that there are no certainties in financial markets, how should such courses and attendant claims be viewed? Undoubtedly with a fair dollop of scepticism; for example, anecdotal feedback from a course participant in how to make money trading options was that the whole time was spent on simple charting and technical analysis, with no mention of the critical option variables like time decay, implied volatility and delta hedging.Did the class learn anything useful? A little - they left knowing how to read charts. Will they be able to profitably trade options? Probably not, given that chart patterns are not really relevant in options trading.Still, a qualifier is necessary - not all financial market educators deserve to be tarred with the same brush. As in many other areas of commerce there will be fly-by-night operators but there will also be those who actually have valuable insights based on real experience that could prove beneficial to naive listeners.If so, the question then becomes: how to regulate, if at all?Paying thousands to attend a "get rich quick" course is not wholly dissimilar to investing in a unit trust or mutual fund because invariably both target the public's money, rely on clever marketing of their services whilst claiming superior performance using proprietary knowledge.If we accept this and that stricter rules are needed in a post-Mini-bond/structured notes scam era, then "get rich quick" educators should therefore be required to produce properly audited track records extending back at least five years using real live accounts - not just simulated ones - for the public to scrutinise before being given a license and allowed to conduct their courses.After all, just as it is in the fund management industry, even though past success is no guarantee of future returns, the existence and ready availability of a reliable track record should help separate those with something useful to tell and those selling the equivalent of investment snake oil.Retail investors for their part, should always be leery of claims of fantastic performance that come with profit guarantees and no risk. After all, there are no free lunches in the cut-throat world of finance - unless of course, one happens to be in the business of conducting "get rich quick" seminars.mini storage