According to the legislative definition of financial instruments in article 5 of law 3606/2007, derivative investment products also include futures contracts. These are essentially sales contracts in which the transaction does not take place immediately but is put on hold, ie it is specified that it will take place at a certain future point in time; this agreement is characterized as an "open position". In these contracts one party (seller) undertakes with the preparation of the contract (on day T1) the obligation to deliver and transfer to the other party (buyer) the quantity of goods sold (eg 10,000 barrels of oil) against the agreed price on a future date (day T2) at a specific place (eg New York).

Such transactions, which are called "derivative contracts" because, schematically, their value is linked to another underlying value (eg the price of crude oil), are drawn up both inside and outside regulated markets (stock exchange or over-the-counter) respectively. . The largest volume of relevant transactions, however, are compiled on the stock exchange in the relevant organized markets. These are the so-called derivatives exchanges, such as the Athens Derivatives Exchange.

1. Understanding the essence of derivative contracts

Despite their seemingly simple nature, these contracts present extremely high risks for the parties. First, the seller does not have the goods sold during T1, but intends to "acquire" it (see immediately below) just before T2, at which point the contract must be fulfilled. In addition, the goods sold (eg oil) are not usually linked to the seller's business: the seller does not produce the goods sold or relate in any way to their marketing. Accordingly, the buyer does not usually "need" the goods sold, which is not related in any way to the buyer's business. So in essence the two parties are not interested in the goods sold per se, but aim solely at exploiting fluctuations in the price of the goods sold in international markets (eg fluctuations in international oil prices): The buyer hopes that the prices of will increase from the drawing up of the contract (T1) to the due date (T2) and thus will gain by selling it further to third parties; the seller expects a price reduction from T1 to T2 T2) the goods sold cheaper than the price agreed in T1.

Example: A (seller) sells on 1.3.2011 (T1) to B (buyer) 10,000 barrels of crude oil for € 100 per barrel (total price € 1,000,000) delivered to New York on 1.4.2011 (T2). A does not have the oil sold, while neither A nor B have anything to do with oil (they do not need it for their business) and never intend to deliver or receive oil. However, both A and B hope to make money due to fluctuations in the price of oil by 1.4.2011, each at the expense of the other: If the price of oil falls by 1.4.2011 by € 10 a barrel, the A will be able to buy it on 1.4.2011 from a third party for a total price (90 € X 10,000 =) 900,000 €. Thus, on 1.4.2011 A will receive from B the agreed price (1,000,000 €) in order to "deliver" oil that A bought for just 900,000 €. Thus A will have won € 100,000 from the transaction. On the contrary, B acquires for 1,000,000 € oil that he could acquire for only 900,000 €, so he has lost the difference (100,000 €). Of course things could have turned out differently and B was hoping for such a development during the drafting of the contract (1.3.2011). Indeed, B is drawing up the contract in the hope that oil prices will rise. If e.g. the price of oil increases until 1.4.2011, instead of decreasing, by 10 € per barrel to 110 €, A will be forced on 1.4.2011 to acquire the oil he promised to "deliver" to B by buying it from a third party against total price (110 € X 10,000 =) € 1,100,000. A will therefore have received the total price of € 1,000,000 for a good (oil) that cost A € 1,100,000; A therefore suffers a loss of € 100,000. On the contrary, B can sell to a third party for a total price (110 € X 10,000 =) € 1,100,000 the oil he acquired from A for a total price of € 1,000,000, thus earning € 100,000.

Because, as mentioned above, usually none of the parties to the transaction is really interested in the goods sold but only in exploiting the fluctuations in international prices from T1 to T2, the contract is never fulfilled in practice by delivery of the goods sold and payment of the price, but exclusively by offsetting between the seller and the buyer, between on the one hand the price due and on the other hand the value of the goods sold during T2. Thus, there is never an actual exchange of benefits (delivery and transfer of goods sold for a price), but the fulfillment of the contract is done only in accounting, so that an obligation to actually pay a certain amount to the detriment of one or the other party ultimately exists only for the difference the value of the goods sold in relation to the agreed price.

In the previous example, if the price of oil decreases from € 100 to € 90, A does not deliver the oil to B for the agreed price of € 1,000,000, but collects from B the difference between the current price of the oil sold and (€ 900,000) from the agreed price (€ 1,000,000), ie its profit from the transaction amounting to (€ 1,000,000 - € 900,000 =) € 100,000. Conversely, if the price of oil increases from € 100 to € 110, A does not deliver the oil to B for the agreed price (€ 1,000,000), but pays B the difference between the current price of the oil sold (1,100). .000 €) from the agreed price (1.000.000 €), ie the profit of B from the transaction which in this case amounts to (1.100.000 € - 1.000.000 € =) 100.000 €.

In addition, it is very common for parties to not even wait for the deadline to expire but to liquidate their position (profitable or unprofitable) early by selling their contractual relationship to third parties: in the relevant regulated markets, the parties have the opportunity to sell their contractual position (rights and obligations) to other participants in the regulated market, in accordance with its rules. The parties thus have the opportunity to liquidate profits or internalize their losses, until the day of (resale), without having to wait for the expiration of the deadline to which the contract is due.

Example of early liquidation of profit: In the previous example, if on 15.3.2011 the price of crude oil has been reduced from € 100 per barrel to € 95, A may decide to transfer his contractual position vis-του-vis B (rights and obligations from the contract of sale) in accordance with the rules of the relevant regulated market (of the relevant stock exchange). E.g. C, another member of the regulated market, offers A € 4 for each barrel of oil that A has sold to B, in order for A to transfer his contractual position (rights and obligations) to B. A accepts the transaction and transfer to C the contract (its contractual position against B) for a total of (4 € X 10,000 barrels =) 40,000 €. This amount constitutes the gain of A from the early liquidation of its position. A does not have to wait for the end of the contract to finally see if he won or not from his transaction with B: Regardless of what will follow, rise or fall in prices, A will have made a profit of € 40,000 .

Of course, after the transfer of the relationship from A to C, C now becomes a contractor of B in place of A, therefore C now has the obligation to deliver on 1.4.2011 to B 10,000 barrels of crude oil for 100 € per barrel, that is, for a total price of € 1,000,000. Thus, on 1.4.2011, if the price of oil finally falls to € 90, C will be able to acquire the oil he has to deliver to B for € 90 a barrel by paying a total of (€ 90 X 10,000 barrels =) € 900,000 , and B will pay to C the price of the total amount (100 € X 10,000 barrels =) 1,000,000 €. Therefore C wins the difference (€ 100,000) from the transaction. However, because he has previously paid to A the amount of € 40,000 for the transfer of the legal relationship, the total profit of C amounts to (€ 100,000 - € 40,000 =) 60,000. For C it is as if he bought the oil he has to deliver to B by € 4 a barrel more expensive than its value on 1.4.2011 (90 + 4 =) € 94; € 4 a barrel is the added value that C paid to A to obtain his contract with B.

Example of early loss internalization: In the previous example, the value of oil does not decrease from 1.3.2011 onwards but increases, rising on 15.3.2011 to 105 €. A because he is afraid of even bigger losses (even bigger rise in prices) until 1.4.2011 when he has to deliver the oil to B, he decides to transfer the contract (his contractual position, rights and obligations, towards B). C offers to enter the position of A in the contract with B, if A pays him 6 € for each barrel of oil that A has sold to B. A accepts and pays to C the amount of (6 € X 10,000 barrels =) € 60,000. Thus, although it is damaged by € 60,000, it is released from any obligation towards B. So if the price of oil increases even more by 1.4.2011 and rises to € 110 per barrel, A will have saved € 40,000, since the loss which would exist if he remained in the contract would amount to € 100,000, while his loss, after the transfer of the contractual relationship to C, amounts to only € 60,000.

Of course, if finally the price of oil does not increase until 1.4.2011 but decreases again and finally rises e.g. at € 90 a barrel, A who rushed to transfer the contract for fear of a large increase will have suffered a € 60,000 loss. On the contrary, C will have won a total of € 160,000, ie € 60,000 from A (the price that A paid for his exemption from the contract) and € 100,000 due to the difference in price of (€ 100 X 10,000 barrels =) 1,000 .000 €, which B owes to C, from the price of (90 € X 10,000 barrels =) 900.000 € that C will pay to a third party in order to buy the oil that he has to deliver on 1.4.2011 (90 € the barrel). For C it is as if he bought the oil he has to deliver to B at € 6 a barrel cheaper than its value on 1.4.2011 (90 - 6 =) € 84; € 6 a barrel is the consideration that A paid to C to obtain the contract of A with B.

It goes without saying that although the previous examples of early liquidation of profits or internalization of losses refer to the seller, they obviously apply to the buyer as well: He can either wait for the expiration of the period on which the fulfillment of the contract depends or transfer his position, some consideration, to a third party.

It is understood that the description is immediately above merely reflects the basic form of the contract. In reality the transactions are more complex, depending on the rules of specific regulated markets (derivatives exchanges) which compiled. (for example, the final offset between seller and buyer may be multilateral and not bilateral within the CCP system, but that does not alter the basic operation of trading derivatives as described here).

Accounting for - safety margin (the margin)

In terms of derivative trading, technically, in practice there is usually talk of "open" and "close" of derivative trading. The opening of a transaction means a) the conclusion of a transaction or b) the entry into an existing contract of sale (an existing "contract"). Closing the transaction means a) the fulfillment of the transaction (the contract of sale), ie the payment of the agreed price by the buyer and the delivery of the goods sold by the seller (of course, the fulfillment takes place, as always mentioned above offset) or b) the transfer of the contractual relationship. In most cases, however, the opening of the transaction takes place with the transfer of an existing contract (investor entry into an already existing sale). However, it is usually not clear to investors whether it is a new sale or an entry into an existing sale contract, as in both cases they undertake obligations and acquire rights. It is generally not uncommon for those involved in derivative transactions to be unaware of the exact nature of these transactions from a legal point of view.

Also, in the accounting practice usually followed by credit institutions that provide investment services in derivatives, the "opening" and the "closing" of the transaction are always done for the same prices, while the profit or loss of the trader is displayed separately for each transaction as credit or debit of the relevant cash account used by the client of the credit institution.

However, regarding this point, the accounting representation is somewhat misleading, as it does not reflect all the rights and obligations of the investor (as seller or buyer in the contract of sale) vis-'s counterparty (buyer or seller in the contract of sale respectively). What is shown is in fact only the amount that credit institutions hold as security from their customers (margin margin) in order to ensure that they will fulfill their obligations. This amount is calculated as a percentage of the value of the transaction and is related, inter alia, to the policy of the credit institution towards its customers and the requirements of the regulated market (stock exchange) in which the transactions are made.

In the example given above: The credit institution through which A prepares the derivative (the contract for the sale of 10,000 barrels of oil for € 1,000,000) freezes from the account that A keeps with the credit institution an amount amounting to a percentage, e.g. at 10% of the value of the transaction (of the agreed price), ie € 100,000. Thus, if at the close of the contract (either at the time due or at the time of early liquidation) A has suffered a loss, the credit institution reimburses to A (releases) the amount remaining from the deduction of the loss; suffered a loss of € 40,000, the credit institution returns to A (releases) the amount of (100,000 - 40,000 =) € 60,000. Of course, if the damage suffered by A exceeds the amount committed (the margin), A is obliged to pay the remaining amount. If e.g. A's loss amounts to € 130,000, A not only permanently loses the amount pledged to open the transaction (the margin, € 100,000), but owes the credit institution an additional € 30,000. Of course, if A has a profit, the credit institution returns to A (releases) the entire amount provided as collateral (margin), increased by the profit achieved by A from the transaction. So if A has a profit of € 60,000, the credit institution returns to A in total (100,000 + 60,000 =) € 160,000.

So, the accounting representation used by credit institutions in relation to their clients' investments in derivatives is as follows:

1) With the opening of the transaction bound to the client's account the margin of safety (margin), an amount that is calculated as a percentage of the transaction value. In the books of the credit institution, that is, there is a charge of the customer's account equal to the amount corresponding to the margin. (in the above example charge 100.000 €).

2) At the end of the transaction (during the liquidation of "contracts" according to the terminology commonly used in the field of derivatives investment) the credit institution goes to a reversal of the amount pledged, a credit that the customer's account for an amount equal to the initial charge (margin release). In the above example, the account is credited with their amount 100.000 €. In some cases the reversal is made for a different amount primarily because the closing of the transaction can not, mainly for technical reasons, be for the same amount which was opening. Also often a transaction gradually closed (each time for only part of the value of) within the same day or on different dates. In this case the amount committed (margin) is gradually released, depending on the part of the transaction (the number of "contracts" which liquidated).

3) At the close of the transaction the customer's account is credited or debited to the profit achieved or damage suffered by the closing of the transaction, as an amount with a positive or negative sign, as credit or charge of the account that the customer maintains in the credit institution.

4) For each transaction, the further charges corresponding to it are recorded, above all the taxes withheld by the credit institution against its client (in case of profits) as well as the supply (payment) of the credit institution (independent of making a profit).

The preceding analysis is extremely important for accurately assessing the size of the risks actually incurred by investing in derivatives. If a customer of a credit institution sees, in the information received from the credit institution (statement), that an amount of value has been "invested" 100.000 € in derivatives probably takes that 100.000 € is the value of its investment. In reality, however, the obligations he undertakes are, it depends on the situation, much higher, after the "invested" amount (here the 100.000 €) simply corresponds to the margin, in the amount that is pledged from his account as collateral for any losses he will suffer: The real investment (the obligations undertaken by the client of the credit institution) amounts to a multiple of. If l.ch. the margin applied by a credit institution for derivative transactions amounting to more normal rate of 5%, commitment amount of EUR 100.000 € means really amounted commitments (100.000 : 5% =) 2.000.000 €. Consequently, the customer of the credit institution sees in the information he receives from the credit institution (statement) as allegedly "invested" amounts of capital that are many times more than its liabilities from the transactions in which the credit institution proceeds on its behalf. Thus, if the customer does not have the necessary specialized knowledge on the technique of derivative trading, is strongly misled as to the risks it incurs with its investments. It is about, as explained below for a type of leverage, which, like any lever, is particularly risky even for experienced investors. (Minutes, in the information notes (statement) does not show the actual amount of liabilities incurred by the parties with the management of their funds by the credit institutions. Conversely, derivative exposures and closures, which capture information appearing in their portfolio management information notes, record only the margin of safety (margin), that is, the amounts that credit institutions freeze from the parties' account as collateral to cover any losses. These amounts are many times the actual liabilities of investing in derivatives.

D. The risks of derivatives and in particular of futures contracts (futures)

The peculiarities of the derivatives emerge from the previous analysis, and in particular futures contracts (futures),as investment products and the particularly risky nature of investing in them. More specifically:

1.Speculation

It cannot be ruled out that some of those who trade in derivatives act in order to meet their real needs.. For example, a construction company that relies heavily on oil interest to ensure against possible surges in world oil prices, which would lead to great damage. For this reason he prepares or buys ("Open a transaction") a futures contract for oil, in which the company appears as oil buyer. If oil prices rise, the company has losses from its business, however it will have gains from the rising oil prices they cover (partially) its losses; if, on the other hand, oil prices fall, the company will have profits from its activity, which will cover (partially) its losses from the derivative. In this case, the transaction in the derivative has a compensatory purpose for the company, as it is intended to protect it from an unexpected adverse change. Accordingly, the transaction is not for profit.

But in the vast majority of cases, derivatives traders do not have, in terms of their activity, no material relation to the underlying value of the derivative in which they are traded (here the oil). Their sole purpose is speculation: In essence, they are betting on the rise (if they are sellers) or falling prices (if they are buyers) in order to make a profit from the relevant fluctuation at the expense of their counterparty. In fact, it is a zero-sum game: The gains of one arise directly from the loss of the other; in other words, cumulatively the two parties have not, before and after the transaction, somehow magnifies their fortune. So in the case of shares the shareholder intends, not only on profits from the resale of share, but also (perhaps above all) the profitability of the company itself which acquires shares (therefore in future dividends), in the case of derivatives, the expected profit is linked exclusively to the expected loss of the counterparty (and vice versa). Thus, can hardly speak of investing in the usual sense of the term: The "invested" money does not generate revenues (as in the case of stock dividend) but are solely the basis of a bet with the counterparty; investing in derivatives is in itself completely counterproductive.

2.Risk of losses greater than the invested capital

From the very basic form of transaction in derivatives, and regardless of the complications of trading in regulated markets, it follows directly that the parties undertake mutual obligations: The seller undertakes the obligation to deliver the goods sold (of the underlying value, in this case oil) at the agreed time, and the buyer undertakes to pay the agreed price. So what risk do they take?; Since neither the seller has the goods sold (here oil) nor does the buyer care about the goods being sold, the parties run the risk of fluctuating the international prices of the goods sold: If the price rises more than expected, the seller will be asked to pay more money in order to obtain, at the time due to the fulfillment of the contract, the goods sold to meet its obligations to the buyer. But how much more; Obviously the more the price of the good increases than expected, the greater the damage.

Example: In the example where A sells to B. 10.000 barrels of oil for a total price 1.000.000 € (100 € barrel), if the price of oil rises to 110 € barrel, the loss of A amounts to 100,000; if the price of oil rises to 200 € barrel, A's damage amounts to 1.000.000 €; if the price of oil rises to 300 € barrel, the damage of A amounts to 2.000.000 € κοκ.

It follows from the very nature of the derivative that there is in principle no restriction of damage, given the price of the goods sold in international markets (and hence the damage) can be increased indefinitely. consequently, the value of the transaction itself when drawing it up does not constitute a limitation on the final loss: Even if one undertakes a value obligation, at the time of opening the transaction, 1.000.000 €, it is not excluded that his losses will reach the height 2.000.000 €. For comparison: When one buys shares, of course it risks losing the capital it invested if the stock completely loses its value; but it can not lose more. Conversely, in transactions with derivatives the seller risks ending up with liabilities many times the amount of his original liability.

The lack of inherent limitations on the amount of damage that can be suffered from derivative transactions becomes even more dangerous for traders if one takes into account the high leverage., inherent in derivative transactions. Because of leverage, small changes have particularly big consequences for investors. So, in order to have losses of one's order 200%, a change in the value of the underlying value is sufficient under the circumstances (here of oil) of the class e.g.. of 10% (cf.. immediately following).

3.High leverage

According to the above, derivatives traders are often unaware that they have specific obligations to another member of the regulated market in which derivatives are traded., that is, they become parties to a contract of sale. What they usually know is that they are "investing" an amount in derivatives; however, simply drawing up a sales contract does not require a down payment.. But how is this "paradox" explained?

The "paradox" is explained if one takes into account the margin of safety (margin)requested by regulated markets, and consequently credit institutions providing related investment services, as in this case the defendants: In order to make the opening of the transaction for a client account, the credit institution freezes from the client's account an amount which is to serve as collateral for the fulfillment of its obligations. This amount is returned to the customer (is released) increased by the profit made by the customer from the transaction or reduced by the loss suffered by the customer. The margin is calculated as a percentage of the value of the transaction (amounts to for example in 5%, depending on the underlying value of the derivative, the regulated market in which the transaction is opened, customer solvency etc) and is the only amount that the customer of the credit institution sees as allegedly "invested" in derivatives. Safety margin (margin) of his class 5% is a very common percentage in derivatives trading (cf.. in more detail Augoulea / Marie, WEU 2007, 1150).

This practice to be considered as "invested" in derivatives only a percentage of the amount of liabilities assumed is very risky because it exponentially increases the risk.

Suppose, for example, that the security margin required by a credit institution to invest in derivatives (margin) amounts to 5% on the value of the transaction (percentage not at all unusual in the relevant transactions), this means the value of the transaction, the amount of the obligations undertaken by the investor, is (100 : 5 =) 20more than the "invested" amount, 20ie in relation to the amount that the credit institution freezes from the customer's account as a security margin (margin). So if the credit institution is said to "invest" in derivatives 100.000 €, the actual value of the customer 's commitments amounts to (20 Χ 100.000 € =) 2.000.000 €, after the "invested" amount (that is, the amount that the client sees deducted from his account for the purpose of the investment) is just a margin of safety (margin) height 5% on the value of the transaction.

It is therefore obvious that the profits and losses from derivatives are many times the amount shown as "invested" (in fact the amount paid as a margin). This risk is better understood by using an example.

Example: Suppose that in the example above the credit institution operating in the relevant regulated market on behalf of A (seller) applies a margin of safety (margin) percentage 5%. If the credit institution "invests" 100.000 € in petroleum products (opening a point of sale), the obligation undertaken by this "investment" A amounts to 20 times its capital, since the capital of 100.000 € paid to the credit institution by A is just the margin of safety (margin) height 5%: In fact, A took over with their "investment" 100.000 € the obligation to sell value oil (100.000 € X 20 =) 2.000.000 € (20.000 barrels, if the price for each barrel is agreed at 100 €). So if, contrary to the expectations of A., oil rise from 100 € barrel in 110 € (height increase 10%), the damage that A will suffer amounts to a height 200.000: A is forced, to fulfill his obligations to B. (buyer), to buy 20.000 barrels of oil from third parties versus 110 € barrel, ie for a total price (110 € X 20.000 barrels =) 2.200.000 €. Given now that A has a claim against B for payment 2.000.000 € as a price for oil, the difference (2.200.000 € – 2.000.000 € =) 200.000 € constitutes the loss of A. So while the price of oil has just risen 10%, A's damage eventually amounts to 200% of its so-called "invested" capital: A allegedly "invested" 100.000 € and at the closing of the transaction, not only lost them 100.000 € he had invested, but has to pay to the credit institution acting on its behalf in the regulated market where derivatives are traded other 100.000 €. Of course, if the price of oil had fallen by 10%, the profit of A. (and respectively the damage of B.) would amount to 200% of the so-called "invested" capital.

Accordingly, any investment in derivatives constitutes a particularly risky capital leverage: A relatively small amount of capital can bring in very large profits and correspondingly large losses. If the margin of safety (margin) amounts to 5%, any fluctuation of the value of the underlying value (in this case oil) against 1%, brings gains or losses (depending on whether one is lucky or unlucky - it's a bet anyway) height 20% on the invested capital. For comparison: If anyone, instead of derivatives, invest in stocks, any fluctuation of the stock price by 1% causes the investor losses or profits of just 1%.

The issue of capital leverage described here is extremely important for the evaluation of investments in derivatives: The possibility of very large losses, which often exceed the value of the invested capital resulting in the investor not only losing everything he invested, but also owes more, it is not just theoretical but completely realistic.

For comparison: If one invests by buying shares of various companies, in order to lose all its capital the value of the shares must be reduced by 100% (practically impossible), while even then the loss is by definition limited to the invested capital. If on the contrary one invests in derivatives, is enough (below the perfectly normal margin of safety 5%, cf.. l.ch. Augoulea / Marie, WEU 2007, 1150) a variation of its order 5% contrary to the investor's expectations of losing all invested capital. If the variation is greater, the investor is also left in debt as he has to pay the difference; with a variation of his order 10% the investor suffers losses twice his capital etc.

4. High volatility of oil prices

Derivative risks are further enhanced by the very nature of the underlying value (in this case oil): From the fact that the value of a derivative transaction is by definition related to the value of the underlying value (of the goods sold) it follows that the more volatile the international prices of the underlying value, the greater the fluctuations in the price of the goods sold in the markets, the larger the range of threatening losses for the parties respectively.

Example: If the usual fluctuations in the price of a good in international markets do not exceed 2%, the extent of possible losses on "invested capital" (in fact the margin margin) rises, (with a margin of safety (margin) height 5%) to twenty times the variance, that is, in (2% Χ 20 =) 40% (cf.. for the calculation immediately above). If again the usual fluctuations in the price of a good in international markets amount to 10%, the range of possible damages amounts to (for the same margin) in (10% X 20 =) 200%. So if someone has made an "investment" of height 100.000 € (that is, it has provided a margin of safety (margin) rising in height 5%), with fluctuations in the values ​​of the underlying height value 2%, in danger of losing up (40% Χ 100.000 € =) 40.000 €. However, if the price fluctuations of the underlying value amount to 10% is in danger of losing (200% Χ 100.000 € =) 200.000 €, that is, twice the amount of capital invested. Of course, according to the above, that, if in fact the fluctuations of international prices are greater, the losses will be correspondingly greater.

The course of oil prices since July is indicative 2010 until June 2011 (source: http://www.indexmundi.com):

CrudeOil - Monthly price per barrel

Month Price (€) Difference

07/2010 58,37

08/2010 58,86 0.84 %

09/2010 58,24 -1.07 %

10/2010 58,81 0.99 %

11/2010 61,56 4.67 %

12/2010 68,14 10.69 %

01/2011 69,37 1.81 %

02/2011 71,61 3.23 %

03/2011 77,62 8.39 %

04/2011 80,56 3.79 %

05/2011 75,4 -6.40 %

06/2011 73,57 -2.42 %

From the lowest price (September 2010: 58,24 €) to the highest (April 2011: 80,56 €) there is an increase in its order 38%. In view of these very large fluctuations, so one realizes how big it is (in combination with the ever-present high-leverage derivatives) the potential loss that can be suffered by an investor who invests his money in petroleum products.

Example: If the margin of safety (margin) amounts to a height 5%, the extent of the damage, rises, with variation of its order 38%, in (38% Χ 20 =) 760%. consequently, with "invested" capital (in fact with a margin of safety) height 100.000 €, with fluctuations in the price of oil of its order 38%, the losses may amount to a total (100.000 € X 760% =) 760.000 €. In other words, the investor will have to pay, in addition to the lost margin margin, in addition to 660.000 €.