Post by yyy on Aug 28, 2019 21:37:03 GMT
I am not sure if I understand well:
- A moneyness seller can "block" a financial asset A for a period T for a price p,
- and a moneyness buyer can pay this price p for having an asset A but without associated rights (dividends, votes...) but with a forward to sell a A after a period T
I am right?
So the buyer is not paying a surplus of p for not having the associated rights (which is stupid), because he did not pay the full price of asset A but just p, the "moneyness asset", that's it?
Also, if the seller regrets his choice in the middle of period T, can he sell his "fundamental asset" to another person, for another price p' and a period T/2? If so, the "fundamental asset" is not blocked, it has been separated from the "moneyness asset", right?
So we have 2 markets: moneyness market and fundamental market, and the "non-moneyness asset" is also tradable?
Also, what happens if I try the same thing on a (almost fungible and non-perishable) good:
Can a producer split a good in two: the use of the good (right to use it), and the possession of the good (having it physically)?
- A "possession asset" buyer can pay for having the good without the right to use it (at a minor cost than the full good) , only to try to deliver it with surplus to a "use asset" buyer or another "possession asset" buyer, or buying a "use asset" to use it
- An "use asset" buyer can pay for having the right to use the good without having it (at a minor cost than the full good), only to try to sell it in the future to another "use asset" buyer, or buying a "possession asset" at a supplier to use it
It would be strange to just be able to buy the "possession asset", because the buyer could alterate, destroy, or consume discreetly the good without ever selling it. Conversely, it would also be strange for a "use asset" buyer to never find a "possession asset" to buy. So I guess the buying(/selling) of a "possession asset" come with a forward to buy(/sell) a "use asset" after a period T, or else the buying(/selling) of a "use asset" come with a forward to sell(/buy) it after a periode T (because the "use asset" can be on a clearing house, not a physical good).
In this case, if this idea makes sense (I have the impression that it is different from the commodity market), which asset is the "moneyness asset" and the "fundamental asset"?
At first, "use asset" seems to be the "fundamental asset" (right to use it), but it is easier to trade the use of a good than to move the good (the "possession asset"), and like the financial asset, the forward is on the "moneyness asset". So the "use asset" is the "moneyness asset"?
I hope it's an interesting question for this forum too!
- A moneyness seller can "block" a financial asset A for a period T for a price p,
- and a moneyness buyer can pay this price p for having an asset A but without associated rights (dividends, votes...) but with a forward to sell a A after a period T
I am right?
So the buyer is not paying a surplus of p for not having the associated rights (which is stupid), because he did not pay the full price of asset A but just p, the "moneyness asset", that's it?
Also, if the seller regrets his choice in the middle of period T, can he sell his "fundamental asset" to another person, for another price p' and a period T/2? If so, the "fundamental asset" is not blocked, it has been separated from the "moneyness asset", right?
So we have 2 markets: moneyness market and fundamental market, and the "non-moneyness asset" is also tradable?
Also, what happens if I try the same thing on a (almost fungible and non-perishable) good:
Can a producer split a good in two: the use of the good (right to use it), and the possession of the good (having it physically)?
- A "possession asset" buyer can pay for having the good without the right to use it (at a minor cost than the full good) , only to try to deliver it with surplus to a "use asset" buyer or another "possession asset" buyer, or buying a "use asset" to use it
- An "use asset" buyer can pay for having the right to use the good without having it (at a minor cost than the full good), only to try to sell it in the future to another "use asset" buyer, or buying a "possession asset" at a supplier to use it
It would be strange to just be able to buy the "possession asset", because the buyer could alterate, destroy, or consume discreetly the good without ever selling it. Conversely, it would also be strange for a "use asset" buyer to never find a "possession asset" to buy. So I guess the buying(/selling) of a "possession asset" come with a forward to buy(/sell) a "use asset" after a period T, or else the buying(/selling) of a "use asset" come with a forward to sell(/buy) it after a periode T (because the "use asset" can be on a clearing house, not a physical good).
In this case, if this idea makes sense (I have the impression that it is different from the commodity market), which asset is the "moneyness asset" and the "fundamental asset"?
At first, "use asset" seems to be the "fundamental asset" (right to use it), but it is easier to trade the use of a good than to move the good (the "possession asset"), and like the financial asset, the forward is on the "moneyness asset". So the "use asset" is the "moneyness asset"?
Did I cut the asset in two as it should?
Finally, does the "fundamental asset" of the financial asset is the "use asset"? i.e. I can rent you the asset just for the rights it provides (moneyness seller), you remain the owner and you can exchange it like you want (moneyness buyer)?
The thing is: if it is the "use asset" owner that gets the "possession asset" owner at the end, it is the "use asset" owner who supports the evolution of the price of the total asset minus use and liquidity (capital?), and therefore "possession asset" owner has only had access to the "moneyness asset".
So, any asset, for a period T, can be split in three:
- use
- capital
- liquidity
If you leave the use during the period T but at the end the "use " owner recovers the full asset (and so the evolution of the capital), you have only to pay for the liquidity.
If you have only the associated rights (dividends, votes...) for a period T, you have only to pay for the use.
If you leave the asset and its associated rights during a period T but after you gain/lose the evolution of its price, you have only to pay for the capital part.
What do you think of that ? The same apply for real estate, or for cash?
So, any asset, for a period T, can be split in three:
- use
- capital
- liquidity
If you leave the use during the period T but at the end the "use " owner recovers the full asset (and so the evolution of the capital), you have only to pay for the liquidity.
If you have only the associated rights (dividends, votes...) for a period T, you have only to pay for the use.
If you leave the asset and its associated rights during a period T but after you gain/lose the evolution of its price, you have only to pay for the capital part.
What do you think of that ? The same apply for real estate, or for cash?