Search results

If Bass structured the trade as you describe (buying very low-cost long expiry options), there's absolutely no way he could be down 61% from inception. Either the reported numbers are wrong or his trade was structured differently.

Indeed. I am in the UK.

How do you figure that? High earners are few in number, indeed, but they wield a disproportionate amount of influence on the political process and the media. Maybe it's in order to maintain this (probably fair) balance that the Supreme Court really ruled the way it did in the Citizens United case.

I think Joe W cites ValueWalk as the original source here: http://www.valuewalk.com/2012/05/kyle-bass-japan-macro-fund-down-29-for-april/ If you're correct and Bass's trade was done through options as you describe, I don't really see how the fund can be down 61% since Jul2010 inception. I...

I agree. I think it's an example of the famous "road to hell is paved with good intentions" phenomenon. Incentives that are supposed to achieve a particular social benefit end up being gamed by rational mkt participants and create massive distortions as a side effect.

There's some evidence that measures like that are likely to have a significant effect. See this story about house prices in Netherlands, for example: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-08-21/netherlands-house-prices-dropped-the-most-on-record-last-month.html

jem, you may also be interested in this: http://www.acog.org/About_ACOG/News_Room/News_Releases/2012/Statement_on_Rape_and_Pregnancy

Interestingly enough, it looks like Kyle Bass should be added to the list of famous victims of the JGB widowmaker: http://www.businessinsider.com/whoa-kyle-basss-performance-really-is-that-disastrous-2012-5 I confess to feeling some schadenfreude, in spite of knowing it's wrong. Also...

Indeed... The only point I was originally trying to make is that it appears somewhat absurd to me to have a 65 year old man deciding on whether it's legal for a pregnant woman who has been a victim of a rape to have an abortion. The discussion sorta progressed from there, I guess.

Against my better judgement, knowing full well that you appear to be incapable of responding to a simple question in a coherent manner, lemme ask you, please, my friend PT, to demonstrate precisely how I have gone in "2 competing directions at the same time". Please be so kind as to point out...

Yes, and I have already agreed with you, haven't I? There's a small difference, as my suggestion would be equivalent to weighing people's vote in proportion to their potential to pay tax in the future, rather than them paying today. However, I have no problem whatsoever if the right to...

It has a certain democratic (in the Ancient Greek sense) sorta ring to it, doesn't it? As long as you don't infringe on the citizens' other fundamental rights...

A novel suggestion, but hardly necessary... How about sticking to the general principle that you get to vote (and accept responsibility) for issues that affect the community that you belong to? So on issues of abortion, women of child-bearing age get to cast the vote. If you want to weigh...

I am in complete agreement with that. In fact, I was going to further suggest that people's votes (on tax issues especially) should be weighed by their expected contribution to the nation's finances. So, for example, if you're elderly, retired and are not paying taxes, should your vote have...

I am certainly willing to admit if I am stupid and misunderstood what Lucrum was trying to say. However, infinitely sadder is someone who, while being incapable of engaging in direct conversation, feels the need to constantly interject their inanities.

I am sorry, but I don't understand your point, Lucrum, and I am not consciously trying to misrepresent what you said. From the data I have been able to obtain (US Census and IRS), a comparable percentage of the female population (34.5%) declares their income to the IRS (and, I assume, pays...

Your fascination with mrbill is bordering on downright strange, to put it rather mildly... Maybe you, sir, in your infinite wisdom, can enlighten me, the foreign ignert, on what terrible error I have committed this time? Enquiring minds want to know...

Wee followup... I decided to see if I can find any data on the share of tax paid. The only thing I could find was the statistics published by the IRS for the year 1999 (at the bottom of this page http://www.irs.gov/taxstats/indtaxstats/article/0,,id=96978,00.html). Looks like in 1999 there...

Sorry, women pay no income taxes? That is most definitely news to me... Regardless, if that's the case, it's not like it's a big deal. Introduce a special levy only paid by people of the female persuasion. Secondly, not like what you describe doesn't already happen. You got...

Cool, then we're in agreement...