Search results

The mortgage based security purchases of QE1 and QE3 have been money makers for the Fed overall, although there are still loans outstanding under them. TARP was also a money maker although it was Treasury and not the Fed that made those investments. The balance sheet size in isolation does not...

QE2 was nearly identical to what I guess we're now calling QE4, in size and the fact that they were treasury purchases vice mortgage backed securities. And the biggest wailing and gnashing of teeth regarding inflation I remember happened with QE2.

I don't know that there won't be. I was just sure that there would be in 2008 and was completely wrong. That led me to be much more aware of the limits on my/our ability to predict inflation. So now I'm of the mind that it's very difficult to predict in current circumstances in the U.S. (much...

If real inflation differs substantively from BLS calculated inflation is a topic for another thread. It sounds like we have a similar thesis then, no inflation adjusted changes to what we're doing trading or investing?

OK, but again I'm left wondering, what's the investment thesis? Mine is that there is no greater chance of runaway inflation now than at any other time in the past 30 years, therefore changing trading or investment thesis to reflect runaway inflation might not be wise. I'm sure you have a...

That's a discussion for another thread, unless there is some trading to be done on that thesis?

Thanks, that's helpful. The problem with the Small Exchange for me was the esoteric nature of their indexes. The Bloomberg version of the S&P 500 that FairX is using looks to be a lot closer to the actual S&P 500, so that's a good sign.

Survival doesn't indicate any value to the ecosystem in and of itself. For example SSFs "survived" for years, but they had almost no volume and thus were worthless for traders. For one of these to be valuable they need to either have enough volume to be worth trading on or even better enough...

So you're asking if it's possible that a big chunk of the market is shorting against the box to establish positions and they'll take away half the box when the balloon goes up? It would be apparent in the public reporting for a big chunk of the market if they were doing this. So your hypothesis...

All of this was true in 2008 as well. If you'd shorted the 10 and 30 year then you would have lost a bit of money (ask me how I know:D). I'd caution that the gestalt around inflation is almost entirely driven by various political narratives and thus quite untethered from reality. No matter how...

Curious how this is any different from the "Small Exchange" (https://www.elitetrader.com/et/threads/small-exchange-kickoff.344972/page-4) which hasn't seemed to have gone much of anywhere since their launch last year. Looks like they're at a few thousand contracts traded per day, which given the...

Right, so you could be a billionaire but you pull your 5% out every month to make sure that doesn't happen. Got it. When you claim to be a better trader than literally every person with verified results who has ever lived, then the people calling bullshit aren't "trapped in what they believe...

Like I said, there are people who mistake luck for skill and those who just make shit up. There's no need to even ask to show trading returns, it's pretty basic math to see how many billion dollars in short order anyone would have if they made 5% a week. There are a couple of billionaire traders...

When you've got a multi-year lock on your LPs you can certainly afford to underperform for a quarter, that's one of the main reasons for having lock-ups. That aside, I was saying that no-one has consistent 5% monthly returns; I think we agree here given that you're talking about retail investors...

The reality is that no-one is consistently making 10% per month, month after month, with no drawdowns, for any great length of time. If you have 1000 monkeys throw darts at the stock pages you'll end up with a handful who have a run of 3 or 6 or 12 months of good returns. And those are the one's...

There's an ETF that has a very similar strategy, PUTW. Unfortunately over the last 5 years it hasn't done all that well.

Which goes back to the whole concept being a bet on a particular kind of company, i.e. a mature non-tech company vs mature tech companies rather than it being some kind of safe bet vs the overall market. Dividends are just an indicator of the type of company rather than the dividends themselves...

I would advocate that those are strong companies who continue to create value because the company creates value. The fact they pay a dividend has little to nothing to do with the fact that they continue to create value, i.e. the total value over time of a GOOGL/AMZN.... basket of large mature...

It was only a day ago he asked, I'm sure he's carefully considering all of our wise and sage advice:D

So imagine you buy a stock that pays a 5% dividend once a year. The price of the stock will drop by 5%, all things being equal, the day it goes ex. Therefore after the dividend you'll have exactly the same amount of money as you had before, just your split between cash and stocks will be...