The European Tribune is a forum for thoughtful dialogue of European and international issues. You are invited to post comments and your own articles.
Please REGISTER to post.
But if you are a longer term investor this foolishness doesn't affect you much. If a company like Apple creates a new, great product like the Ipod, its shares go from $15-->$80. That's not a casino.
Try holding down GE when there's good news on their operations. This crap can be done in the high tech stocks pretty easily because the companies are small, their value is ephemeral often (the next guys killer ap can make yours worthless overnight), and the valuations are only realistic if fantastic growth rates continue. Any hint of trouble can cause a big move because the stocks are high risk in the first place.
There's a reason Warren Buffett never invested in high tech. Meanwhile, his stock has been a steady, above market performer for 4 decades. Hardly casino-ish.
If you are merely getting in to day trade, better be able to run with the big boys or get ready to lose money. That said, the activity he describes as "fomenting" is clearly illegal. It's just damn hard to catch/prove. The kind of manipulation the Enron sorts pulled in the commod markets are far worse, and once caught weren't so hard to prove so a bunch of those a-holes are in the clink.
Yes, I think the moral of the story is that unless you've got quite a few millions of dollars to play with, stay out of the day trade. In that respect it is a bit like a casino, in that the market, as far as speculative investing goes, is loaded against the small investor.
A bomb, H bomb, Minuteman / The names get more attractive / The decisions are made by NATO / The press call it British opinion -- The Three Johns
But by definition, if you are day trading, you are not an investor. You are a speculator and therefore can't expect much sympathy.
From 1995 to 2000:
"sometimes" beat the market would be more appropriate.
1 out of 1000 "random monkey" speculators will beat the market for 10 consecutive 5 years period. There are many speculators around :).
And I rather doubt your random monkey can actually beat the mkt by the amount Buffet beat the market. check out the graph below. Looks worse for qqq. Note that's a log scale. change it to linear if you want to really see a delta.
there may be some dividend differences (total return) but I don't know how to factor that in but S&P yield ha s only been 2-3%/year so over 15 years thats roughly another 1.6 multiplier on the bottom line.
What these guys do is create volatility where there might not be any
Pretty much sums up the oil market to me...
Now if I had a really dirty mind and worked at (say) BP I'd think:
"Well: I'm structurally short about 30,000 Brent contracts: where can I find someone who trades alongside someone structurally long cos they run a fund - you know, like J Aron alongside Goldman Sachs".
Then when there's not a great deal going on, or there's some pricing to be done against settlements, or we're rolling the fund over month to month, or whatever; then I could march the market to the top of the hill and back down again and my friends who are alongside the fund could reimburse my losses from their profits OTC (off-exchange) in some way.
And we could both make profits from those naive fools hedging on the markets who actually thought the market prices reflected supply and demand.
But of course something like that could never happen because of our robust compliance department.
Our chairman would never allow it: hang on a minute, isn't he Goldman's chairman as well?
"The future is already here -- it's just not very evenly distributed"
People like to make easy moey, especially now. We are at a top point of the cycle of greed - "everyone" acts asif believing that maney can be made easily perpetually. (Yeah, there is no free lunch - if government assists. But otherwise, prosperity can grow ever more continuously.)
The most effective way to make easy money is a Ponzi scheme (or similarly, a pyramide scheme). They work especially well when there are many people seeking easy money, like it was in Russia and Easter Europe in the 1990's. The most smart blocks can profit handily from massive eagerness. (Poker works the same way, largely.)
Ponzi and pyramid schemes are illegal, of course - too many people inescapably suffer. But a Ponzi scheme does not have to be crystal clear or rigidly designed. Just throw in some ingredients - a steadily growing market, "assuredly" increasing asset value, a flow of newcommers, extra stimulation of demand - and experienced traders already recognize that they don't have to follow the value of their hands, they just have to get timing of Ponzi-lite trading right.
Hyman Minsky build a theory how unstable Ponzi financing patterns emerge from a prosperous or innovative economy phase.
Most disturbingly, the Bush administration was consistently bringing in Ponzi ingredients with its tax policies. That was a pretty sure way to deliver a booming economy - hardly anything can match a Ponzi boom. At worst, their insider ring might have had a hidden Ponzi idea from the outset...
What we have at the moment is a world with a rapidly growing population, with rapidly increasing productivity leading to a lot more work value sloshing around. That's causing some asset bubbles as interest rates are probably too low and leverage is being offered too easily. Simply just too much money chasing too few assets. So maybe the assets are currently over valued and we will get a pull back.
But I don't buy your Great Depression argument (90% drop in the DOW in 3 years and 25%+ unemployment). 20-30 % pullback like 2000 -- maybe. But I'm getting awfully jaded with the Cassandra forecasts that would need a 30% pullback on the S&P just to get down to the point where the doom was first predicted.
Existence of assests does not exclude emergent Ponzi financing. As you say, there might be too few assets for too much money. In effect, the market "recycles" money of later entrants to give profit margins to astute insiders. The tanks are not left completely empty, but there remains just a meager bottom of aa volumous bubble.
So if you are a big boy, people just seeing the broker you use buying heavy can be enough to start a rumor that big fund X is a buyer. They then jump in and try to front run you. So as a big player, you spend half your time trying to disguise your moves -- spoofing the others, lying to them etc. These things I'd consider grey -- necessary evils because it is not a game of old maid and the rest of the market is not prevented from acting based on info they infer from other public info.
Lying to a journalist to spook a market? Getting pretty close to black but just how do you prosecute someone for saying "I hear on the 'vine that XYZ corp's new product will crush the IPod" vs saying "I believe Apple is due for a correction because of stiffening competition from XYX corp". Try to actually convict. NFW. A seems dirty to me, but B is a rational reason for taking a position as a speculator.
What the Enron boys did was clearly illegal (happened a bit in Europe in my day as well). They specifically reported fake deals or lied about the price or did a deal which was later unwound in secret later in order to move the market marker services such as Platts in order to make a profit on some derivative instrument pricing off of the marker.
However, merely doing a series of deals in order to make the market move doesn't strike me as illegal. If I wish to sell more than the market will take at say 100, then the market isn't 100. It's where ever the next bid shows up. If I only have to sell 100 in order to drop the price on 1000 I am buying elsewhere off of the market quotes have I broken any laws? Or have I just pissed off the lords of fair play and the management of gutless operations that are only willing to trade off quotes determined by 22 year old journalism majors with 2 months experience reading market tea leaves or half assed futures exchange settles?
However, merely doing a series of deals in order to make the market move doesn't strike me as illegal. If I wish to sell more than the market will take at say 100, then the market isn't 100. It's where ever the next bid shows up. If I only have to sell 100 in order to drop the price on 1000 I am buying elsewhere off of the market quotes have I broken any laws?
But my gut reaction to that clip is rage, and feeling he is a total a'hole. (Some of my financial friends have told me that the operating guys, like me, are naive.)
But if you are truly an investor, the price of XYZ corp gyrating around the line fundamentals would generate doesn't matter a whit. This is just one set of aholes ripping off others. In the meantime they provide liquidity you might need and narrow the trading spread.
Now if you have money invested in a hedge fund and these dicks are spoofing their report cards to generate larger bonus payments than reality would give, you are being robbed. But if you are a hedge fund investor, then you should know the people you are dealing with are probably dicks and factor that into your decision to invest money with them. And this is why to get into a hedge fund you have to prove you are a sophisticated investor.
You can't cheat an honest man very easily. Reaching for well above market returns is a sure sign of greed. Risk/Reward. there are no free lunches.
Aren't you pissed off by watching Cramer on the You tube clip. I am.
Personally it does not undermine my confidence in the markets--but i just don't like the image it gives to others. It's a market confidence thing , isn't it.?
Google Vitol, Trafigura, Marc Rich, Clarendon, Vanol and see the kind of crap these people are accused of around the world. These were my counterparties.
"never let them see you sweat"
and it's true. If the others smell weakness they gain the confidence needed to perhaps break you. No single player is bigger than the markets as the Hunts found out.
Bulls make money, bears make money, pigs get slaughtered.
Our knowledge has surpassed our wisdom. -Charu Saxena.
If you have ever had to be around the real Cramer type speculators you'll find that most of the truly successful ones will gamble on anything, are utterly amoral about how they make money and really don't much care if others get hurt. That's my experience.
I admit I've never dealt with people at pure quant shops -- since they don't deal with people and let the models do the talking. The truly successful ones there just keep their mouths shut and hope no one notices their actions and succeeds in reverse engineering their models. The best geek on our desk was one of the nicest humans you could ever meet. Incredibly smart and grounded. Made partner and therefore got extremely rich. Well deserved compared to some of his peers.
As for long term investors, they are neither suckers nor aholes. Just folks put some assets at risk in hopes of a return.
Day traders who think they can beat the system operating from home? 80%+ suckers. And these are Cramer's Cramerica.
If the casino is bubbling, the bubble component and the realistic value component become impossible to distinguish.
You could eliminate the bubble component by eliminating speculation and making it impossible to sell shares within - say - a year of purchase. That would turn casino transactions into more thoughtful and measured investment transactions.
Of course that's not going to happen, because no one in the casino wants to have their toys taken away. And also because a lot of 'growth' is generated by imaginary casino value artificially inflating expectations.
All valuation has a degree of subjectivity as price really is set by buying pressure vs. selling pressure. However if you are looking at Apple, larger profits and a new, growing market should mean the company truly is worth significantly more. Is some of the $80 hype? maybe. But is that just a random bet that can move in either direction by a random amount based on unknown and unpredictable forces -- NFW? This entire analogy of a casino strikes me as lame.
We already have strong incentives to hold shares 1 year or more. Capital gains taxes are much lower than regular income from short term speculation.
All valuation has a degree of subjectivity as price really is set by buying pressure vs. selling pressure.
And that's where you're missing my point.
I'm not talking about the specific value of a share in isolation, but the fact that the Ponzi effect distorts values across the entire market - which is mainly what drives the creation of bubbles and the apparent creation of value out of thin air.
We're really talking about different feedback loops. At the first level you have 'rational' investment, based on an expectation of return defined purely in terms of the business itself. E.g. if I know that I have X amount of something valuable but I need $Y dollars to bring it to a saleable state, it's easy for me to estimate whether or not an investment is worthwhile.
When those expectations can themselves be traded as abstract entities, you add another feedback loop which is divorced from the 'rational' value. At this point you're dealing in fictions, and it becomes a case of what you can get away with or (literally) persuade others to buy.
This where the Ponzi effect starts driving a bubble. Book values become a combination of 'rational' values, inflated faith-based values, and semi-random volatility created by trading momentum and market-making plays by those who want to cream off a few extra %, just because they can.
In reality-based terms we're now a long way from rational values, and deep into a place where rooms full of people with servers make shit up. Book values are an act of faith and exist only as long as people are willing to keep that faith in a future return. This becomes defined by market momentum, and not so much because of a specific business case.
Once that faith disappears the bubble pops, and values return to something that might pass for a rational assessment.
A company like Apple can catch the wave of sentiment that drives a bubble and ride it to the top of the optimism curve. But the rational element of share value can easily be swamped by pseudo-value created by Ponzi-like trading.
(Did we learn nothing from the Internet bust?)
As for taxes preventing volatility - considering the almost mythological volumes of trading on the markets, these taxes don't seem to do much to dampen enthusiasm for speculation.
You are comparing the apples of Enron/CMGI/Lucent with the oranges of Coca Cola, Merck, etc.
by Frank Schnittger - May 31
by Oui - May 30 15 comments
by Frank Schnittger - May 23 3 comments
by Frank Schnittger - May 27 3 comments
by Frank Schnittger - May 5 22 comments
by Oui - May 13 66 comments
by Carrie - Apr 30 7 comments
by Oui - Jun 17 comments
by Oui - May 3125 comments
by Frank Schnittger - May 31
by Oui - May 3015 comments
by Frank Schnittger - May 273 comments
by Oui - May 2726 comments
by Oui - May 24
by Frank Schnittger - May 233 comments
by Oui - May 1366 comments
by Oui - May 910 comments
by Frank Schnittger - May 522 comments
by Oui - May 450 comments
by Oui - May 312 comments
by Oui - Apr 30273 comments
by Carrie - Apr 307 comments
by Oui - Apr 2647 comments
by Oui - Apr 889 comments
by Oui - Mar 19144 comments