Search results

Did you just read the wikipedia article on the federal reserve or something? Adjusting the required reserve is one of the fundamental policy tools of the fed.

I'm not disputing the mayo study. I'm disputing how you are using the result of the mayo study. What part of that do you not understand? You know why there's the scientific method right? because common sense isn't always right. Morever, you are hardly demonstrating common sense. I'm also...

Oh, you are still ignoring my point that your so call proof that comes from the mayo study is entirely flawed. Like i said, you kept calling me out for not responding to all your silly points, so I'll do the same. Care to address it? or admit that in so far as that line of your "proof"...

You keep saying that there are studies and numbers. Where are they? I looked up the few publications Vitz had, and most of them are on specialist psych/theology journals that are more story telling than study. He came from an experimental psych background. So I expect him to understand...

I have a doorman. We don't let crazies in.

Sorry, like what? If you stated it in some early part of this thread, I might have skipped over it - if so, please repeat. But I have read his articles in the past. I don't see anything in the way of formal study. Also, because you seem so inclined to call me out when I missed one of your...

Why aren't you answering my point, and instead pointing to Vitz's argument? Is it because your logic flaw is now exposed? You see, I'm not ignoring it - I was addressing one of your points. I can do that, can't it? starting with a piece of your evidence before going on to other ones. Now...

I won't take issue with whether spirituality leads to better mental health. I'll assume it's right for the sake of this argument. But even assuming that that's correct the lack of spirituality does not imply lack of mental health. Does this simple logic 101 not make sense to you? The point...

This doesn't prove what you say it proves. It shows that spirituality leads to better mental health, but that doesn't imply even in its strongest form that lack of spirituality is an illness. To wit, if A leads to B, lack of A does not necessarily mean the lack of B. It could very well be the...

Thank you for your useful contribution to this discussion. Have you any more insights for us? Perhaps pointing out the sky is blue, or the earth is round? Or some other quip that adds no value whatsoever?

First, I think you are mixing up the concepts of WACC and CAPM. CAPM is used to derive an input into WACC: the equity input. Debt cost is a parallel input that does not assume CAPM. So, while I see you have a problem with debt cost in relations to WACC, I don't see what problem you have with...

No. I don't. I'm not entirely sure why it matters. Debt has a slight advantage in terms of WACC because of interest is tax deductible... but why does it that really matter? In no way does it imply that companies should go nuts on debt. And they don't. (see point about convents in the paragraph...

No one answered it because those of us who do know corporate finance can easily dismiss your idea as wrong. For the most part, companies heading into the recession were not heavily levered. Especially not compared to the leverage of the structured products. Those products are the toxic...

Oh - I stand corrected. You are just another asshole with an overblown sense of entitlement then.

I was about to scream at this guy for being a complete low life worthless asshole... until I read the second paragraph.... Now I kind of feel sorry for him. His entire way of life depends on slipping through the cracks of other people's inefficiencies... not too different from an arb trader...

Why is this interesting?

Pure idiocy. All other problems aside, why would you set the highest rate at 9.9? Does that come close to compensate you for your risks? I am also going to guess you don't know what moral hazard is.

Or approach it like a structured derivatives desk... it's whatever rate I need to hedge your position + some spread. Or... in this case, it's going to be the risk free rate (2%) + dividend rate on whatever he's buy (call it 4%) + cgarcia's counterparty risk (call it 100%). So.... figured...

Isn't this just trying to figure what the fixed leg rate is on an equity swap?

Or just one guy being really lucky.