Folgen Sie uns


Das FOMC-Protokoll im Wortlaut

Markus Fugmann



Staff Economic Outlook

In the economic forecast prepared by the staff for the June FOMC meeting, real GDP growth in the second half of this year was expected to step up from its pace in the first half. However, economic growth in the second half was projected to be a little lower than in the projection prepared for the April meeting, largely reflecting a small downward revision to the forecast for household spending. The staff’s medium-term projection for real GDP growth was essentially unrevised from the previous forecast. The staff continued to project that real GDP would expand at a faster pace than potential output in 2016 and 2017, supported primarily by increases in consumer spending, even as the normalization of the stance of monetary policy was assumed to proceed. The expansion in economic output over the medium term was anticipated to trim resource slack; the unemployment rate was expected to decline gradually to the staff’s estimate of its longer-run natural rate.

The staff’s forecast for inflation in the near term was little changed, and it was unrevised over the medium term. Energy prices and non-oil import prices were expected to begin steadily rising next year, but the staff projected that inflation would continue to be below the Committee’s longer-run objective of 2 percent over 2016 and 2017. However, inflation was anticipated to reach 2 percent thereafter, with inflation expectations in the longer run assumed to be consistent with the Committee’s objective and slack in labor and product markets projected to have waned.

The staff viewed the extent of uncertainty around its June projections for real GDP growth, the unemployment rate, and inflation as similar to the average over the past 20 years. The risks to the forecasts for real GDP growth and inflation were seen as tilted a little to the downside, reflecting the staff’s assessment that neither monetary policy nor fiscal policy was well positioned to help the economy withstand substantial adverse shocks. At the same time, the staff saw the risks around its outlook for the unemployment rate as roughly balanced.

Participants‘ Views on Current Conditions and the Economic Outlook
In conjunction with this FOMC meeting, members of the Board of Governors and Federal Reserve Bank presidents submitted their projections of the most likely outcomes for real GDP growth, the unemployment rate, inflation, and the federal funds rate for each year from 2015 through 2017 and over the longer run, conditional on each participant’s judgment of appropriate monetary policy.5 The longer-run projections represent each participant’s assessment of the rate to which each variable would be expected to converge, over time, under appropriate monetary policy and in the absence of further shocks to the economy. These projections and policy assessments are described in the Summary of Economic Projections, which is an addendum to these minutes.

In their discussion of the economic situation and the outlook, meeting participants viewed the information received over the intermeeting period as indicating that economic activity was expanding moderately after little change in the first quarter of the year. Early in 2015, a number of factors–including unfavorable weather in parts of the country and labor disputes at West Coast ports–temporarily held down real GDP; several analy-ses also suggested that difficulties with seasonal adjustment likely contributed to an underestimate of first-quarter real GDP. The unemployment rate was unchanged over the period between the April and June meetings, but payroll employment posted solid gains, and, on balance, a range of labor market indicators suggested that underutilization of labor resources diminished somewhat. Although participants marked down their expectations for the rate of increase in real GDP over the first half of the year, their projections for economic growth in the second half of 2015 and over 2016 and 2017 were broadly similar to those prepared for the March meeting. Under their respective assumptions about appropriate monetary policy, participants generally expected real GDP to expand at a rate sufficient to continue to move labor market conditions toward levels judged consistent with the Committee’s dual mandate. Inflation readings available since the April meeting continued to run below the Committee’s longer-run objective, partly reflecting earlier declines in energy prices and continued decreases in prices of non-energy imports. However, energy prices appeared to have stabilized. Participants continued to project a gradual rise in inflation toward 2 percent over the medium term as the labor market improved further and the transitory effects of earlier declines in energy and import prices dissipated.

In discussing how to interpret the reported weakness in real GDP during the first quarter, participants considered alternative estimates of real economic activity based on various data-filtering models maintained by Board and Reserve Bank staff. These models yielded a range of estimates, but, overall, they suggested that real activity in the first quarter was likely stronger than the then-current official estimate of real GDP. Some participants indicated that the higher alternative estimates seemed more consistent with the increases in real gross domestic income and private domestic final purchases in the first quarter as well as the strength in employment and hours worked. However, the alternative estimates left open the question of when and to what extent the seasonal adjustment and other measurement issues associated with official estimates of GDP in the first quarter might unwind.

While participants generally saw the risks to their projections of economic activity and the labor market as balanced, they gave a number of reasons to be cautious in assessing the outlook. Some pointed to the risk that the weaker-than-anticipated rise in economic activity over the first half of the year could reflect factors that might continue to restrain sales and production, and that economic activity might not have sufficient momentum to sustain progress toward the Committee’s objectives. In particular, they were concerned that consumers could remain cautious or that the drag on sectors affected by lower energy prices and the higher dollar could persist. Others, however, viewed the strength in the labor market in recent months as potentially signaling a stronger-than-expected bounceback in economic activity. Several mentioned their uncertainty about whether Greece and its official creditors would reach an agreement and about the likely pace of economic growth abroad, particularly in China and other emerging market economies. Other concerns were related to whether the apparent weakness in productivity growth recently would be reversed or continue. On the one hand, a rebound in productivity growth in coming quarters might restrain hiring and slow the improvement in labor market conditions. On the other hand, if productivity growth remained weak, the labor market might tighten more quickly and inflation might rise more rapidly than anticipated.

At the time of the April meeting, the increase in consumer spending was estimated to have been unexpectedly weak in the first quarter following strong gains in the second half of 2014. The additional information that had become available since then, including more complete estimates of outlays for services and revised data on retail sales, indicated that consumer spending was somewhat better than previously reported, rising at a moderate pace in the first quarter. In addition, the strong rebound in motor vehicle sales and the solid gain in retail sales in May suggested that the pace of consumer spending was picking up in the current quarter. Moreover, a number of fundamental factors determining consumer spending remained positive, including the boost to real income from the earlier decline in energy prices, low interest rates, sustained moderate gains in wage and salary income, stronger household balance sheets, and the high levels of households‘ confidence about the economic outlook and about their income prospects. Many participants anticipated that these factors would support a solid pace of consumer spending going forward. However, others remained concerned that consumers had not increased their spending as much as expected in response to the drop in energy prices, and that the rise in the saving rate since last fall may signal more cautious behavior among households that might last for some time.

A number of participants noted that housing starts and permits rose considerably in recent months, and indicators of sales activity turned more positive. Nonetheless, home construction was still below the trend that would appear consistent with population growth, sales remained at low levels, and credit availability was still relatively tight.

Reports on manufacturing in a number of regions offered some signs that the sector was no longer weakening, with a couple of Districts‘ diffusion indexes turning up. Still, cutbacks in spending on drilling and mining equipment, slow demand for other business equipment, and the drag on exports from slow foreign demand and previous increases in the dollar continued to weigh on industrial production. Motor vehicle production was highlighted as a bright spot. In those Districts in which activity had been adversely affected by the drop in energy prices, drilling activity was either contracting less rapidly or was stabilizing. Higher oil production could continue to hold down energy prices in the near term, but industry contacts anticipated some recovery in prices over the coming year, which should stem layoffs and cuts in capital spending in the energy sector. Agricultural production in several Districts appeared likely to benefit from wet weather, but weak farm income continued to weigh on the sector. Several participants reported that the services sector was a relative source of strength in their Districts. In general, business contacts continued to express optimism about stronger sales and production in the second half of the year.

In their discussion of labor market conditions, participants offered their views on recent developments and the progress that had occurred in reducing underutilization of labor resources. They generally agreed that labor market conditions had improved somewhat over the intermeeting period, variously citing solid increases in payroll employment and job openings; low levels of unemployment insurance claims; and, despite an unchanged unemployment rate, some further reduction in broader measures of underutilization, particularly among those not actively searching for jobs, but available and interested in work. Several participants pointed to some favorable trends that had developed over a longer period, such as the flattening out of the labor force participation rate and a shift in the flow of workers into more stable and higher-skilled jobs. A number of participants noted that the outlook for continued job gains was evident in reports on hiring intentions from business contacts in their Districts who indicated that more firms planned additions to their payrolls over the coming year than a year earlier. While the cumulative improvements in labor market conditions over the past year had been substantial, most participants judged that further progress would be required to eliminate underutilization of labor resources; some of them anticipated that the utilization gap would close around the end of the year. Several other participants indicated that, in their view, labor market slack had already been largely eliminated.

The ongoing rise in labor demand appeared to have begun to result in a firming of wage increases. Recent readings on the employment cost index, hourly compensation, and average hourly earnings of employees suggested some acceleration in wages. According to business contacts in a number of Districts, many firms looking for new workers said they had been raising wages selectively to attract them; some had also begun to raise wages more generally. However, several participants pointed out that, even with the recent upturn, wage increases remain subdued.

Participants discussed how the incoming information regarding inflation influenced their expectations for reaching the FOMC’s 2 percent inflation objective over the medium term. Total PCE inflation continued to run below the Committee’s objective. However, participants noted that the apparent stabilization of crude oil prices and the foreign exchange value of the dollar would reduce the downward pressure on inflation from falling prices of energy and imported goods. Core PCE price inflation, as measured on a 12-month change basis, had slowed slightly from an already low rate. However, several participants pointed out that the 3-month change in that index had firmed recently, signaling some improvement in the inflation outlook. In addition, some cited alternative measures of inflation, such as the trimmed mean and median consumer price indexes (CPIs) and the trimmed mean PCE, which continued to run at higher levels than overall PCE inflation. Survey measures of longer-term inflation expectations remained stable, and market-based measures of inflation compensation, while still low, were higher than earlier in the year. Nonetheless, a couple of participants continued to be concerned that the extended period of low inflation might persist and feed through to inflation expectations, citing estimates from various inflation forecasting models and the downtrend in the 10-year CPI projections in the Survey of Professional Forecasters. Participants continued to anticipate that, with appropriate monetary policy, inflation would move up to or toward the Committee’s objective over the medium term. Among the factors influencing the trajectories of their inflation forecasts were their outlooks for the pace of real activity, labor market conditions and wage developments, and inflation expectations.

In their discussion of financial market developments over the intermeeting period, several participants commented on the rise in the 10-year Treasury yield, which accompanied a steeper run-up in the 10-year German yield. The sharp rise in German yields appeared to reflect a retracing of the earlier decline in German rates to unsustainably low levels. It was noted that the increase in U.S. yields was not especially large in a historical context and that volatility in U.S. fixed-income markets was still somewhat below pre-crisis levels. However, many participants expressed concern that a failure of Greece and its official creditors to resolve their differences could result in disruptions in financial markets in the euro area, with possible spillover effects on the United States. And some participants reiterated the importance of effective Committee communications in reducing the likelihood of an outsized financial market reaction around the time that policy normalization begins.

During their discussion of economic conditions and monetary policy, participants commented on a number of considerations associated with the timing and pace of policy normalization. Most participants judged that the conditions for policy firming had not yet been achieved; a number of them cautioned against a premature decision. Many participants emphasized that, in order to determine that the criteria for beginning policy normalization had been met, they would need additional information indicating that economic growth was strengthening, that labor market conditions were continuing to improve, and that inflation was moving back toward the Committee’s objective. Other concerns that were mentioned were the potential erosion of the Committee’s credibility if inflation were to persist below 2 percent and the limited ability of monetary policy to offset downside shocks to inflation and economic activity when the federal funds rate was at its effective lower bound. Some participants viewed the economic conditions for increasing the target range for the federal funds rate as having been met or were confident that they would be met shortly. They identified several possible risks associated with delaying the start of policy firming. One such risk was the possibility that the Committee might need to tighten more rapidly than financial markets currently anticipate–an outcome that could be associated with a significant rise in longer-term interest rates or heightened financial market volatility. Another was that prolonging a high degree of monetary policy accommodation might result in an undesirable increase in inflation or might have adverse consequences for financial and macroeconomic stability. It was also pointed out that a prompt start to normalization would likely convey the Committee’s confidence in prospects for the economy. During the discussion, a number of participants recommended that, around the time of the first increase in the target range, the Committee consider how it would update its communications regarding the likely path of the federal funds rate, with several indicating that the Committee should remain data dependent in making adjustments to the target range.

Participants also discussed plans for publishing operational details regarding the implementation of monetary policy around the time of the first increase in the target range. All participants supported a staff proposal for the Federal Reserve to issue an implementation note that would communicate separately from the Committee’s postmeeting policy statement the specific measures to be employed to implement the FOMC’s decision about the stance of policy. Following scheduled FOMC meetings, this implementation note would be released at the same time as the Committee’s postmeeting statement; it would convey operational details regarding the settings of the policy tools and the changes in administered rates being employed to achieve the Committee’s desired stance of policy, and it would include the FOMC’s domestic policy directive to the Desk. If adjustments to policy tools or administered rates subsequently proved necessary to implement an unchanged policy stance, the implementation note could be revised without altering the Committee’s policy statement. Participants agreed that this strategy provided a number of advantages, including focusing the Committee’s postmeeting statement on information about economic conditions and the stance of monetary policy; communicating the details of policymakers‘ operational decisions, including the FOMC’s domestic policy directive, in one place; reducing the risk that Federal Reserve communications regarding any technical adjustments to the operation of its policy tools after the commencement of policy firming might be mistaken as conveying information about the stance of policy; and emphasizing that operational decisions regarding the Federal Reserve’s policy tools will be made in concert by the Federal Reserve Board and the FOMC with the aim of maintaining the federal funds rate in the range established by the FOMC. Participants also discussed how the language of the domestic policy directive could be revised when the first increase in the target range for the federal funds rate becomes appropriate. It was noted that the Committee might, in addition to providing specific instructions to the Desk regarding operations at that time, update other language in the directive.

Committee Policy Action
In its discussion of monetary policy for the period ahead, the Committee agreed that the weakness in the first quarter was at least in part the result of transitory factors, and members anticipated that economic growth would resume in the second quarter. Although they expressed some uncertainty about the extent of the likely near-term pickup, members expected moderate economic growth over the medium term. Labor market conditions had improved somewhat further, and members anticipated further progress in coming months. Ongoing gains in employment and wages along with a high level of consumer confidence were expected to provide support to household spending. Signs of stronger housing activity were encouraging. However, the outlook for business investment remained soft, and net exports were likely to continue to be restrained by the earlier appreciation of the dollar. Inflation had been well below the Committee’s longer-run objective, but, with oil prices and the foreign exchange value of the dollar stabilizing, members expected that inflation would gradually rise toward 2 percent over the medium term. Members thus saw economic conditions as continuing to approach those consistent with warranting a start to the normalization of the stance of monetary policy. In these circumstances, members agreed to continue making decisions about the appropriate target range for the federal funds rate on a meeting-by-meeting basis, with their decisions depending on the implications of economic and financial developments for the prospects for labor markets and inflation.

With respect to its objective of maximum employment, the Committee judged that, on balance, a range of labor market indicators suggested that underutilization of labor resources had diminished somewhat over the intermeeting period. Most members saw room for additional progress in reducing labor market slack, while a couple of members indicated that they viewed the unemployment rate as very close or essentially identical to its mandate-consistent level. Many expected that labor market underutilization would be largely eliminated around year-end if economic activity strengthened as they expected. However, some members were more uncertain about the extent of progress in the labor market to date or were concerned that if the pace of economic growth remained slow, labor market conditions might improve only gradually. Most agreed that they would need more information on developments in the labor market to establish a solid basis for assessing whether labor market conditions had improved sufficiently to initiate tightening.

Inflation had continued to run below the Committee’s 2 percent objective. Most members agreed that the recent stability in crude oil prices had increased their confidence that the downward pressure on inflation from earlier declines in energy prices was abating, and some noted the recent stability of the foreign exchange value of the dollar, which could eventually stem the decline in prices of imports. Market-based measures of inflation compensation remained low, but they had risen some from their levels earlier in the year, and survey measures of inflation expectations continued to be stable. However, core inflation was still well below 2 percent. The Committee agreed to continue to monitor inflation developments closely. In considering the Committee’s criteria for beginning policy normalization, all members but one indicated that they would need to see more evidence that economic growth was sufficiently strong and labor market conditions had firmed enough to return inflation to the Committee’s longer-run objective over the medium term; one member was already reasonably confident of such an outcome.

The Committee concluded that, although it had seen some progress, the conditions warranting an increase in the target range for the federal funds rate had not yet been met, and that additional information on the outlook, particularly for labor markets and inflation, would be necessary before deciding to implement such an increase. One member, however, indicated a readiness to take that step at this meeting but also expressed a willingness to wait another meeting or two for additional data before raising the target range.

In considering how to communicate the rationale for the Committee’s policy decision, members discussed the importance of adjusting the language in the postmeeting statement to acknowledge the evolution of progress toward the Committee’s objectives. The Committee judged it appropriate to communicate that it had seen some further improvement in labor market conditions over the intermeeting period, stating that a range of labor market indicators suggested that underutilization of labor resources diminished somewhat. It also decided to indicate the likelihood that energy prices might soon exert less downward influence on inflation, saying that energy prices appeared to have stabilized, and to restate its expectation that inflation would rise gradually toward 2 percent over the medium term as the labor market improves further and the transitory effects of earlier declines in energy and import prices dissipate.

The Committee agreed to maintain the target range for the federal funds rate at 0 to 1/4 percent and to reaffirm in the statement that the Committee’s decision about how long to maintain the current target range for the federal funds rate would depend on its assessment of actual and expected progress toward its objectives of maximum employment and 2 percent inflation. Members continued to judge that their evaluation of progress on their objectives would take into account a wide range of information, including measures of labor market conditions, indicators of inflation pressures and inflation expectations, and readings on financial and international developments. Members agreed to retain the indication that the Committee anticipates that it will be appropriate to raise the target range for the federal funds rate when it has seen further improvement in the labor market and is reasonably confident that inflation will move back to its 2 percent objective over the medium term.

The Committee also maintained its policy of reinvesting principal payments from agency debt and agency mortgage-backed securities in agency mortgage-backed securities and of rolling over maturing Treasury securities at auction. This policy, by keeping the Committee’s holdings of longer-term securities at sizable levels, should help maintain accommodative financial conditions. The Committee agreed to reiterate its expectation that, even after employment and inflation are near mandate-consistent levels, economic conditions may, for some time, warrant keeping the target federal funds rate below levels the Committee views as normal in the longer run.

Voting for this action: Janet L. Yellen, William C. Dudley, Lael Brainard, Charles L. Evans, Stanley Fischer, Jeffrey M. Lacker, Dennis P. Lockhart, Jerome H. Powell, Daniel K. Tarullo, and John C. Williams.

Voting against this action: None.

Hier klicken und kommentieren

Hinterlassen Sie eine Antwort

Ihre E-Mail-Adresse wird nicht veröffentlicht. Erforderliche Felder sind mit * markiert.

ACHTUNG: Wenn Sie den Kommentar abschicken stimmen Sie der Speicherung Ihrer Daten zur Verwendung der Kommentarfunktion zu.
Weitere Information finden Sie in unserer Zur Datenschutzerklärung


Immer mehr zusätzliche Luft für die Aktienblase, Branchenrotation dank Biden

Claudio Kummerfeld



Derzeit gibt es immer mehr zusätzliche Luft zum weiteren Aufblähen der globalen Aktienblase, so ein Experte im folgenden Gespräch mit Manuel Koch. Notenbanken und Stimulus-Maßnahmen würden die Blase weiter befeuern. Dabei würden sich die Börsenbewertungen immer mehr von der realwirtschaftlichen Wirklichkeit entfernen. Deswegen sollten die Anleger Bestände gegen Verluste absichern. Auch interessant sind die Aussagen über eine Branchenrotation bei US-Aktien. Dank des neuen US-Präsidenten Joe Biden würden Branchen wie Pharma und alternative Energien profitieren, dafür könnte zum Beispiel die Ölindustrie verlieren.

Im Video auch besprochen werden zwei Handelsideen der trading house-Börsenakademie. Bei Netflix könne man market kaufen, und bei Microsoft könne man über das Vehikel einer Stop-Buy-Order auf steigende Kurse setzen.

Hier klicken, um den Inhalt von YouTube anzuzeigen



Aber CFDs sind Termingeschäfte? Verbände für steuerliche Bevorzugung von Optionsscheinen

Claudio Kummerfeld



Aktives Trading mit CFDs und Optionsscheinen könnte problematisch werden

Was sind CFDs? Die „Contracts for Difference“ erlauben gehebelte Wetten auf steigende und fallende Kurse. Die CFDs können Anleger zeitlich unbefristet lange halten. Und Optionsscheine? Die haben einen fest definierten Ablaufzeitpunkt. Und wie definiert man Termingeschäfte? In Kurzform: Dies sind Börsengeschäfte, bei denen die Erfüllung des Vertrags (Abnahme und Lieferung der Ware) zu einem späteren Termin erfolgt. Also sind Optionsscheine doch Termingeschäfte, und CFDs irgendwie nicht so richtig?

Egal. Wenn der Gesetzgeber eine Feststellung trifft, dann ist das eben so – weil es nun mal der Gesetzgeber ist? So wurde vor Kurzem die seit Anfang Januar gültige Novellierung des Einkommensteuergesetzes beschlossen, wonach Verluste aus „Termingeschäften“ nur noch bis zu 20.000 Euro pro Jahr mit Gewinnen aus Termingeschäften verrechnet werden dürfen. Dadurch wird die bizarre Realität entstehen, dass Anleger Steuern auf Gewinne zahlen müssen, obwohl sie effektiv in einem Börsenjahr im Handel keinen Gewinn erzielt haben (wir berichteten schon mehrmals). Danke Olaf Scholz, darf man da schon mal im Voraus sagen.

Klar zu sein scheint, dass die CFDs in die Kategorie der Termingeschäfte fallen im Sinne dieser Novelle des Einkommenssteuergesetzes – wohl ganz einfach, weil der Gesetzgeber es so will. Aber auch Optionsscheine, die per Definition doch viel eher Termingeschäfte sind? Wie man derzeit munkelt, wird das Bundesfinanzministerium noch eine Klarstellung für die ausführenden Steuerbehörden veröffentlichen, aus welcher hervorgehen könnte, dass auch Optionsscheine als Termingeschäfte zu betrachten wären. Das würde den Kreis der betroffenen Anleger deutlich erweitern.

Lobbyarbeit für Optionsscheine – von CFDs ist keine Rede

Aber halt. CFDs werden fast komplett von angelsächsischen und Offshore-Anbietern angeboten. Optionsscheine sind die Kinder der deutschen Bankenbranche. Und drei Mal darf man raten, wer den besseren Draht zu BaFin, Bundesfinanzministerium, Staatssekretären etc haben könnte? Diese Woche sieht man vom Deutschen Derivate-Verband, der Börse Stuttgart und der Deutschen Schutzvereinigung für Wertpapierbesitz (DSW) einen offiziellen Appell an das Bundesfinanzministerium (siehe hier), worin man eindringlich dazu auffordert Optionsscheine bezüglich dieser Neuregelung nicht als Termingeschäfte einzustufen. Man möchte also erreichen, dass Anleger auch weiterhin unbegrenzt Verluste aus Optionsscheinen mit Gewinnen aus Optionsscheinen verrechnen dürfen.

Gibt der Gesetzgeber dem nach, wäre dies ein glasklarer Vorteil für die Anbieter von Optionsscheinen, und ein riesiger Nachteil für die ausländischen CFD-Anbieter. Und wer ist denn Mitglied im Deutschen Derivate-Verband? Eben nicht die CFD-Anbieter, sondern so ziemlich alle deutschen Anbieter von Zertifikaten und Optionsscheinen, wie Deutsche Bank, Deka, Hypo, LBBW, DZ, Baader usw. Für CFDs bitten sie nicht um eine Ausnahme, sondern nur für Optionsscheine. Und die DSW? Hat sie die CFDs schon aufgegeben, und hofft nun noch darauf, wenigstens noch die Optionsscheine vor diesem Steuerirrsinn retten zu können? Aus dem Appell zitieren wir hier auszugsweise im Wortlaut:

Der Deutsche Derivate Verband (DDV), die Börse Stuttgart und die Deutsche Schutzvereinigung für Wertpapierbesitz (DSW) appellieren an das Bundesfinanzministerium, die Linie aus dem Juni 2020 beizubehalten und Optionsscheine nicht als Termingeschäfte einzuordnen. Im Entwurf des Anwendungsschreibens des BMF vom Juni 2020 wurden Optionsscheine nicht als Termingeschäfte klassifiziert und damit eine klare, angemessene Abgrenzung erreicht. Damit wird vermieden, dass Anleger in der Depotgestaltung beeinträchtigt werden und zudem aufwendige individuelle Veranlagungen vornehmen müssen. Anderenfalls drohen schwere steuerliche Nachteile, nachträgliche Steuerzahlungen und Unsicherheiten für hunderttausende von Anlegern. Für Termingeschäfte sieht das Jahressteuergesetz, das seit Jahresbeginn gilt, eine begrenzte Verlustverrechnungsmöglichkeit nur mit anderen Termingeschäften und Erträgen aus Stillhaltegeschäften vor.

Marc Tüngler, DSW-Hauptgeschäftsführer: „Die steuerliche Neuregelung der Verlustverrechnung ist ein weiterer herber Schlag für Privatanleger und führt zu massiven Verunsicherungen. Vom Grundsatz her halten wir die Regelung insgesamt für verfassungswidrig. Der Entwurf des BMF-Schreibens war immerhin ein fairer Vorschlag, wie die Anwendung zumindest in Bezug auf Optionsscheine zu regeln ist, und würde betroffenen Anlegern eine Perspektive geben. Wenn das BMF jetzt von diesem ursprünglichen Entwurf abweicht, weckt das Unverständnis und offenbart einmal mehr die feindliche Gesinnung gegenüber Privatanlegern.“

Würden Optionsscheine jetzt durch das Anwendungsschreiben des BMF den Termingeschäften zugerechnet, wird die neugeschaffene Unwucht im Steuerrecht weiter dramatisch verschärft.

Es gibt gute sachliche Argumente dafür, warum Optionsscheine steuerlich als sonstige Finanzinstrumente und nicht als Termingeschäfte zu klassifizieren sind. Die Klassifizierung sollte anhand der Erfüllungsweise von Optionsgeschäften vorgenommen werden. Diese ist bei Optionsscheinen „Zug-um-Zug“, sie sind daher bei der steuerlichen Behandlung den Kassageschäften zuzurechnen, und nicht den Termingeschäften. Diese Einschätzung wird auch von Wissenschaftlern geteilt.

Eine Studie der WHU aus dem vergangenen Jahr zeigt, dass hunderttausende von Privatanlegern von einer solchen Klassifizierung betroffen wären. Zudem stellt die Studie der WHU fest, dass 68,8 Prozent der Nutzer von Hebelprodukten wie Optionsscheinen diese zur Absicherung einsetzen. Die Beschränkung der Verlustverrechnung erschwert es Anlegern von dieser Möglichkeit Gebrauch zu machen.



Markus Koch LIVE vor dem Handelsstart in New York – Quartalszahlen und Inflation





Markus Koch meldet sich im folgenden Video LIVE vor dem Handelsstart in New York. IBM und Intel werden heute Abend ihre Quartalszahlen veröffentlichen – sie werden von ihm vorab besprochen. Auch das Thema Inflation ist auf der Tagesordnung.

Hier klicken, um den Inhalt von YouTube anzuzeigen



Meist gelesen 7 Tage