Jump to content
Garbad

The Official Garbad Fan Club Thread

Which moderator's cunt smells the worst?  

440 members have voted

  1. 1. Which moderator's cunt smells the worst?



Recommended Posts

The fed has been desperately trying to pump money into the system for a decade now.  It turns out availability of capital doesn't actually matter a whole hell of a lot when no one can make a profit.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've yet to see any study that concludes hedge fund managers justify their fees.  

In point of fact, the research shows that they generally don't. Generally, hedge fund managers take their 2/20 for taking on outsized risks, which is great as long as everyone's making money. If (when) it eventually blows up in their faces, they shut down and leave the investors holding the bag. Then they open up a new fund. Pretty sweet gig, if you can get it.

In terms of Buffett, he might well be an anomoly in the overwhelming research that shows that low-cost, passive investing is the optimal approach (so basically broad market based index funds), but even he advocates that investors use indexes.

And, in point of fact, to make the point, he even bet a hedge fund manager 1 million dollars (for charity) that the S&P 500 would beat them, net of fees, over a 10 year period.

http://longbets.org/362/

Last I checked Buffett was way ahead.

Basically, it's what you said earlier. All the best research shows that it is virtually impossible to beat the market indexes after fees, and that of those that do it is virtually impossible to predict who in advance. Everything basically says the ones that do are lucky, similar to asking a stadium full of people to flip a coin. SOMEONE is going to get heads 10 times in a row.

This best explains a guy like Bill Miller, who was touted in the financial press for beating the S&P every year. Until he didn't.

Of course, there are a whole lot of investment professionals whose livelihood depends on convincing people that they CAN beat the market, so...

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The FED has been pumping money into the economy now, they has prevented things from getting worse.  We (actually the world) is in a very unusual situation now being against the zero lower bound.  Its very tough for capital people (bankers) to make money on capital since the spreads are too low for them to rip off a percentage, they have very little room to work with.  It is in their interest to have the FED raise rates, they will make more money.  But its not in the interests of everyone else. 

http://www.wsj.com/articles/banks-to-fed-thanks-for-nothing-1442593410

 

It is also important to see that everyone who is calling for the FED to raise rates has mostly been wrong about every single prediction they have made about the economy.  They always see inflation right around the corner, for the past 7 years, it hasn't come.  They always see the flight of capital elsewhere but the USA, it never goes anywhere.  The USA will get downgraded by rating agencies and APOCALYPSE!!  Nope, the markets just shrugged it off.  No matter how wrong they are, it never matters, they have a religious belief they are right and it just hasn't happened yet.  

 

As far as Buffet and his ilk and information, sure.  But also they can create information, just by being there.  That has a tangible effect on profits for them, they can essential "front run" themselves.

Link to post
Share on other sites

In point of fact, the research shows that they generally don't. Generally, hedge fund managers take their 2/20 for taking on outsized risks, which is great as long as everyone's making money. If (when) it eventually blows up in their faces, they shut down and leave the investors holding the bag. Then they open up a new fund. Pretty sweet gig, if you can get it.

In terms of Buffett, he might well be an anomoly in the overwhelming research that shows that low-cost, passive investing is the optimal approach (so basically broad market based index funds), but even he advocates that investors use indexes.

And, in point of fact, to make the point, he even bet a hedge fund manager 1 million dollars (for charity) that the S&P 500 would beat them, net of fees, over a 10 year period.

http://longbets.org/362/

Last I checked Buffett was way ahead.

Basically, it's what you said earlier. All the best research shows that it is virtually impossible to beat the market indexes after fees, and that of those that do it is virtually impossible to predict who in advance. Everything basically says the ones that do are lucky, similar to asking a stadium full of people to flip a coin. SOMEONE is going to get heads 10 times in a row.

This best explains a guy like Bill Miller, who was touted in the financial press for beating the S&P every year. Until he didn't.

Of course, there are a whole lot of investment professionals whose livelihood depends on convincing people that they CAN beat the market, so...

 

Pretty much.  He even directed his heirs to use index funds, not active management.

The FED has been pumping money into the economy now, they has prevented things from getting worse.  We (actually the world) is in a very unusual situation now being against the zero lower bound.  Its very tough for capital people (bankers) to make money on capital since the spreads are too low for them to rip off a percentage, they have very little room to work with.  It is in their interest to have the FED raise rates, they will make more money.  But its not in the interests of everyone else. 

http://www.wsj.com/articles/banks-to-fed-thanks-for-nothing-1442593410

 

It is also important to see that everyone who is calling for the FED to raise rates has mostly been wrong about every single prediction they have made about the economy.  They always see inflation right around the corner, for the past 7 years, it hasn't come.  They always see the flight of capital elsewhere but the USA, it never goes anywhere.  The USA will get downgraded by rating agencies and APOCALYPSE!!  Nope, the markets just shrugged it off.  No matter how wrong they are, it never matters, they have a religious belief they are right and it just hasn't happened yet.  

 

As far as Buffet and his ilk and information, sure.  But also they can create information, just by being there.  That has a tangible effect on profits for them, they can essential "front run" themselves.

RON PAUL!  BRING BACK THE GOLD STANDARD!!!~

Link to post
Share on other sites

It is also important to see that everyone who is calling for the FED to raise rates has mostly been wrong about every single prediction they have made about the economy.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

So WoT time is coming to a close, long live the AW WR farm era. What are the best guides (and/or extra tips) you can link to learn the game/interface for a total noob? 

 

P.S. The GoT books got me hooked recently, I've got some serious attachment to Robb... Let alone what the Mannis is gunna bring to the table later on...

Link to post
Share on other sites

So WoT time is coming to a close, long live the AW WR farm era. What are the best guides (and/or extra tips) you can link to learn the game/interface for a total noob? 

 

P.S. The GoT books got me hooked recently, I've got some serious attachment to Robb... Let alone what the Mannis is gunna bring to the table later on...

Honest truth:  showRobb is better.  The actor did a great job with him.  A true hero, cut down in his prime by the freys.  But the north remembers.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yet if this were true, you would expect to find certain people/managers who consistently beat the market.  You do not.

Very true. And it's not so much a matter of the information existing or not but rather how relevant that information is at a given point in time. VW techs might have had an inkling that some shenanigans were happening with ECMs on the diesels but they wouldn't necessarily know when or how to short sell VW stock to make money. (Basically when information hits the printers, so to speak, it's already too late.)

Now as far as Warren Buffet goes, he is an amazing value investor that understands trends 99.999% of humans can't. Also has a very good grasp of various business models and how they interact with markets served. Obviously a very brilliant guy. I wonder if he could even teach how he thinks too us unevolved cretins. :P

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm no economist and don't do anything in finance, but given that market pricing is a signal indicating the value of something to people, I fail to see how keeping money at below-market prices is keeping things from getting worse.  It's literally a case of playing pretend by preventing honest information reaching the public.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Honest truth:  showRobb is better.  The actor did a great job with him.  A true hero, cut down in his prime by the freys.  But the north remembers.

Imagine if Robb had told his bannermen to quit being dicks and sworn fealty to the Mannis, as his father would have wanted. A glorious world it would have been.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Imagine if Robb had told his bannermen to quit being dicks and sworn fealty to the Mannis, as his father would have wanted. A glorious world it would have been.

That could have worked only until the king in the north moment.  Stannis could not have accepted that, and its unlikely he would have the charm or diplomacy to make an offer as sweet as renlys.  Remember, ned actually liked renly as a friend, stannis he merely respected.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's what I meant by telling them to stop being dicks. If Robb had yelled at them about how they were going against what Ned would have wanted, he might have been able to get them to fall in line. Could have just lost the loyalty of some of his bannermen too though, feudalism is a bitch.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The FED has been pumping money into the economy now, they has prevented things from getting worse.

And, they has prevented things from rebounding to the previous levels in a smaller time frame. At this rate, it will take decades if ever, sort of like Japan.

Edited by Jerinos
Link to post
Share on other sites

And, they has prevented things from rebounding to the previous levels in a smaller time frame. At this rate, it will take decades if ever, sort of like Japan.

No, not at all.  That's what the "crowding out" crowd thinks, which has also been dead wrong about everything.  And Japan didn't pump money in, they pulled the punch bowl away too early and it shows.  This is a debate that happened before also, in 1932, with terrible effects:  http://www.jstor.org/stable/2122114?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

This also ties in with natural rate theory of Knut Wicksell, which was just the subject of an article:  http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/09/21/nutcases-and-knut-cases/?module=BlogPost-ReadMore&version=Blog Main&action=Click&contentCollection=Opinion&pgtype=Blogs&region=Body#more-39058

 

It would have taken longer, with TERRIBLE human effects on those that are not well off. The EU is trying this with Greece, and its not going well is it?  We tried this before, after 1929, and only HUGE spending by the US G for WW2 got us out.   I think something that people are missing right now is the FED is not lending money to banks at low interest rates, its the other way around.  Banks have ~$2.5 trillion in reserves sitting at the FED earning extremely low rates.  Here is a good summary, another article by Krugman.

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/09/15/keynesianism-explained/?module=BlogPost-Title&version=Blog Main&contentCollection=Opinion&action=Click&pgtype=Blogs&region=Body

 

Basically what the GOP and its believers want is this from across the pond:  http://mainlymacro.blogspot.in/2015/09/the-path-from-deficit-concern-to.html.  They just want a smaller government that helps people less but they cant say that so they dress it up as deficit reduction.  Simon Wren-Lewis is always good. 

 

Another economist who should be read is Brad DeLong.  For the tankers here though, read him for his Liveblogging WW2 posts:

http://www.bradford-delong.com/2015/09/liveblogging-world-war-ii-september-29-1945-the-relief-of-general-patton.html

 

they are very good clips of WW2 in the liveblog format.

 

 

 

Now about the gold standard.  That's for people who don't get that money is a medium of exchange, not a commodity or a store of value.  If all transactions were electronic (coming, but not there yet) this would be clearer.  But until then we have the people storing actual paper money in the mattress or in jars in the back yard.  In addition, there just isn't enough gold to back currencies, not even close. Plus you have this:

"As economist James Hamilton noted earlier this year, under the gold standard, deep, brutal recessions were pretty much a way of life. Over the 73 years from 1860 to 1933, when the U.S. went off a direct gold standard, the country suffered through 19 recessions.

In the last 73 years, by comparison, the U.S. economy has gone into recession 13 times -- in one respect, only a slight improvement over the gold standard years. But the real change has been in the severity of the recessions. Before the U.S. went off gold, recessions lasted an average of 26 months. After the country dumped the gold standard, the average shrank to 11 months. To put it in context, the Great Recession lasted 18 months, making it 30% shorter than the average gold-standard-era recession.

That improvement is no coincidence: Tying dollars to gold limits the number of dollars available. That, in turn, creates a great deal of rigidity, making it impossible for the Fed to control the flow of money into or out of the economy. Denied its strongest tool for goosing a stagnant economy or putting the brakes on an overheating one, the government basically has to ride out the economy's fits and starts.

Not surprisingly, many countries abandoned the gold standard during the Great Depression. And as Hamilton notes, the sooner a government went off the standard, the sooner its economy started to recover."

Also:  "The trouble is, while salaries might bob up and down with the price of gold, the amount of debt people owe wouldn't. If the value of a dollar rose, and salaries were cut to compensate, that would translate into a heavy fiscal blow as people would be left working more hours to repay their credit card debts, mortgages and other loans."

So it looks like return to a gold standard has no effect on people who can survive recessions and greatly benefits those who are OWED money.  I wonder who those people are....

http://www.dailyfinance.com/2012/08/30/gold-standard-return-how-it-affects-you/

 

 

 

Enough of this, now how do I use the A44?

 

 

Edited by Smbakeresq
Link to post
Share on other sites

Also in the interests of full disclosure, I am a lawyer, so while any recession hurts, I am certainly much better off then most to ride it out.  My clients though, not so much. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Now about the gold standard.  That's for people who don't get that money is a medium of exchange, not a commodity or a store of value.

And guess what?  Fiat currency fails your most basic test -- when obama the terrorist muslim can at any point inflate away anyone's savings, its not a store of value.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

No, not at all.  That's what the "crowding out" crowd thinks, which has also been dead wrong about everything.  And Japan didn't pump money in, they pulled the punch bowl away too early and it shows.  This is a debate that happened before also, in 1932, with terrible effects:  http://www.jstor.org/stable/2122114?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

This also ties in with natural rate theory of Knut Wicksell, which was just the subject of an article:  http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/09/21/nutcases-and-knut-cases/?module=BlogPost-ReadMore&version=Blog Main&action=Click&contentCollection=Opinion&pgtype=Blogs&region=Body#more-39058

 

It would have taken longer, with TERRIBLE human effects on those that are not well off. The EU is trying this with Greece, and its not going well is it?  We tried this before, after 1929, and only HUGE spending by the US G for WW2 got us out.   I think something that people are missing right now is the FED is not lending money to banks at low interest rates, its the other way around.  Banks have ~$2.5 trillion in reserves sitting at the FED earning extremely low rates.  Here is a good summary, another article by Krugman.

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/09/15/keynesianism-explained/?module=BlogPost-Title&version=Blog Main&contentCollection=Opinion&action=Click&pgtype=Blogs&region=Body

 

Basically what the GOP and its believers want is this from across the pond:  http://mainlymacro.blogspot.in/2015/09/the-path-from-deficit-concern-to.html.  They just want a smaller government that helps people less but they cant say that so they dress it up as deficit reduction.  Simon Wren-Lewis is always good. 

 

Another economist who should be read is Brad DeLong.  For the tankers here though, read him for his Liveblogging WW2 posts:

http://www.bradford-delong.com/2015/09/liveblogging-world-war-ii-september-29-1945-the-relief-of-general-patton.html

 

they are very good clips of WW2 in the liveblog format.

 

 

 

Now about the gold standard.  That's for people who don't get that money is a medium of exchange, not a commodity or a store of value.  If all transactions were electronic (coming, but not there yet) this would be clearer.  But until then we have the people storing actual paper money in the mattress or in jars in the back yard.  In addition, there just isn't enough gold to back currencies, not even close. Plus you have this:

"As economist James Hamilton noted earlier this year, under the gold standard, deep, brutal recessions were pretty much a way of life. Over the 73 years from 1860 to 1933, when the U.S. went off a direct gold standard, the country suffered through 19 recessions.

In the last 73 years, by comparison, the U.S. economy has gone into recession 13 times -- in one respect, only a slight improvement over the gold standard years. But the real change has been in the severity of the recessions. Before the U.S. went off gold, recessions lasted an average of 26 months. After the country dumped the gold standard, the average shrank to 11 months. To put it in context, the Great Recession lasted 18 months, making it 30% shorter than the average gold-standard-era recession.

That improvement is no coincidence: Tying dollars to gold limits the number of dollars available. That, in turn, creates a great deal of rigidity, making it impossible for the Fed to control the flow of money into or out of the economy. Denied its strongest tool for goosing a stagnant economy or putting the brakes on an overheating one, the government basically has to ride out the economy's fits and starts.

Not surprisingly, many countries abandoned the gold standard during the Great Depression. And as Hamilton notes, the sooner a government went off the standard, the sooner its economy started to recover."

Also:  "The trouble is, while salaries might bob up and down with the price of gold, the amount of debt people owe wouldn't. If the value of a dollar rose, and salaries were cut to compensate, that would translate into a heavy fiscal blow as people would be left working more hours to repay their credit card debts, mortgages and other loans."

So it looks like return to a gold standard has no effect on people who can survive recessions and greatly benefits those who are OWED money.  I wonder who those people are....

http://www.dailyfinance.com/2012/08/30/gold-standard-return-how-it-affects-you/

 

 

 

Enough of this, now how do I use the A44?

 

 

We did not spend our way back to a healthy economy in WW2.

Link to post
Share on other sites

P.S.  Most investors predict a crash in UK housing prices very soon.  Its true that it did well the last two years, but either that means we are due for a correction down or you got a good windfall, but don't expect it to continue -- expect it to revert to historical norms.  In any event, risk vs reward, diversification of assets, etc.  All standard theory, and not really my point here.

I've been expecting that for the last decade, but I'm looking more and more like an idiot as the years go by.

We never experienced the same sort of correction in the UK (as the US did) after 2008, but there are good fundamental reasons for prices to continue North since there is a real supply issue here in the UK, but the real issue is our ultra-cheap money due to QE and the BoE keeping base rates at prolonged historical lows (could this be the new normal?). They hope they can avoid any crash this way. Having said that, when I look at how much I earn, and what sort of properties are available to me, (as someone who earns quite a bit more than average), things just don't add up from an affordability perspective; at some point the market surely grinds to a halt without a further relaxation of lending criteria and/or cheaper money (a weapon no longer in the locker)?

In favour of a correction though is our BTL boom, this could amplify any crash since you would have all these 'investors' needing to sell up (at the same time) to chase profits elsewhere. 

What I do know though is that property is highly politicized in the UK and the power is still very much with the property owners (although there is a growing movement for cheaper housing). Any government which crashes the market (and causes the 'misery' of negative equity and mass repossessions) would surely be out on its ear come election.

And guess what?  Fiat currency fails your most basic test -- when obama the terrorist muslim can at any point inflate away anyone's savings, its not a store of value.

 

 

You can't eat precious metals though Garbad. All money is only money because we believe it to be.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 there are good fundamental reasons for prices to continue North

If there were fundamental reason for prices to increase higher than another market that would already be built into the current price.  In order to get exceptional returns, something has to change from what is expected now.  IE, the housing market has to become MORE profitable than currently predicted.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

You can't eat precious metals though Garbad. All money is only money because we believe it to be.

Eating is not the only thing with inherent value.  Water, for example, has value whether obama tells me it does or not.  A dollar bill does not.

 

CHECKMATE LIBTARDS

Link to post
Share on other sites

Eating is not the only thing with inherent value.  Water, for example, has value whether obama tells me it does or not.  A dollar bill does not.

 

CHECKMATE LIBTARDS

Economically speaking, things are worth whatever anybody will trade them for.  The market value is simply an average, but everybody values everything differently, and prices have to reflect that.  Attempts to distort that market price always cause problems.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, yeah, I realize that's a pretty Captain Obvious kinda statement, but sometimes these things need saying.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...