Search results

Wait, can you explain this a bit? QE causes an upward drift, according to your explanation. What's the logic that implies that this makes calls cheaper than they would be without QE?

Erm, this is interesting... So you're saying that the upward "drift" in prices, "caused" by QE, is the reason that the fwd SPX price that you used in your example is 0.48% higher that spot? Ooh-la-la...

Right, to be sure, we're just talking about the fwd vs spot thing here, right? It's not that interest rates are priced differently in calls and puts, but rather that higher rates/divs used to imply that the relevant stock fwd (assuming expiry is far enough away) is quite a bit higher than spot...

There's nothing exciting about the part-time/full-time swing in the household survey numbers. Since the household survey uses a much smaller sample, the monthly numbers it produces are very volatile. If you look at these historically (both standalone and spread), they don't appear...

How do interest rates (affected by QE) keep call (and not put) option premia low? This doesn't make a lot of sense, sorry... As to the articles, yeah, I can imagine that a lot of people look at costless options structures of this sort, such as collars, seagulls, etc... Depending on skew...

Huh? How does the long bias translate into cheapness of calls? What books specifically mention these types of costless collars? I have a hard time imagining a +ATM put/-OTM call combination being costless or even nearly so...

It seems that you're having a similar conversation w/ eurokopek, volpunter... Not to derail that, but are you intending to respond to my latest post (before this one)? Or are you unable/unwilling to provide the statistics and the evidence that you have claimed you possess? This is the last...

Just play with a few simple scenarios and you will get an idea of what can happen...

Yes, you will always win on the volatility, but that's neither here nor there...

Right, let me cite what you have said clearly, so as to refresh your memory... "But what I DO claim is the truth of statistics that point to the fact that among the top 1% Americans, Jews place in the lower deciles of giving. (I know what comes next and I am prepared to deliver it, you just...

Right, so am I to understand that you don't have any evidence or data to support your assertions? You stated you have evidence and are happy to provide it if someone asks for it. I have asked for it. This is very simple. In fact, I can't think of anything less complicated than this. We...

Right, so you're in favor of the principle... That was really all I was trying to establish.

Your fwd bond yield seems a little too high. I am seeing smth closer to 59bps, with the CTD yield of 52bps or thereabouts. It's quite tricky to calculate a bond's price that includes rate hike expectations, even using basic techniques. Remember for a 2y bond it's not just hikes that matter...

You haven't really answered my specific question, but never mind...

Please do provide me with those statistical studies. I would happily apologize to you if I have misrepresented what you have said. However, let's not put the cart before the horse and let's see that evidence, data, facts and statistics. Please.

OKI, sure, but indulge me for a moment and allow me to divide the problem here into the constituent bits. So imagine that, in some perfect world, you could have a system where there are no loopholes, such as trusts, and you could have the collected inheritance taxes going directly into...

1) The settlement date should NOT be T+1. It should be the futures delivery date. 2) What you get from this function is yield for a given settle date, including for one which is fwd. 3) It could mean a whole lot of things, including the possibility that there's smth wrong with your calc.

I agree with much of this... I would also add that you not only want the game to be as fair as possible (hence I would support the idea of an inheritance tax or, even better, the giving pledge), but also make sure that people perceive the game to be fair. This latter aspect, in particular, has...

I see, so it's essentially a problem with the efficiency of the actual "downstream" distribution. If I understand you correctly, "death taxes" in theory should reduce inequality, for obvious reasons, but, in practice, they have the opposite effect?

Curiouser and curiouser, as Alice said...