Search results

What in the world are you talking about. Commerical papers are holding up like rocks. For example, on May 21th, 30Day A1+/P1/F+ commerical papers were issued at 5.24%. The same papers trade at 5.31% today. Given that these guys have almost no duration, the combination of very tiny spread changes...

And I should add, for ABX both bid and offers are quoted with wide but not unreasonably wide spreads.

BNP is talking about cash sub-prime assets. ABX is a derivative index. They are still widely quoted many times per day by major dealing desks in ABX and CMBX (note: BNP Paribas is not a major player in this area). Moreover, Mark-It only provides end-of-day fixings (they have an intraday...

Does not exist. It's OTC.

Look - fixed income instruments aren't like stocks. Those BBB- may not get bid (which is somewhat unlikely for the exact reason I'm about to give), but it goes generate coupon income (and pretty fat ones) so long as physical defaults haven't wipped out the paper. So, hypothetically - the BBB-...

(1) the Lehman bond isn't trading at par. (2) if you buy the bond and buy the protection (known as a negative basis package), you are going to only earn a hair above LIBOR.

Mostly right. But in certain markets the market makers are also prop traders. Usually happens certain otc spaces. Goldman has a reputation of being a big hedge fund (ie, takes lots of prop positions) rather than a dealer;

I agree mostly with what you side. Though perhaps not the last point. Hedge funds don't really care about unsophisticated daytraders. Collectively, daytraders represent at best a barely visible portion of a few asset classes.

I have no idea how you come up with this number. Care to explain? I'm curious.

What does that even mean? I'm taking the position that there's more to finance than just "trading your chart." That there's more to trading than some simple minded concept of "edge". And here you are, claiming that I need to see that there's more to life than my humble opinion? Argue that you...

No. I'm not missing your point. I'm ignoring your point. Your point is asinine. "With compounding"? Clearly any nontrivial positive number compounded by another nontrivial positive number is going to yield a significant sum over time. But did you consider that that precieved edge is just...

Access. Because you get access for large buying power that only hedge funds and real money accounts can provide. I don't mean inside information - but access to actual research publications (which can be rather good), access to markets that aren't open to public, access to data (think a few k's...

Even if you have bloomberg you still won't get "realtime quote" unless you also receive pricing runs from the dealing desks (that is, you trade with them). Even then, the runs are not entirely always up to date. So, in short, there's no easy way to monitor these spreads throughout the day.

This thread was productive and [hopefully] useful before Jack showed up. Now it's just everyone arguing against Jack's very incorrect understanding of quant. I'm done.

I'm just thankful the day's done (yeh for early closing for no reason other than friday in my markets). I'm off to grab a few beers and forget all of that (people on the desk did get a few good laughs).

Let me quote a few sentences from his very long document, which I actually did manage to read: -- "We do not use quant stuff because it deals with uncertainties and they, in turn, introduce risk into making money. " -- "What I am saying is use nonprobailistic approaches to accumulate...

... now, I'm not going to say that knowing how to program isn't important. it is. you aren't a quant if you can't produce. but for the love this field be an analyst who knows compsci, not a programmer who knows some business. the first category is in much higher long term demand than the second...

Make sure you take plenty of solid math. Take as much calc as you can. Take linear algebra (or adv, if there's one). Take real analysis if there's one (take it pass/fail if you can - it's not worth working that hard on it - but it's eye opening). Then, be sure to take some advanced micro (it's...

... you managed to figure out causation by dividing change in level (debt) by change in flow (gdp)? You managed to figure out causation? We are officially done.

I would very much like to see where you got that figure from - I'm not saying that it's not true, but it seems like a very certain answer to a difficult question. Moreover, whereas the statement "there's $4 of debt per $1 of GDP" is a simple accounting ratio, "... to produce..." is a casuation...