I'm not generally a fan of insurance companies investing in anything more
dangerous than investment grade bonds.
Not exact matches
At the time the former seemed a more
dangerous risk
than the latter — although even then massive overinvestment was China's true vulnerability — but I think by now there is a rapidly developing consensus that
investment, and the unsustainable concomitant increase in debt, is China's biggest problem.
In my opinion, this recommendation is a
dangerous one, because the recommended fund has a different and far more risker
investment philosophy
than the original fund.
To further this idea, the value of options contracts fluctuates to an equally greater degree
than the value of their underlying asset, making options a very lucrative, but equally
dangerous,
investment medium.
In theory, even if the above factors are in place, you need to be aware that share dealing and working with a stockbroker is a risky business and is more
dangerous than purchasing shares through
investment funds such as
investment trusts.
I also pointed out why I believe the risk profile on bonds is currently upside down, arguing that for one of the few times in history they may actually be more
dangerous an
investment than equities.
Anyway, I might disagree with your whole thesis, regardless — emerging markets are no more
dangerous than developed markets: Yes, people always fearfully imagine losing 100 % of their
investment in an emerging market — and v rarely that can happen — but they prefer to ignore the fact that in the credit crisis, on their own doorstep, they lost all their home equity, 50 % of their stock portfolio, and the rest was confiscated in taxes & unsustainable future tax / entitleement / debt burdens...
The awkward release of BTG makes it a much more
dangerous investment than Bitcoin Cash.