Search results

You don't have to apologize. I am not defending the media. I just don't see how it's the fault of the BLS or anyone who actually looks at the details that people and the media fixate on a particular number, while a whole plethora of other numbers are reported. Surely, given that all this data...

Huh? I really don't understand the logic here. This report is positive and yet the employment picture is not improving? The BLS data is grossly misleading and yet, if you bother to look at the details the BLS releases, it's all there? I am sorry, but I just don't understand the point you're...

Russians have to fight more than just cold and darkness, I guess.

Not sure I see the logic there... Why is the BLS "smoothing" not mentioned in the HZ article on the labor participation rate? It's the "journalistic license" to claim "smoothing" when it suits the argument, but not when it doesn't. Moreover, when Ole Bill Gross jumps on the bandwagon, that's...

I don't recall saying that the change in the participation rate was a positive. IIRC, I said that the number is suspect because it was the result of a one-off adjustment performed by the BLS. This applies to both "positive" (unemployment rate) and "negative" (participation rate) results that...

Hahaha, I guess you haven't actually seen the Finns drinking...

I am not suggesting it's positive or negative. I am suggesting that it's a number that is a result of a very specific BLS adjustment. Have you noticed how HeroZedge is normally exceedingly eager to point out any and all one-off adjustments that the BLS does when it suits them? However, when...

Fed/TBTF banks? I am an honest gal. You must have me confused with someone else, sir.

Oh no, you a HeroZedge fan too? Et tu, Brute?

It's good to see HeroZedge is up to its usual shenanigans. I guess the whole doomsday thing hasn't worked out that well, so they feel the need to get all defensive. In reality, today's release was very strong by any measure. Household survey numbers (incl participation rate, unemployment...

Here we go again...

Moreover, ECB taking a loss is purely symbolic. I am not really sure why there's such fixation over it (other than maybe the issue of precedent).

For all effects and purposes, relative to the OTC mkt, there is very little liquidity in FX futures. This may change going fwd, obviously.

That isn't at all what I'm saying...

Well, then what matters is the vol that you're, effectively, realizing by delta-hedging. Maybe I misunderstood your question... The only IVs that matter are 1) the one that you have effectively transacted at originally; and 2) the one that you have realized over the lifetime of the option...

You're barking up the wrong tree. That's not my point. My point is that, for all effects and purposes, the actual executable mkt is made by the very same people in both cases. As I said, where do you think the mkt-makers that submit their quotes to the exchange get them? [B] That's not a...

The futures are not priced by the exchange. They are priced by the mkt-makers that operate within the context of the exchange. The mkt-makers price the futures from spot, based on simple carry (interest rate parity) calculations (since futures are just exchange-traded FX fwds). OTC spot and...

They will go any time, but they do like to administer a proper shock sometimes. Which means they sometimes would go in the middle of the night, during the Asian hours, for a bit of extra oomph. Who knows what happens, if anything, this time arnd.

Unless you've been naughty and been delta-hedging...

That doesn't make sense... How do you think futures get priced? You trade ccy futures, because a) you don't have access to good spot FX liqudity; b) your don't get paid the right carry by your spot FX broker; c) you don't like the 2-day counterparty settlement risk.