Search results

And now we know why you don't have $500MM...

Oh good - so at least you retract the statements that mortgages don't have values. Now, here's a small lesson for you - mortgage CDOs are marked to model, but models are caliberated to market factors (it turns out that the deltas that these models produced were pretty unrealistic in a bad...

And in case you think I'm joking about the blp part, here's the MBS trading screen right here. It's a two-fucking-way market. If someone's marking it higher, you can bet someone like me will hit it.

... So the two billion or so Mortgage Back Securities I see my bloomberg right now with 1/2 bps of bid/ask spread that I can hit immediately aren't real? Nice.... dude - you are a complete moron

... Why would you do any less than the most thorough DD possible?

Alright. Provide citation for point (2) please. Fed economist tend to work very close with academic economists. Who are the credible researchers who completely disagree with the Fed's methodology? What is this one equation that you speak of? And yes, you are arguing agency costs (not that it...

(1) Central banks (especially the Fed) are extremely research and data oriented. There is a huge amount of excellent scholarship conducted by the Fed pertaining to this exact problem. See Taylor's rule. So, no. they aren't trigger happy. At the same time, they have to react to a local problem...

Okay. Maybe I erred too harshly on my judgement. However, I still find what you are saying incoherent. Here's why: You talk about exogenous shocks created by "manipulation" of the money supply. Yet, early, you spoke of nash equilibrium. So is it an exogenous shock or is it a endogenous...

You are throwing around enough technical terms to make me think that you've had some training in economics. But then, as someone who has had graduate level training in economics, what you say is gibberish. To wit, in a macro monetary model, why would you model economic growth as trend+stochastic...

At least your plan is a bit more grounded in economic reality than the usual rants around here. A few problems too: (1) Your step (b) calculation is extremely difficult. There has been research done on this since the dawn of modern economics; Central banks are particularly resourced to do...

To add on to what you are saying, moreover, time has value as well. Consuming goods tomorrow does not have the same value as consuming goods today because you have to be compensated to defer your consumption (otherwise, rationally you would want everything today, bounded only by storage cost and...

Um... the problem with your idea is that your currency's value is now tied to the demand for labor (in particular, the three types of labor you've defined). That demand isn't constant and subject to the business cycle. So, the value of your currency (against other goods) will now be cyclical...

It's not easy to classify a security as hold-to-maturity and thus not subject to mark-to-market accounting. The vast majority of "toxic" assets are not hold-to-maturity on the bank's books. The problem is valuation. These things aren't priced. So they end up marking-to-(really bad)-model...

Why do you believe the opposite of fraud is a great investment? Can't I believe that the books are not legally phony, but banks at the same time are a bad investment? Oh that's right - you failed basic logic...

Your line-of-thought basically the accounting equivalent of answering a specific felony charge by pointing to the declaration of independence. In some sense, you are right, so far the spirit of GAAP is concerned - but in other, more concrete sense, you are pitifully ill equip for an informed...

Can you explain what VaR is and how it's calculated? Didn't think so. Please, go on, resume ranting

This thread is off track? The last 4 posts talked about the timothy-brand. Which, unless I'm mistaking, is the domain of marketing? Please don't shout. It's very rude.

No. Because while yield is higher, chances are real return (yield - risk free, which has inflation built in) is diminishing. That being said, there might be retail flow into bonds at that point given mutual fund investors don't really understand real return. Or, investors may gamble that...

Why? And why not throw luck as one of the factors in there too? He went ultra long beta in a bull market. He made money. Good for him. But it doesn't make him skilled. What I will credit him is that he's clever enough to turn his trading "success" into a timothy sykes brand.

What's the difference? Moreover, he's got a strategy that will outperform until it blow up. He's got no risk control and his performance metrics shows. (Not that I think he isn't fundamentally right in his approach. By this, I mean - he's going to make his money writing books and selling...