The Credit Crisis Financial Stocks Short Journal
- Thread starter Daal
- Start date
Quote from ralph00:
You mean like AIG?
I would be in your camp if the contract had something like 5bps in spread(providing large odds to a hiking event). at 30 it just looks to me the contract is doing what all these studies show, providing a premia for long positions
For the contract to lose money the fed needs to hike twice. Bernanke would have to give up reapoiment desires and the fed would have to willingly go into a legal cloud, plus 37 paranoia, plus job losses still ocurring, plus I could go on and on
I understand. Like I said the position is a winner 9 times out of 10. However, think about the 10th time - stocks melt up w/the DJIA hitting 11500 by Thanksgiving, oil goes over $100/barrel, unemployment ticks below 9%, the dollar disintegrates - and the Fed hikes by 100 basis points in one swoop.
Fed doesnt hike
0.9(90%) * 30bps = gain of 27bps
Fed hikes in your scenario
0.1(10%) * 70(your 100 - the 30 priced in already) = -7bps
Even under your scenario those contracts have positive expectancy. I find it, however, highly dubious that idea that there is 10% chance of a 100bps hike. More like 2% or lower
Remember the $147 oil pause(in the pre lehman recession where numbers werent all that bad)
From the WSJ "Since the 1970s, the Fed has waited 14 months, on average, after unemployment topped out to tighten the screws on the economy."
Even if the UR peaked last month(which is a downright laughable theory) this still means its unlikely to see a rate hike in the next year. According to my math here I'm getting better than even odds to bet against it, so I just need to be right something like 50% of the time to have positive expectancy. Given that I see a 90% chance of no change in 12 months plus in some hiking scenarios you still break even/win small/lose small, this makes this trade a downright nobrainer
Even if the UR peaked last month(which is a downright laughable theory) this still means its unlikely to see a rate hike in the next year. According to my math here I'm getting better than even odds to bet against it, so I just need to be right something like 50% of the time to have positive expectancy. Given that I see a 90% chance of no change in 12 months plus in some hiking scenarios you still break even/win small/lose small, this makes this trade a downright nobrainer
Even more when you add that there is a reason those studies show why there is this free lunch in easing cycles. I dont believe in efficient market hypothesis but I do believe in a weak EMH(Actually a double weak EMH), so its good for me to find out why there are dollar bills laying around, this makes it easier to sleep at night
Add one more reason why the fed stays low for longer. Unit labor costs are plunging
http://barrons.econoday.com/byshoweventfull.asp?fid=438108&cust=barrons&year=2009#top
Fed futures are putting a bullish 123 after their dip, so it looks like time to pull the trigger and add agressively. Yet I'm holding back because I expect the fomc statement to come in the hawkish camp, maybe this wont have much of a impact as it seems expected by most but I rather not take that chance
http://barrons.econoday.com/byshoweventfull.asp?fid=438108&cust=barrons&year=2009#top
Fed futures are putting a bullish 123 after their dip, so it looks like time to pull the trigger and add agressively. Yet I'm holding back because I expect the fomc statement to come in the hawkish camp, maybe this wont have much of a impact as it seems expected by most but I rather not take that chance
I believe I came up with a better method of using contrarian data in forming trading decisions, I might post about it in the future. Usually people use the '0 or 1' approach, for instance
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aSYyB7dKTJRQ
'contrarians' would see this kind of data and say "I'm selling out all of stocks/gold/whatever" but I believe this approach is inferior. This rally for instance produced lots of contrarian points yet it just kept going. Back in Aug 2008, I kept saying in this journal how short selling was becoming a hot game and that made me worried, by Sep I had covered most of my shorts. Yet the market plunged shortly after. The '0 or 1' method of using contrarian data and waiting for the 'big signal' is incorrect in my view
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aSYyB7dKTJRQ
'contrarians' would see this kind of data and say "I'm selling out all of stocks/gold/whatever" but I believe this approach is inferior. This rally for instance produced lots of contrarian points yet it just kept going. Back in Aug 2008, I kept saying in this journal how short selling was becoming a hot game and that made me worried, by Sep I had covered most of my shorts. Yet the market plunged shortly after. The '0 or 1' method of using contrarian data and waiting for the 'big signal' is incorrect in my view
Same thing happened with commodities in 2008H1. The 'contrarians' by Jan were thinking "I cant go long this thing, everybody and their mothers is buying gold, silver and oil, this is stupid and will end up badly", commodities had gone up every year by double digits since 2002/2003 IIRC. After the fed cut rates in sep 07 they started their parabolic rise. The fact that idiots were buying didnt prevent it from posting the best performance first half in history, leaving the contrarians wondering what hit them. So certainly there are better ways to trade than this crude binary thinking
FOMC calling bottom?
"the Federal Open Market Committee met in June suggests that economic activity is leveling out."
This reminds me a bit of of when in June 2008 the Fed decided to 'acknowledge' that energy and commodities were going through the roof with 'However, in light of the continued increases in the prices of energy and some other commodities and the elevated state of some indicators of inflation expectations, uncertainty about the inflation outlook remains high.'
They were usually saying stuff like 'inflation has been high and we think its going down, we will monitor it' as soon as they 'acknowledged' it they went into a free fall. This lastest bullish bit of 'leveling out' combined with other contrarians bit almost certainly means that equities are at a particular danger zone where expected average returns (in the short-run) could be negative
"the Federal Open Market Committee met in June suggests that economic activity is leveling out."
This reminds me a bit of of when in June 2008 the Fed decided to 'acknowledge' that energy and commodities were going through the roof with 'However, in light of the continued increases in the prices of energy and some other commodities and the elevated state of some indicators of inflation expectations, uncertainty about the inflation outlook remains high.'
They were usually saying stuff like 'inflation has been high and we think its going down, we will monitor it' as soon as they 'acknowledged' it they went into a free fall. This lastest bullish bit of 'leveling out' combined with other contrarians bit almost certainly means that equities are at a particular danger zone where expected average returns (in the short-run) could be negative