Search results

You suck at trading and are unemployable.

Ha.

I was perusing that thread and saw this nifty post: you know what that means.....

He lied about the drinking age during his high school years: https://www.businessinsider.com/maryland-drinking-age-could-brett-kavanaugh-legally-drink-high-school-2018-9 A Supreme Court judge can’t even get the laws straight.

Tesla wasn’t sued. Elon Musk was. And that is appropriate. What he did was close to fraud.

Skyfall sucked - one of the worst. Bond shouldn’t have a past. He should only have a present. and M and him should not have that close of a bond (hehe - pun).

The scheme is no different. The only difference between this and other methods is his expected return which he can control by adding more size. In the end it all becomes the same. Selling vol is tricky. Buying it is tricky. The skewed returns are what make it tricky. There’s no simple...

Birtherism?

Why not. It’s 10.85 of arbitrage!

That camera probably took a photo of a train with 3 cars. Now trains have hundreds of cars. You can take a photo of three rail cars with a standard wide angle lense.

As opposed to throwing darts at a board?

One for you and one for your wife.

I think his realized returns are very suspicious as well.

Ten year returns look great right now because he gets 90percent of Lehman related volatility. How will 10year returns look next year?

I have forgotten what the limits were. There was no concept of capital allocation. You were charged for your balance sheet usage and only constrained by risk limits such as delta, Vega, and various gap risk measures. This was for an equity volatility book. I don’t know fixed income desks...

I spent a good chunk of my institutional career on a prop desk for a large bank. These numbers seem very low. With 21 traders I would have expected the gross profit to be around 200mm+. these statements feel like the balance sheet is managed to produce zero pnl. And the 21 traders are trading...

Low float means not many shares in circulation. It has nothing to do with borrow. Borrow can be high in stocks with high float (like my Citigroup example from 2009). You and FSU are talking about hard to borrow stocks not necessarily stocks with low floats. That is what was confusing. It’s...

Okay. that has nothing to do with absence of shares in the market. It has to do with the long holders not willing to lend their shares out. When Citigroup was trading around $1 (2009), there was talk of a tender and the borrow cost was $1. Calls were being excercised as the stock rallied. There...

What does the low float have to do with it?

why would the chance of assignment be low because of an absence of shares in the market?