Search results

The personal attack was from me, not the other guy who you are responding to above. We are two people (or one very crazy fella who's had a fair productive conversation with himself on monetary policy). I've read your stuff (from your other postings here). We've argued about aggregate demand...

Let me address your points in parts: (1) It's not supposed to be all asset classes. It's supposed to be equity - the widely held asset class in retail portfolios and 401ks. Inflating commodities directly doesn't achieve any goals except to add input price shocks. Finally, bonds are supposed...

Actually, Bernake made a specific point to talk about this in the Jackson Hole speech and the editorial he published in the Washington Post right after QE2 started. Finally, the Fed has harped on this theme in just about every single of the governor's congressional speeches. They said exactly...

How does that change anything - large enough of sequence of ranges will blow you up. If you argue that S&P or whatnot will not such such a succession of ranges, that you are MAKING ASSUMPTIONS ABOUT ITS VOLATILITY STRUCTURE. If you end up making money, it's because your edge is in forecasting...

None of the analysis shown to you require any particular time frame. It's true of all time frames.

That's not particularly fair is it? Neither reducing rates nor pumping up equity is the *end goal* of Fed monetary policy. Price stability and economic growth are. Those are merely channels. Bernanke believes at 0-25bps, the rate channel is no longer relevant and switched to his "portfolio...

Why would it have been rational for the Fed to raise rate since 2010? Like you said, we are not in an inflationary environment (though I take some issues as to how much producers are pass on input cost). It's hard to argue that the job picture worsened in 2010 and remains difficult. Wouldn't it...

You keep saying this - despite it's been shown to you for not being true; So long as the entries are fair (otherwise, your entries have 'edge', which you keep saying you don't), you will blow up any account with some probability assuming you don't have infinite account size. This is a fairly...

Perhaps you may take note that economists do not 'invent' models/controls. They propose models, tests them empirically, and draw implications. You (via your blog and your posts here) sound more like an armchair activist with a cursory (ms)understanding of economics (hum... that's description...

No idea what it is for futures-only. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if the sales-trader model no longer exists for liquid futures markets since there's really no longer any point.

This has been pointed out to you by many posters, including myself. You've rejected every technical treatment of the subject and started as an a priori assumption that 'with proper position sizing it's impossible to blow up.' It has been pointed out that so long as your wealth and life span is...

futures would be much much more; I'm not a futures guy so I don't know what the total amt that needs to be cleared or brokered before you are enough of an account to warrant coverage; I imagine you'd be at a size where your trades are regularly reportable as block sizes. Being worth spoiling...

Not mutually exclusive: nice perks like dinner and client events on one hand, and a lot of crap on the other - just like any other broker/client relationship. Why are you asking these questions?

Maybe. But you'd probably need to be levered (not sure what kind of financing agreement you can get for 10MM). Certainly, 10MM worth of trades a month will get you a pat on the back and a shove to the back of the line. And I would think the ability to negotiate an ISDA for a $10MM fund is...

No, you have to trade size thru those brokers. By size, I mean expectations of at least 100MM in volume (for fixed stuff) a month for each relationship. Up shot: that also means every thurs night is dinner at somewhere nice.

That's not game theory, just basic probabilities theory; But you are right.

Christ you are dense. It's mathematically impossible only if you either have inifinite wealth AND infinite time. In fact, it's mathematically impossible for you to be successful using this strategy so long as you not god. Math is not your friend here. To wit: "The optional stopping...

Do you realize that martingale isn't strictly the name for the betting strategy? A system is said to be martingale if E[X(t+1)|E(0),... X(t)] = X[t]? That under any rational economic system, the double-down strategy is percluded as axiomatically possible just as true riskless arbitrage is...

Yes. Don't sell the house.

You are out of your mind. I'm not sure you understand how big a 'proper' account size need to be for you to do this. And the other fella's entirely right - assuming your acct size is > this critical level, your level of return is going to be pathetic.