Kudos to MMs

[GTS]

Quote from nitro:

NFV 1082.32. NFV(1) 1122.86. NFV(2) 1157.55. SPX 1192.47.

110 difference between NFV and SPX! New record?

 

[nitro]

Quote from GTS:

110 difference between NFV and SPX! New record?

Ja. What is really strange is that NFV(2) went ___lower___ on the construction news, and the market went higher. I don't know...

Hard to believe. The market is going higher both on good news and bad news. Market now up 15% in two months without 2% correction, and up nearly 80% since the 2009 lows.

So the low was 666, the high 1540 ish. SPX at say 1200 to make it easy. So this market claims we are closer to 1540 economics than 666 economics. No way. Zero delta. No chance.

 

[elovemer]

in uptrend
...ES weekly low at 1040 still unbroken
...june 28 down thrust did not take it out

 

[nitro]

One thing that has always been interesting to me is, ok, markets are a discounting mechanism, so they discount and price the future. Why not price in the entire future of mankind then? Why don't people bid up SPX to 100,000 to discount say the next 100 years?

It is clearly utility that drives markets, otherwise the SPX would gap to its terminal value, whatever that is.

 

[shortie]

Quote from nitro:

One thing that has always been interesting to me is, ok, markets are a discounting mechanism, so they discount and price the future. Why not price in the entire future of mankind then? Why don't people bid up SPX to 100,000 to discount say the next 100 years?

It is clearly utility that drives markets, otherwise the SPX would gap to its terminal value, whatever that is.

in the long run the terminal value is 0.

Edwin "Shortie" Hubble Out

 

[nitro]

Quote from shortie:

in the long run the terminal value is 0.

Edwin "Shortie" Hubble Out

Is it? Say an ELE

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extinction_event

was headed our way. Would markets sell off? What good would it do? You see, markets have no definition in the presence of no future. Trying to define a market with no future is like dividing by zero, it is non-sensical.

 

[nitro]

The kind of equilibrium we seek cannot be Nash-Equilibrium, since players are constantly changing their strategies:

Nash equilibrium

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nash_equilibrium

However, on the high frequency, this could very well work. (although the notion of Non-credible threats clearly exists in markets http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-credible_threats)

 

[nitro]

Quote from nitro:

One thing that has always been interesting to me is, ok, markets are a discounting mechanism, so they discount and price the future. Why not price in the entire future of mankind then? Why don't people bid up SPX to 100,000 to discount say the next 100 years?

It is clearly utility that drives markets, otherwise the SPX would gap to its terminal value, whatever that is.

On short time frames, algorithmic traders are probably conciously or not, implementing a form of Backward induction

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Backward_induction

Perhaps even on investment time frames...

 

[nitro]

Odds of red SPX? Imo ~85%

 

[nitro]

If this gives up the ghost, what does it look like? Sorry, I don't remember what a -3% day looks like.

The last hour of the day could see a doubling of the volume so far.