Search results

Take it easy man, you are not alone. Watch Jim Rogers on CNBC, or listen to Rick Santelli every morning. Some people just don't get it, no matter how many times you explain it to them. I guess it's their loss: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lTXEWh2yT_g

It's not the speculation that is bad, it's the leverage, all those 100%+, no doc, loans and inflated appraisals that did it, combined with securitization and risk transfer, something like passing the hot potato.

I could not agree more. Why is capitalism good for everything, but not for banking, finance, or money supply? Since when a purely capitalist institution, the bank, needs a socialist style bail out to survive?

There are two books by Thomas Stridsman that have good chapters on optimization: http://www.amazon.com/Trading-Systems-That-Work-Evaluating/dp/007135980X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1205013482&sr=1-1...

From my experience, the most important thing is to find a strategy that, without any optimization, shows a positive expectancy for as many markets as you can test it on. It doesn't have to be very profitable. Then you can use one or two variables to optimize it.

Funny, I am reading Empire of Debt by Bill Bonner, http://www.amazon.com/Empire-Debt-Rise-Financial-Crisis/dp/047198048X/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1203565954&sr=8-1, and this is exactly his point - the best presidents America had were those that did nothing.

This is the post I was referring to.

My answer was to a question, down the road, whether futures trading, is a zero sum game or not. As to who is losing money on the street, that is almost impossible to answer, as all things are interrelated and global.

The discussion is about a FUTURES CONTRACT, not about the underlying, be it a commodity or an index. That is what is traded on the exchange - A CONTRACT. For every contract there is a buyer and a seller. Period.

And one more thing about index futures. Like any other future contract, there is a buyer for every seller. So, excluding the fees, the total gain is equal to the total loss. No ifs or buts. It does not matter what the value of the underlying, the index, is.

Dow Jones, as well as other indexes change the stocks they track over time, so they have a survival bias built in, thus your coclusion is wrong.

Yes, a mortgage, like any other loan, can be called, but it is very unlikely: http://www.mortgageporter.com/reportingfromseattle/2007/08/question-of-the.html

Well, for one thing, the bank can call your loan. If they still own it, that is. Most probably your mortgage was sold to gov "sponsored" companies like Fannie Mae.

Or you can use this URL: https://realtime.bigcharts.com/custom/datek-com/chart.asp?symb=yhoo&time=1dy&freq=5mi&compidx=aaaaa%7e0&comp=&ma=0&maval=9&uf=0&lf=1&lf2=0&lf3=0&type=4&size=3&state=0&country=US&intMode=3&pageTitle=yhoo&doChart=True&partner=0&mocktick=1&rand=32359 and replace...

If it's short term, it's taxed as regular income.

Not to mention that both winners and losers needed a safe place to deposit their gold for safekeeping.

An interesting book about working on Wall Street: http://www.amazon.com/Working-Street-What-Need-About/dp/1403963770/ref=sr_1_120?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1199601176&sr=1-120. Not a rosy picture.

I was asking myself the same question. The only answer that I could come up with is too much leverage.

It will only postpone the same ending. The question is do you take the pain now or later. Well, I guess the answer is later, because there is a chance it'll go away :D .

That is exactly the point. There is no need to create money. The currency will just appreciate to accommodate the quantity of goods on the market (and lower denominations can be used if need be). Ah, but we forgot those who benefit when money is created out of thin air - because at the end, an...