What do we see? Look below. But, you will see why we used the title for the post. Not only is the multiplier magical, it's the work of leprechauns (definitely, pot-o-gold'ísh, so to speak).
We step through 4 cases, here. The following does a little describing of the change and the results.
- This is the simple example, as it goes through t=4 (formerly, t=3; we started at one this time and went one step further). There are only 20 stock with 2 being sold each time. The mcap (formerly, basis) accumulates. The "Cheshire" is the percentage increase that the lift (formerly, bulge) is over the mcap (dlt mcap - formerly, increment). Note, please, that Cheshire is in the hundreds. The lift% shows the percent that the lift is of the growing total.
- Same case and prices, but with a large increase of the number of stock (to 100,000) and in the number of stock sold. Too, a little variability of #sold is introduced. Note, the "Cheshire" is still tame, comparatively.
- So, let's keep decrease the number of stock to 100. And, starting with a price of 5, increase by 5, then increase by a fraction. Too, vary the number sold. Notice that the ""Cheshire" is still tame. This is still a very small example in number of stock (see below).
- Now, blow up the number of stock and stock sold. Too, we'll keep the price reasonable, in the range of one actual case that we watched closely from IPO (interested observers - say, anthropologists, not investors). Notice the wild "Cheshire" ratings. Too, you get that even with the lift being a small percentage of the total. What? Ripe cherries for picking?
Reminder: See last's post example of the dark pool motivation. By the way, we have a whole slew of permutations on that theme which make the case stronger.
Note: The lift accumulates (along with the mcap) and is not adjusted (this is a future post). Why? To continue with the extreme case upon which we will put the proper modeling of the natural dampers, etc. We will want to compare this extreme case with various dampening techniques (for Janet's crowd -- you see, the markets and their whole bailiwick - capitalistic arguments - are from olden times (way back); the computer came and was basically exploited by the greedy ones; it is time to rectify this through all sorts of improvements --- look, that computational power now being spent on gaming the system ought to be put to use in providing better accounting (regrouping) and auditing schemes (of course, truth engineering, see below) -- do you not think?).
We saw, recently, a reminder that Warren (you all know who he is) has one rule of thumb, namely the ratio of the market cap to GNP, that applies here (there are many more of his rules to consider - but, Warren, you waffled on derivatives - we would like to know why? -- BTW, derivatives, and their ilk, play the lift - there is a whole lot of room for maneuvering). This ratio has been tracked historically. Too, we will have to be cognizant of the ratio of outstanding and actively traded.
We will use several examples, like BAC (customer of their's - the original one of SF (not the interloper) - since the 60s), to wit: 63m of 10b traded (that's like 4% - wait, almost like the ratio we see with the voting populace?).
|BAC on a recent day|
Also, in the spirit of openness, let's say that our thrust is to argue "lift" (formerly, bulge) and related themes (with a computational basis) as a necessary means to recognize the mania'd state (under the auspices of Truth Engineering where we first awoke, as old Rip - six years ago, imagine that, and saw the havoc wrecked by the baby boomers - ah, guys and dolls).
Note: With all of that lift'ing going on, no wonder the eyes of the guys like those at golden sacks bug out (the mere thought gets the salivation activated -- reminder - you will see that we have argued that the financial pipes would be handled by plumbers, et al, as those of the greedy ilk are not required - needed for liquidity? give us a break).
03/17/2015 -- Changed terminology to reflect that used commonly: basis to mcap, bulge to lift. For each of these, we have a delta. Then, mcap accumulates each step; this change will help facilitate the analysis needed for the adjustments which will reflect the true mcap (coming). In this extreme case, the mcap is understated as lift has not been adjusted as it ought (we have two lifts: the mcap itself and that which comes along for the ride - see the simple example of the rise of two stocks "lift"ing the value of eighteen others).
03/18/2015 -- Today was a good example of lift. Take the DOW. It hovered in the upper 17k region, until Janet spoke. Then, there was a swing of 400 upward. You know, on the downside, there are stoppers which keep things from going as they ought. Earlier, I would have said that coo-coo (goo-goo, whatever) was talked to the addicts. But, now, I want to be technical, in a normative sense.
03/22/2015 -- Jealous? No way, Jose. FED gives Wall Street what it wishes.
03/23/2015 -- Pew Research's reports will be useful: Only upper-income families have made wealth gains in recent decades. In some of the responses to comments, one author expresses disbelief in the Fed's influence. Well, we can work on helping clarify that (by more than griping about the addicts). Our research deals, in part, with how many simple folk get to experience, and enjoy, the book-based wealth that their financial reports offer them. That is, that which is beyond Social Security (but, being sensitive to take-backs as we see, recently, happening with retirees being informed that their pension is being cut). From my experience, it is a small percentage (comparatively). The one fact of the upper crust? They have more protection which we can enumerate and illustrate.