Lover of masks.
Yeah. That seems like an obvious thing to do.
The only conspiracy I can see coming from this is "Maybe the terrorists only did it for the money"
Which means that 9/11 was a really depressing Die Hard knock-off. Too soon?
Please.
House Lewis: Sanity is Relative
That's not really uncommon, and when you're confident enough about pulling something like that off, it's almost common sense. Casino Royale showed something similar, incidentally, though in that case the plot failed and the terrorists lost millions. Still, same idea!
My name is Addy. Please call me that instead of my username.
Ninja'd
More like Casino Royale.
There's the converse: failed attacks may cause lost money but we will not know the details of those and counter-terrorist agencies may have a sweet spot of when to arrest that kicks in before they start taking short options.
edited 10th Nov '11 10:06:20 AM by SomeSortOfTroper
Beware the Crazy Man.
Actually its more like Golden Eye. ![[lol]](https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/images/lol2v12_4863.png "[lol]"){kind=small}
Not surprised. bin Laden was a businessman by trade after all. He wanted the US to lose a great deal of its wealth from the attack, its only fair he'd want to make a killing at the same time.
Final Fantasy, Foreign Policy, and Bollywood. Helluva combo, that...
scratching at .8, just hopin'
Goldfinger was the Bond story that came to mind, actually.
I hope they go after these sons of bitches.
Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.
betaalpha
Rumours this was happening were debunked by Snopes in 2005
. Possibly they were wrong, then. I don't know enough about stocks to tell.
House Lewis: Sanity is Relative
Of note is that the markets are heavily regulated enough that large, unusual transactions cause a lot of alarm bells to start ringing; while it's common sense to try and get a bit of extra profit out of one's attacks, bear in mind it's also difficult to do so without getting caught. If you're being monitored by the police and you purchase derivative contracts that cause you to make a lot of money if an organisation blows sky high, they might look into that...
My name is Addy. Please call me that instead of my username.
scratching at .8, just hopin'
House Lewis: Sanity is Relative
I work for one of the UK's biggest investment banks, I run sanctions checks every day. Yes, there's lots of regulation. And even with trusted institutions, we're trained to be wary and face prosecution if we slip up.
My name is Addy. Please call me that instead of my username.
Chaotic Greedy
I don't understand what "put options" means. I guess it's a magical thing that allows you to gain money when some company's shares drop after you buy them, which would normally cost you money...
"And as long as a sack of shit is not a good thing to be, chivalry will never die."
From what I can tell it's not that magical. From Wikipedia:
A Buyer thinks the price of a stock will decrease. He pays a premium which he will never get back, unless it is sold before it expires. The buyer has the right to sell the stock at the strike price.
Writing a put
The writer receives a premium from the buyer. If the buyer exercises his option, the writer will buy the stock at the strike price. If the buyer does not exercise his option, the writer's profit is the premium.
- "Trader A" (Put Buyer) purchases a put contract to sell 100 shares of XYZ Corp. to "Trader B" (Put Writer) for $50 per share. The current price is $55 per share, and Trader A pays a premium of $5 per share. If the price of XYZ stock falls to $40 a share right before expiration, then Trader A can exercise the put by buying 100 shares for $4,000 from the stock market, then selling them to Trader B for $5,000.
- Trader A's total earnings (S) can be calculated at $500. The sale of the 100 shares of stock at a strike price of $50 to Trader B = $5,000 (P). The purchase of 100 shares of stock at $40 = $4,000 (Q). The put option premium paid to trader B for buying the contract of 100 shares at $5 per share, excluding commissions = $500 (R). Thus S = P - (Q+R) = $5,000 - ($4,000+$500) = $500.
- If, however, the share price never drops below the strike price (in this case, $50), then Trader A would not exercise the option (because selling a stock to Trader B at $50 would cost Trader A more than that to buy it). Trader A's option would be worthless and he would have lost the whole investment, the fee (premium) for the option contract, $500 ($5 per share, 100 shares per contract). Trader A's total loss are limited to the cost of the put premium plus the sales commission to buy it.
Now, if this sounds like gambling on the other hand...
edited 13th Nov '11 5:08:53 AM by Psyclone
House Lewis: Sanity is Relative
Derivatives are a form of gambling, though the risk can be mitigated, which is called "Hedging". Hedge funds, those controversial entities, are companies that make all their money through this. Options are basically buying the right, but not the obligation, to buy a given stock or commodity at/before (which you get depends on your jurisdiction) a given date at a given price. Naturally, this involves guessing what you think the price will be at the given date, to work out whether you can make a profit on it.
My name is Addy. Please call me that instead of my username.
My first reaction, admittedly, was "Only millions? These guys should have gone into investment banking."
But I'm concerned that this might fuel conspiracy theories regarding the event.
Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.