The Hate on XIV, SVXY is Unfounded

Discussion in 'ETFs' started by mt2rules, Feb 7, 2018.

  1. zdreg


    unfortunately it is your continuous lack of knowledge about the structure of the products that you trade that is the problem. stop whining. if you read the prospectus carefully you might understand the difference between xiv and svxy. people assume that warnings in prospectus are just boiler plate and can be safely ignored.
    Last edited: Feb 7, 2018
    #21     Feb 7, 2018
  2. What I mean is that the ETN's positions (short VIX futures) can decline beyond the ETN's assets. But because it's floor value is limited to $0 (Credit Suisse would, and very nearly did, pick up any losses in excess of the full ETN value). So the perception is that it absorbed 90%+ of it's possible maximum loss, when in reality the loss could have been larger. It's a moot point in terms of disaster because it's CS's problem had losses gone any further--but for the trader considering purchasing this, this makes the less extreme moves look less risky as a total percentage of the ETN's worth.
    #22     Feb 7, 2018
    mt2rules likes this.
  3. zdreg


    #23     Feb 7, 2018
  4. I should probably cross-reference this one with a post from Bob Morse earlier here:

    Second post in.
    #24     Feb 7, 2018
  5. gkishot


    You sound like someone who knows the subject very well. Why is XIV down today while SVXY is up?
    Since XIV is gone, what are we traders going to do now? We want it back.
    #25     Feb 7, 2018
  6. NeoTrader


    In other words, it was well known that the coffee there was very hot and the place remained open because people still chose to go there for that coffee( no need to ban the place or force them to lower the temperature, that's the client's choice, otherwise, let's ban cars too, because people can get hit by them. Why not ban buildings too? Because people can fall from heights. In fact, let's ban everything, then we can be completely irresponsable and every shit that happens in our lives, we can blame someone else, a company or even "the state")...
    People could have simply stopped going there or complained to the owner, who would no doubt lower the temperature of the coffee if that meant pleasing his clients, thus keeping his clients and even gaining new ones. But, it seems that the majority of the costumers wanted that temperature.
    In addition to that, it was a DRIVE THROUGH, which means there is a greater chance of spilling things up, compared to sitting on a table... Another well know fact by everybody. Put those things together and the lady took her chances and shit happened, that's not the company's fault.
    The same thing applies in markets... People want to risk money, no problem... They should be free to do it and to risk whatever sum they want, right till their last penny, but if things go south, they should have the balls to face the situation.
    #26     Feb 7, 2018
  7. It's quite the jump to go from reasonable judicial recourse against someone who knowingly allows a dangerous condition to persist to an outright legal ban on water temperatures. That makes as much sense as equating auto liability settlements with a legal prohibition on driving. So, I'm gonna throw the bullshit flag here.

    ...700 times. 700 times they complained to the owner.


    140º burns bare skin, your mouth can handle somewhere around 160º-ish because of saliva. 180º will burn. It's really a stretch to suggest masochism is the majority opinion during daily commerce.
    You're talking about someone being free to assume the risks of the temperature they serve coffee, right? :sneaky:
    #27     Feb 8, 2018
  8. NeoTrader


    Who says this "judicial recourse" is reasonable? To me this is absurd, pure bullshit. The law is fucked up and this is what is killing what was once a great country. People want to hold everybody else responsable for everything, but won't take the slightest responsability for themselves and they use government to do that. The U.S. will become just another shitty country where nobody thinks it is worth risking to open a business because any schmuck may hold you accountable for the stupidest things, like this one, if it continues in this path...
    I'm pretty sure the place must have had much more then 700 customers, these were the ones that complained, the others may not have formally manifested their opinion, but they stated their opinion by going back there and the fact that the place remained open proves that these were the majority. Every business will have complaints and it is up to the owner to decide whether he will change something or not based on what will be the biggest number of pleased customers. As I said, since the place was still open, it is only logic that it was pleasing the majority of customers, others could simply choose to go somewhere else.
    The evidence is what I just said: the place remained open, if people didn't like it or thought it was dangerous to go there, they could simply have stopped going there and the place would go broke or the owner would realize that the cause of the lower number of clients was the coffee temperature and in his own interest, he would lower it. Additionaly, as I said, the fact that there were these complaints, shows that the temperature of the coffee was no secret.

    No, I'm talking about being free to enter a drive through and getting a know very hot beverage. Being in a car, with everything shaking and you usually have no place to place the food and drinks or get food from a window increases the risk of spilling up things.:)
    That's why people usually eat on tables, it's easier and less prone to such and other types of accidents.;)
    #28     Feb 8, 2018
  9. So we eschew corporate responsibility and claim that all responsibility is personal? I'm all for accountability and personal (and corp) responsibility. This case just isn't it. It made a really good sound byte, but like so many of them, it falls apart when the facts are considered beyond the level talking head. It's fine if you want to parrot a discredited antique sound byte (was vinyl around, or was the recording on wax?), but denial in the face of facts is not.
    If only she'd played it safe with a nice cold beer.

    We'll have to agree to disagree here. The only thing I'll add is I work insurance where I pay some stupid claims like this (well, not me personally, but companies I represent--though I have settled claims on their behalf). For my part, I view both sides with, "How could you be so stupid to," ... "serve something that dangerous" / "sit and drink coffee in you're car when you're already a septuagenarian." My view of fault here is colored mostly by those who are most able to absorb the payment of damages on this--and viewing that as a cost of doing business (a cost they pay to me!)
    #29     Feb 8, 2018
  10. NeoTrader


    Exactly. There is no such thing as "corporate responsability". As Milton Friedman used to say: "Government doesn't have responsability, a building does not have responsability, ONLY PEOPLE HAVE RESPONSABILITY."

    You are the one denying facts. It's just dumb to claim that every single accident that happens is the company's fault. They were offering a service and the clients are there voluntarily. Nothing is certain in this life, so it is just stupid to act as if it were.
    Shit happens, we all take risks, just by leaving home... You could stay in an never risk getting hit by a car, but you take that chance, because you think it is worth it.
    If the company had done something on purpose to hurt her(not very smart far a business to do that) or if they had hidden any data that would not make possible for the client to make a conscious choice, they should be penalized. But that is not the case, as it was already well established here, the fact that the coffee was very hot was no secret.
    No, that's hindsight, she chose to get the coffee in the drive through. Nothing wrong with that, as long as she is willing to take the risks. She could have asked the beer or she could have entered the restaurant and asked the coffee on a table or she could have gone somewhere else, or she could have done what she did. Each option has it's advantadges and disadvantadges. She made her choice.
    Well, I'll add here that when insurance companies make money on stupid causes such as these, that's a consequence of bad laws, hence the stupidity. And in these situations, insurance companies act as parasites, feeding on stupid claims from mediocre people. But that's not the insurance company's fault, they are not the ones who create this. As I said, the fault is of the people that are stupid enough to believe that this is justified and keep voting for politicians that pass this ridiculous laws.
    #30     Feb 8, 2018