meiroy

I take your zerohedge thingie and raise you with a qz double thingie (ok, I have no idea how to play poker) http://qz.com/461369/here-are-the-25-iranian-oil-tankers-waiting-to-ship-out-somewhere-in-the-world/ "Most analysts expect Iran to be able to step up its oil production only next year in the wake of its nuclear agreement with world powers. By that reckoning, any big new plunge in oil prices may also wait until at least the first few months of 2016. But Iran’s oil isn’t only in the ground. While the country has been under stern sanctions for more than two years, it’s been pumping oil and storing it in humongous tankers known as Very Large Crude Carriers (VLCCs) in various places. Iran hasn’t disclosed how much oil is in these tankers, but it’s been variously estimated between 30 million and 50 million barrels. If parceled into the already-saturated market in, say, 250,000-barrel-a-day dollops, that would make oil prices even softer for the four to five months until it was all sold."

SD, My comment about Taleb is based on what I remember of his poor record of actually managing a fund (if I'm wrong, please correct me) I also recall his multiple calls throughout the last few years about coming inflation, everyone should sell their stocks, no point in being in the investment industry and how if you succeed it's just luck etc. I don't follow the guy, that's just the general impression. So this is what it comes down to, can you make money off this guy, *consistently* or not. I mean, yeah, shit happens, and "big shit is going to happen" so if we find a great risk:reward and really low cost and consider it event driven investing, than sure, it can be considered, why not. But, we should be very careful to use second-level thinking and then use third-level confirmation bias. Anyhow, you're the smart guy with the PHD and I'm the anonymous idiot on the forum so what do I know :)

shhughes1116, Thank you for double quoting my post, I have looked at it through my 3D glasses and now see it in a whole different perspective...ooo.. I don't think anything you wrote really contradicts what I said. International politics is a game on its own. For example, the recent agreement with Iran does not mean that the Islamic Republic of Iran is all of a sudden a friend of the U.S. or will stop aggressively acting against U.S. interests. Other than that, I rather not continue with this area of discussion, thank you for replying.

SD, The situation over there is clear. What's also very clear is that Taleb sucked as an investor. I'm not saying that it's not all going to blow up, it might. But than again, a huge gas field was found on Egyptian coast just now, Iran could start selling oil again soon which it has hoarded for so long, the wsj reports today that "Applying newer fracking methods to existing field offers potential for more and cheaper fuel" http://www.wsj.com/articles/drillers-get-super-size-natural-gas-output-1441127955, and if it does explode over there the U.S. can pump it up again etc.. I actually completely agree with the general volatility increase the world is going towards to. So this could be interesting as an event driven speculation but it would have to have extremely low cost and very high risk reward as I for one have no conviction about the timing. edit: so I read that entertainment site [zerohedge] article and after all the blah blah it jumps to the conclusion that this will result in a face-off between the USA and Russia. If anything, this is coordinated between the USA and Russia. Pfft.

Portfolio14, Could you recommend some books about Australian history, economy, society etc.? I hardly know anything about Australia and would love to learn more. Thanks!

Saudi Arabia has plenty of local friends such as Egypt, thanks to a common enemy: Iran. This also answers the question "why do they buy weapons in Russia", see recent agreement with Iran led by the USA. The oil and match thing may or may not happen, seems a bit of a biased wishful thinking. You can also throw ISIS into the picture, why not. So, if it is better/safer to invest in the shovels company: which company would benefit from the increase in M&As and which from the rise of weapons procurement and maintenance.

What bad figures? OK China GDP is probably half or less than official numbers. The impact is already in the market via drop in commodities for a long time now. Commodities were HIGH to begin with due to massive over-investment with little economic value. So now that it is reduced (the bad capital allocation), commodities are going down. This is good for China and good for the world. How is this bad? It's not. Good 3% GDP is much better than shitty 10% GDP or whatever. If THIS is why the market is reacting than it will pass because it will not show in future US economy numbers and people will wake up. So many economists just don't get it, including famous blogs, and just declare it as deflation due to reduced demand when it's obviously not the case. Yesterday fixed rate ceiling on >1 year deposits was abolished. This is HUGE on so many levels. The crash we are having surely has some mechanical (is that the right word?) aspect to it. We'll learn about it soon enough I guess. Regarding the question about all the macro talk, the answer is because it's so much FUN and it's the best thing after sex and we are not allowed to post naked women here so that leaves macro talk. So that's why.

A slowdown in China other than what was mentioned here means lower commodities costs, lower goods costs etc. and this has benefit on its own that can balance things out. There are two sides to the coin. Of course it's more complicated than that, but so far the US economy is resilient, look at new house sales and consumer sentiment from yesterday. And yes there's Europe and Japan who might eventually blow up and all the commodities countries etc. etc. but who knows if it's tomorrow or five years from now (will be faster than we expect when it happens, yes). This drop yesterday seems like technical issues, bots plus low liquidity ETFs and whatever, more than fundamentals. Regarding the general suckiness of the rest of the world there are great opportunities with currency pairs. So I'd go with cheap US equity + Long USD Short Foreign Currency. Recent bounce in Yen and EUR is silly, it will flip back. And just to end this with a way overly optimistic opinion: this has been happening due to lack of liquidity, no doubt thanks to recent excessive regulation. Maybe, just maybe it will cause some people to wake up and let the financial institutions do what they are supposed to do.

I bought some cash by selling puts (for companies I would own). The volatility premium is yummy. Tried to fish for fun but caught nothing. Agree 100% with Uccmal that underlying US economy is doing just fine, so far. Expecting rate hike in September. What better time than when there's already a mess? Why wait for it to calm down and mess it up again? Surprising no one is mentioning GS, they got bashed because of the penalties, same same like JPM. And they will gain from all this volatility. Uccmal, Why did you buy the BAC 17s and not the BAC 15s? That's strange... isn't it like saying that you are expecting a quick shot up? Thanks.

Interesting. May I ask if you chose to analyze small caps or mega caps?

The bigger picture here is that if "faith" is lost in the RMB it means there will be runs on other currencies of EMs. Fundamentally, the export reliance on China is correct (Australia, Brazil etc.) but the resulting outcome will go far beyond an adjustment according to fundamentals. Might not be tomorrow, might be 5 or 10 years from now. Who knows. This of course will have great impact on the US economy. I think a warning about RE is due, the size of capital outflows from China will be enough to keep up bubble RE in various countries even if fundamentals say otherwise. So this is not something that I's risk shorting without serious conviction.

Following this post I have decided to go balls to the wall long.

Jurgis, Is there general confidence that NATO will actually came to assist if there's an invasion by Russia? From here it seems doubtful. Wow capital gains tax of flat 15% as income tax. That's quite good.. too bad it's so cold over there. "Lecter's pathology is explored in greater detail in Hannibal and Hannibal Rising, which explain that he was traumatized as a child in Lithuania in 1944 when he witnessed the murder and cannibalism of his beloved toddler sister, Mischa, by a group of deserting Lithuanian Hilfswillige, one of whom claimed that Lecter unwittingly ate his sister as well." Seriously. (thanks for playing)

Trolling much? Not so much since they took the bridge down. It's far more interesting to learn about Lithuania than to hear again about nonsense american politics.

How about someone that is blue collar and not an economic elite? I'd vote for that person blindly. There's always this guy http://bennorton.com/2016-us-presidential-election-endorsement-vermin-supreme/ He's not a member of any economic elite. And I, for one, would love to see the president sitting in the Oval Office with a boot on his head. In Lithuania we have actually elected such people in the past. The results were worse than the career politicians I have to say. But that's just MHO. (And yes, I am aware that rkbabang's link was humoristic) Wasn't Dracula Lithuanian? Considering you only have 15,000 active soldiers, how many hours would it take Russia to take over the country, again? It seems that in 2015 Lithuania adopted the Euro. Like, this year. Are you guys high? What are the capital gains tax on investment and trading? After reading The Wisdom of Psychopaths I'd actually be surprised if a head of state is not a psychopath.

I indeed think that the concept of 100% free market is exactly the same nonsense as Communism. They are both fictitious non realistic ideas.

Dude. Seriously. What's up? Tell us what's wrong. Don't keep it in. :) Communism is a unique concept in the sense that ALL is commonly shared. As in 100%. Saying that governance system X is 76% communism makes as much sense as saying someone is 76% pregnant. Of course with the natural language you can say whatever you want as long as it is grammatically correct but than it is just political talk. Why not compare it to 100% free markets? Bias. Point me to where it is defined as 100% -- I can do it for you... it's at the end of the spectrum. Is capitalism 100%? Yes... at the other end of the spectrum. In between? Lies the spectrum. There are only rainy days and sunny days. There is only "bias" if you believe there are cloudy days that don't rain and that also don't have sunshine... correct? Thinking in absolutes is lack of bias? I don't think so. Pshaw... I can't believe I have to point out that there are grey areas in between the absolutes. You know better than that. No, no, no I think it would be easier for you not to call it "capitalism", on the other side of the "spectrum", but rather "0% communism" or "not even a bit communist" so the spectrum would be between "not even a bit communist" to "totally communist" and than all the arguments would be simplified to completely revolve around the communism concept without involving any type of bias. I heard that Uber is starting UberShowerCommiShare in California in order to conserve water, so people can schedule shower time so they could shower together in groups of at least 5. That must be it.

Dude. Seriously. What's up? Tell us what's wrong. Don't keep it in. :) Communism is a unique concept in the sense that ALL is commonly shared. As in 100%. Saying that governance system X is 76% communism makes as much sense as saying someone is 76% pregnant. Of course with the natural language you can say whatever you want as long as it is grammatically correct but than it is just political talk. Why not compare it to 100% free markets? Bias.

Communism is not a continuum but a single state where all of the productive assets in the economy are publicly owned. What you're thinking of are social democracies. You know those awful places like France, Germany, and Sweden that have longer life expectancy, higher quality of life, and higher worker productivity than the US. I didn't say "absolute" communism, I said "relative" coomunism. A social democracy is on the relative spectrum. Our real property ownership works like a lease -- stop paying your property tax and get evicted. It's not true ownership if you can't hang on to property that was bought and paid for. It's a form of relative communism. You have to pay a continual fee in order to occupy it, which is a lot like leasing something you already "own" from the community -- hence the reference to "commune" ism. Relative, not absolute. It's a spectrum. Thing is, social democracy is something that actually exists and with relative success while "communism" is a fictitious idea, a made-up name for something that has never existed other than perhaps a fantasy world in a book. Not even in Russia where it was Leninism or whatever, and for sure not in China, at any point. Better not use a word just for its negative connotation, it's very biased. Of course I am not saying by this that social democracy is a silver bullet or anything. It's not. If one is not willing to accept liabilities why should they enjoy assets acquired and built through the liabilities (including disease and death) of others?

1. Uninstall tinder. 2. Delete that fake Facebook and Linkedin accounts which you use to look at people anonymously. 3. Only follow closely 567 people on Twitter because 1004 is really way too much. 4. Stop taking Uber needlessly just because it's so convenient. 5. Keep just one apple watch and sell the rest. The time you waste each morning deciding between the gold and blue versions can be better used. (e.g. deciding on which iPad cover matches your socks) 6. Comb-over is enough, there's no need to go all Donald Trump (two hours saved right there!)

What I am not sure I understand well about these funds which hold lots of cash and justify their decision by saying their main objective is “to protect capital” is the following: With the exception of a new Great Depression, I am quite positive all investments of mine would grow much faster in a volatile environment than in a muddle through scenario… I actually think a 30%-40% market crash would make the companies I own stronger… not weaker! Of course, in a market crash, as the fundamentals of those business improve, their stock prices might probably go down with the overall market… and would probably go down a lot! But, if the fundamentals of those businesses improve, how can my capital not be sufficiently protected? Even if stock prices go down? Therefore, imo it could be either a) They truly fear a new Great Depression or b) Their true aim is not “to protect capital”, but “to buy assets very cheaply, when they become available”. Cheers, Gio In mid 2008 I went to 80%+ cash (selling 20yr positions in Canadian banks, etc but keeping BRK) and moved some money into some cash rich companies (Appl) and companies that had a history of being opportunistic in bad markets (eg Loews). Everything dropped in the market downturn and most companies did little to be opportunistic. APPl did nothing. Loews funded CNA. I ended up having to double up on APPL at 90 to gain from it. Added to BRK a couple days before it bottomed. (My biggest single purchase ever.) So even though BRK was clearly being opportunistic, its shares still crashed as existing shareholders panicked and dumped BRK. So the lessons are, one, you are on your own, doesn't expect your holdings to grow stronger in a recession, their mgmt may freeze due to their temperament. Two, even the best companies will drop in a recession and you'll see it in your own portfolios plummeting value, and you'll consider selling and not buying. To put it simply, liquidity is what moves markets as a whole and once the liquidity decreases (as in a recession) the market as a whole will shrink taking most with it.

But I'd rather join another fund first. This is 100% the way to go in my opinion. If you have no professional experience, just about any place where you can practice and learn about finance (yes even a sell side shop!) will be better than jumping immediately into your own start up hedge fund. We're not all Michael Burry. This is 100% wrong. It's like saying to any young entrepreneur to avoid starting their own company and instead work for other people first. I know several people who have jumped into their own hedge funds without any prior formal experience and they are quite successful. Plenty of books around to learn the basics. Having said that, one exception would be if you could work for one of the masters or find an amazing teacher. That would be worth it.

Seems odd to me. The reason no damages were awarded because the judge says that Greenberg failed to show the harm to shareholders given that the alternative was an AIG bankruptcy with no government support; however, that wasn't the only alternative. The alternative was that AIG receive support under similar terms given to other massively troubled financial institutions at the time. I haven't read the full docs - just an article or two covering the decision so it could be the judge is giving credit to the gov't claims that no bailout would have happened without the equity kicker, but it seems like a strange line of reasoning assuming that bankruptcy was the only other alternative just because the government said so... The issue here isn't that the interest rate was too high -- the issue here is that the Federal Reserve did not have to authority to extract an equity payment based on its statutory authority under 13(3). Once it's established that the government did something wrong, which it did, then the question turned to "what was the harm?" In this case, the question was "but for the loan, what would shareholders have gotten?" And the answer was nothing -- and the interest rate was irrelevant to whether AIG would have gone bankrupt absent the loan. I heard someone mention that this could be construed as "The Fairholme Ruling" -- doesn't hurt AIG but helps FNMA. The bottom line is that the government acted illegally by exacting value from the shareholders. The reason they don't have to pay anything in AIG is that "but for" the loan, the AIG shareholders would have gotten nothing -- in the Fannie Mae situation, "but for" the 2012 Amendment, the FNMA shareholders would have been significantly better off financially. My take on yesterday's ruling is 180 degrees away from all the other posts. The judge's ruling was that the takeover of AIG by the FED was illegal but that there is not a valid claim because absent the takeover, the company would have been worthless. AIG's recovery of value after the takeover apparently was not sufficient to trump the fact that the stock would have been worthless without that intervention. That doesn't seem just to me, but there seems to be a large amount of risk that the same logic could be applied to Fannie and Freddie. Am I missing something here? That's exactly how I read it too. It was illegal because there was no supporting law but otherwise common would be 0.

1. Because it's easier with all the information out there. 2. Leverage. Cheaper and better. Again, easy. 3. Regional banks are now in the spotlight, more and more will get hit with penalties and regulation.

Thanks for the post. This is fascinating, what would happen if this really become easy to install and use, how would that impact the markets when everyone and their savvy aunt runs it? Considering the algorithm is out in the open, it should be possible to create a counter algorithm to take advantage of people who use it and suck away their money. oddballstocks, if you were to write a program to mine the net for sites such as google trend, news sites etc. for certain data or trends, which programming language would you use?