LOW Risk Does Not Mean NO Risk

[clinton666]

Singapore has a low crime rate but that does not mean we have no crimes.

Same goes for structured financial products. They are LOW risk but that does not mean NO risk. SAdly, those retarded dogs who bought those mini-bonds can't seem to grasped this simple concept. They are fortunate that our banks are extremely benevolent in refunding those old retards who can't even pass their PSLE exams (only retards have problem passing such a simple exam.)

In my view everyone knows high returns mean high risk. There is no free lunch. " Those greedy retards who can't even comprehend these two simple financial truisms deserve to lose their pants and more.

Another financial truism: "There is a sucker born every minute"

I suggest that banks will have posters that reads "LOW RISK DOES NOT MEAN NO RISK" in all of their offices.

 

[clinton666]

Good thing I have gotten rid of my DBS shares months ago. I would strongly object to bailing out retards who can't even pass their PSLE exams.

 

[scoobydooku]

Good thing I have gotten rid of my DBS shares months ago. I would strongly object to bailing out retards who can't even pass their PSLE exams.

so what's your T-score for PSLE? don't be so afraid of sharing it with all of us.

 

[clinton666]

so what's your T-score for PSLE? don't be so afraid of sharing it with all of us.

I have a T-Score of 279. What's your score, moron?

 

[scoobydooku]

I have a T-Score of 279. What's your score, moron?

I SO believe you. C'mon, the truth.

 

[pweesng]

Same goes for structured financial products. They are LOW risk but that does not mean NO risk. SAdly, those retarded dogs who bought those mini-bonds can't seem to grasped this simple concept. They are fortunate that our banks are extremely benevolent in refunding those old retards who can't even pass their PSLE exams (only retards have problem passing such a simple exam.)

dude, you seems to have a misunderstanding on how risk is being measured in terms of financial products.

1) HIGH RISK = high volatility
2) Low RISK = low volatility

A government bond is considered low risk. ie, there is certainty of repayment, and in the event of a loss due to the volatility int he market, because the volatility is low, chances of losing all the capital is low.

High risk means, the volatility is high, the upswing and the downswing is high. As what you would have seen in the usual share market.

So if you term a structure note as low risk, it means that your returns are low, but that is because the volatility is low too.... if i can lose all my capital at once (as in the case of the minibond investor) then the product shouldn't be termed low risk. And since investor can lose everything at one go, their returns should be equally compensated in the same way....

got it?

 

[Bigfuck]

What PSLE score,ah? Got Phd? hahaha. BIGFUCK

 

[angie II]

dude, you seems to have a misunderstanding on how risk is being measured in terms of financial products.

u called him dude? dats nice of u... however he calls everyone here moron... maggot... etc...

 

[pweesng]

u called him dude? dats nice of u... however he calls everyone here moron... maggot... etc...

he can call me what he wants... it doesn't make me what i am...

i just wanted to highlight the discrepancy here in the minibond issues.... what is it being classified as low risk, when it is a known fact that volatility can be so high.

Many people (including some in the industry) classify risk in terms of the returns. What they forgot is that volatility is involve here as well. if volatility was highlighted to the investors in the first place, they might be either asking for a higher returns, or might even not make the investment totally.

 

[pweesng]

What PSLE score,ah? Got Phd? hahaha. BIGFUCK

don't need high PSLE score to make relations to the various factor in an investments.... my PSLE was only 225... the highest that year was 285, i was a far cry off that mark....

the problem is that according to clinton, his understanding of risk and volatility don't jive...yet he has got a higher score than (i suspect) most of us here....

 

[Zombie]

i just wanted to highlight the discrepancy here in the minibond issues.... what is it being classified as low risk, when it is a known fact that volatility can be so high.

would you like to clarify how you actually measure the volatility of Lehman going bust? is there any data to calculate the std dev of Lehman going bust?

 

[angie II]

In your head... in your head... Zombie... zombie... zombie...

 

[scoobydooku]

don't need high PSLE score to make relations to the various factor in an investments.... my PSLE was only 225... the highest that year was 285, i was a far cry off that mark....

the problem is that according to clinton, his understanding of risk and volatility don't jive...yet he has got a higher score than (i suspect) most of us here....

which year was that?

 

[scoobydooku]

I have a T-Score of 279. What's your score, moron?

and what year did you take your PSLE?

 

[singveld]

they do not deserve to lose all their money in high note.

they are just unlucky.

they did made the mistake of buying a product that they do not understand.

anyway, no bank staff in this world would even imagine that lehman will go bust.

sad, that they have to lose the money, but in no way should DBS compensate any of them. Both legally and morally.

These people with the money, they should have spend it like US citizens. spend on holiday, go to spa, and enjoy themselves. They have good memories of travelling. Not save every cent and work everyday. Now they suffer, no money and no holiday.

so, dun wait any longer go for holiday. enjoy yourself, stay away from Japan, yen too high now, also USA , US dollar too high. Find somewhere the currency drop.

Like Iceland.