Thursday, April 3, 2014

HFT and other riggings

Moral: Are the markets rigged? Let's stop and re-look at high-frequency trading (list of posts that used the term).

First of all, think of the Cheshire Multiple which guarantees that early sellers get the pie (the rest get crumbs). Yet, we have based peoples' future on this. These HFT types get gains on both sides. We will explain.

However, when the HFT types pulls their gains, it has a real impact on the size of the pie and the potential crumbs. In short, think leeches and parasites rather than anything positive.

So, are they necessary for liquidity? We'll get to that, too.

Below are pointers to additional material, for now. We will get back to our arguments about silly games and fiction in regard to things financial.
---

The image is from the first bullet, the book review by Philip Delves Broughton. These are the last two paragraphs. Granted Mr. Lewis loudly shouts out about a lot of stuff. However, he does have some merit in the current situation.

I have ranted about quants and HFTs since the beginning of this blog. Being an outsider, though, I'm only applying a smell test based upon years of mathematical computational experience, degrees in Economics, long years in the American economy, and a basis in grappling with foundational issues.

My early take on quants was that they were youngsters let loose by old guys with money for the sole purpose of filling pockets (taking from the hapless). That notion has not changed.

The argument for liquidity and efficiency are bogus. The near zero (search in this blog) notion is the proper argument. Those who dance with the money angels not only accumulate bad karma for the rest of us via systemic risk, they enjoy a "mirage " (yes, Mr. Broughton) of gains that are not real (upon the backs of others).

You see, to be truthful to ourselves, any high-order computational system would be redundantly viewed (yes, even those offered by the webbers), verified often, kept within reasonable bounds (and a lot more). Why? Sustainability, in short. Human dignity, for the longer view.

Let me propose to the HFT people that I, and others, could help them define these bound. The fact that these people think their type of front-running is legal indicates serious moral failings. Did we just hear that bankers want to get moral?

To be brief, as we have been at this several years now and it's nice to see something like Mr. Lewis' view crop up, HFT is a symptom of a serious disease. That computers allowed this (were the enabling factor) ought to give us pause.

PhDs? Yes, more likely, moral cretins. Actually, they do not have much grasp on how we have progressed.

You see, the natural sciences can run off a little further and faster since Nature will knock them down. Take a physicist into the realm of the dismal science and watch out. That reaction was predictable. I could smell it back in 2007 when I woke up to the fact that the financial types had taken the perdition-laden path. With finance and economics, we have harder problems. That some want to fill their pockets at the expense of others (ah yes, out-housing to exploit) needs attention.

I said it before. The markets ought to be run by a different order of people: those who do not salivate at the sight of a buck (dollar, if you must ask).

Remarks:  Modified: 04/14/2014

04/14/2014 -- Several quandaries lay about, for one, the "cheshire multiple" ought to give pause, especially for those looking through the fancy glass at future takings. With a crooked game, we know where the real value goes through a leeching effect. But, what of thinking of "tainted" (or did we forget the toxic assets of a short while ago?)? Yes, what are called earnings (gains) in  many cases, with the equity gaming, is really dirty money? Clean money? Oxymoron? Not really, as a sustainable economy would about with such. To be discussed.

04/14/2014 -- Steven Pearlstein of Washington Post weighs in.

Monday, March 31, 2014

Market is rigged?

Moral: Market is rigged? Oh, confession time? It's been a problem from the beginning.

Money looks at the matter, talking to Michael Lewis. He was in insider, it is said.

Well, I am an outsider and ask why we need this insanity (I know, people like Cramer make a mint of money playing the system). Not only is it rigged, it is a chimera. Meaning what? Only a fraction will get the promises. The whole design is to milk the little guy.

60 Minutes talked to Michael and another guy who brags on beating the high-frequency people at
their own game. Big deal. Well, I should say, big money.

But, the issue of the Bens and the Janets feeding this crap shoot remains to be discussed rationally. Too, the whole framework is suspect from the get-go, except for those who are benefiting from playing the game.

The 60 Minutes guy mentions front running. Well, there was an agreement that we now have something like that. Yes, change the name and  computerize the thing, then, it's okay? Remember Made-off (Bernie)'s little gimmick?
Juxtaposition

House of cards. Does it need to be that way? No.

Remarks:  Modified: 04/02/2014

03/31/2014 -- Huff Post and Money weigh in. My comments on the Money article.

-- Most will not get their's. That is the whole scam which has been played time and again (and the poor souls coming in now will take a bath soon). The thing is to keep the people happy during their work years so that they keep ponying up. Then, when it comes time to draw out, what they get is not what was expected for the most. Why is this not understood?

The analog is what we're seeing with the un-kept pension promises.

Oh yes, some get and get big. That is the dog and pony part (ignoring that the elephants who run the system rake it in all along the pike) of this thing. Put forth enough examples to keep people's interest up. Oh yes, my 401K is up; I'll be a rich man someday the little guy thinks (ah yes, let's see what you really get).

Some get big. Most get less (much less). Many get naught. The worry of the boomers all trying to draw out, at the same time, are very much real even if the thing wasn't rigged, and the leeches were not sucking out feed, and those who run the system weren't pulling off the cream.

How can so many smart people buy into this crap? Ah yes, get it while the getting is good. Why did Ben (and now Janet) put so much effort in keeping this beast alive?
-- The middle class always gets screwed. The early sellers take the pie; the rest eat the crumbs. Time and again.

Somehow, this whole house of cards has been given credence by appealing to Adam Smith and others. Now, with the computer, it is even more of a problem.

All the while, we have a whole set of underpaid people putting themselves and their lives on the line for this type of chimera, thinking that down the pike, they, too, can get their just share (and then find cuts due to budget concerns and such).

Was anything learned from the last go-around?

03/31/2014 -- So, Yellen is supposed to keep slapping the savers silly while the monsters play in the so-called market, essentially screwing the public royally. 

04/01/2014 -- Yellen's defense of the Fed is hot-air, but then the markets are inflated from such. Yellen says that many see a recession still in place. Yes, only the market manipulators are rolling in the dough. Yellen goes and talks to the small folks. But, has she ever met a saver? Perhaps, she would rather have people spend even if it's from debt (an ever-growing onus than entraps people and their families). Ah, Yellen is worse than Bernanke? She must know that the training wheels have to come off for the markets to grow up and to become less addictive to Fed largess.

04/02/2014 --

Wednesday, March 19, 2014

Wake up, people, it's your right

Moral: While Janet is dancing in front of Congress and the world today (will she ever wake up to the plight of the savers?), let's look at something that really needs attention. Also, Janet, please. You and Ben have stoked the Cheshire multiple to the maximum (building, while doing so, a massive teat for the addicts who cannot grow up to a real economic status ... need we go on?).

--

So, what needs attention? The entrapment of we the people by the supposed smart. In particular, we'll focus on those with the computational wherewithal to effect such as there are whole sorts of variety of these enmeshing situations.

The Magna Charta will be celebrated next year, 800 years after the fact. The world and its people needs such for web/cloud (or however it can characterized) in order to keep the Lords (with huge pockets) in check.

But, people will have to wake up their minds and see that under the kimono (skirt, okay) of these technical giants is not much but crap of an exceedingly smelly nature. Why? Because they could do so (as in, have the users clean their diapers) without any oversight or concerted reaction by the users (many of who are running after silly apps as if those were the essential order of the world).

---

Now, the WSJ even had some code on its front page (of the later sections - here's an example). Can you believe it? I remember when the bosses kept themselves remote from anything having to do with computers. If they did have a terminal, it was hidden in their desk.

Then, people, Blackberry happened. The result? Those idiots, some world class, could not get themselves away from the idiot thing as if business required that (their addiction - talk to the families of these jerks - who have now morphed several which ways).

Later, the "pads" came to fore of varying size. That pushed the ensnaring web's influence out even further. In fact, some seem to have a worldview based upon these as the primary interface with reality. Or, to put it another way, truth is bound thusly.

---

So, big issues? Yes, one thing is that this is easier than people realize. We can talk an adage: know one, know them all. You see, one important step is to start to think in these terms which can be difficult, for many reasons.

First, there is the fact of abstraction. But, hey, if you could do high school algebra, then you can code. What if you are less oriented toward that? Well, part of enhancing the computational experience for us all would be creative use of technology. We have seen how content is of importance, albeit with a stable basis provided by the technological platforms underneath. It is this latter that has willy-nilly emerged with no seeming interest by users in any type of consistent experience. Ah, the changes that we have seen.

Second, things are cloaked, either by proprietary issues or by subterfuge. Not only do we need to see what is behind the kimonos, we need to lift things to the light of day. But, that concern of mine needs a little more elucidation. We'll get there under the guise of truth engineering.

Third. Ah, that's enough, for now.

---

Earlier, I ran across Codecademy, again. The first encounter was of the type of, hey that's nice. The second one was more involved and reminded me of the power felt back in the 80s, when complicated computing was advancing at an accelerated rate. What happened after that was the emergence of the cloud as perturbed by greedy folks bent upon big pockets and fame.

Nowhere have I seen any type of user focus (correct me if I'm wrong). Mind you, I'm not talking Congressional oversight, as those who ascend do not understand these things. On the other hand, do I know how these things out to play out? Not really. I'm only raising issues, laying down, so to speak, makers in abstract'd spaces that are supposed to point out areas of concern and potential focus points.

One thing would be to have a populace that knows code. Too, kudos cannot be exclaimed enough for the freebie folks. You know who they are, the Open Source, etc. Not so much for the advertisers who are entrappers by nature, though they do have some use (yes, my profile does not subsume by being, not even by a fraction - rather, it's an irritant - ah, hence the pearl?).

The image is my profile at Codecademy. I've done 25 straight days (which they call a "streak" - well, I have done literally 40 years) of coding of various types. Too, I have looked at a lot of lessons, found problems, learned to like the interface, and more. As well, I had one day of 136 points. It was interest that kept me going as I had spent several years consciously ignoring code (after decades and after accepting the notion that code is the basis of reality -- not so, folks, we have to talk being and to look at what we are). Essentially, I cannot praise Codecademy enough for their presentation (and interpreter).

One thing that this might show is that an old guy (72nd year with more in computing software than not - I did dabble in the electrical engineering department - but, code is more forgiving - after all sorts of developments that allowed conjectures - compile/test - okay? -- in my early years, you had to desk check - play computer, due to limits - resources, compiler technology, etc.) can do this stuff. We need to get the kids involved. But, at the same time, let's talk quality, control, and some things that seem to be without the scope (Zuck's stuff and more). That is a short list; one thing is that I was able to get several projects to SEI/CMMI Level 5 status, even those dealing with advanced subjects.

But, as the agile guys say (hey, I was there in the 80s, guys, so let me speak up about things, if you would), oppression diminished creativity. True. But, willy-nilly (oh, did I use that earlier?) makes for an untamed jungle (open for hacker, and other, types of malfeasance'd thinking).

Another thing is that I want to be technical. Note, please, I've used 50+ languages, in all sorts of environments that were critical, of certain types. So what? All along, I brought along older types. In fact, one older engineer did a conversion of a (nontrivial) system to a new language after only a few days of my tutoring.

All of the arguments of bringing in people since Americans cannot do the work is pure bunk (all of you technology companies are to blame - hell, I wrote up those justifications myself - mea culpa, mea culpa).

Too, we need the younger set to get into these things. For one, it'll straighten up their thinking. In this sense: the computer is purely logical, numeric and does not kowtow, play favorites, -- meaning, it's tediously corrective - like an idiot savant). But, older people need to as well.

Adage: From my decades of experience, I have seen the older crowd let the younger folk work the detail either through laziness, pride (ah, such arses, let us twiddle their brain with mathematics and see their real abilities), status (as if, the highers don't care - yes, arses, again - oh, DC and all of its ills is a prime example), or whatever reason (say, greed, as with the quants - yes guys - you and your algorithmic Smithíans - sheesh, Adam is rolling and rolling in his grave). Yes, it was a major capitulation with far reaching consequences.

So what? Well, these things deal with our future and the essential sustaining of an economy.

The WSJ articles itemize some of the ways that people can make money with code. That's nice. There are ways that we can have all sorts of remunerations from such work.

However. another adage: FOR ALL SYSTEMS (APPS) HAVING RAMIFICATION, OUR NEED IS TO HAVE CONTINUAL OVERVIEW (to be expressed) THAT WILL BE MULTIPLES IN COST WHEN COMPARED TO THE ORIGINAL EFFORTS (agile folks, listen up).

Off shoring of knowledge? Crap back? What do you expect? The out-housed topic will be brought back to fore (opinion, yes, but not unfounded).

Remarks:  Modified: 03/19/2014

03/19/2014 -- As an aside, up until about four years ago, I always had development environments available which were problematic, for several reasons, but here's two of them. And, this applies whether they were bought or free. Either they were not interpretative and were not the easy mode that we had with the Lisp Machine. Or, even if they were, they were heavy (Visual Basic and python come to mind) and took effort to keep up (gosh, early Java was a nightmare, at times). Now, here comes Codecademy with their little interpretative thing. Okay, given, it is oriented toward courses, but it allows us to see the possibility. How many of these types of environments are there (not meaning language specific, rather the access to code handling)?

Thursday, March 6, 2014

Cheshire multiple

Moral: Wherein we re-look at a very old issue: only a few get it (many senses, but the dough, as in payout of note) - the most? losers (almost by definition).

A long while ago, I read Marilyn's and Investopedia's explanation of what happens when markets fall like they do (and will). Where did all of that money go? It just vanished, the presses reported. That question was back in 2009, when Ben was still feeling his way through the mess.

I railed then, and have since, about the "stupid" gaming (see chimera). Why is it stupid? Well, about now, when things have inflated (you see, Janet, look at how the financial assets have inflation - sheesh, also we have some costs of our living rising - her little chart is way off base), moms and pops are buying into the game. They are guaranteed losers (the late buyers). Then, we hear that people are borrowing to buy stock.

So, we have to revisit this again. An alternative? Yes, more stable approaches do exist.

One motivation for the revisit is looking at Dalio's take. He shows financial assets in his little model as something that money (and credit) can buy. And, he shows how financial assets can diminish in value. Also, leveraging came up in the video. But. the whole issue of why we have done it this way is ignored. You see, the game, as is, seems to provide a perpetual machine (which we know does not exist) that "feeds the multitude" but actually pays into the pockets of a few (most of them the game owners and controllers). Too, we have led other societies and countries into the same silliness.

---

Now, the title of the post comes from Marilyn's remark. What I have done is put the two responses side by side (Marilyn at Parade, Investopedia staff). Let's look at them and comment below.


You see, Marilyn says that the money disappears. Too, she says that only "a small percentage" can sell to get what they expect (my words, but not arguable except for angel counting). Yet, we have people putting their life's savings, and their retirement plans, upon such a stupid (there I go, again, and I would ask Marilyn, do you think this is how it ought to be?) system. Investopedia says "disappeared into thin air" without an adequate explanation. Yes, financial community, explain yourself, please?

Those who are takers always gloat (ala the 99% and such). Those not taking (but, being took) are multitude, who are mostly enslaved to care for, etc. the gloaters (those who are slowly enmeshing/entrapping reality and us, insidiously - we, the users, need our modernization of the Magna Charta - we'll get back to that).

Anyone care about sustainability into the future? Anyone care that we have indebted future generations?

---

All I can see is that these financial schemes expect an endless line of suckers. The past year or so has given us, once again, bubbles upon bubbles. Some, like the mortgage expert - what's his name? - who said the word but didn't go further. Janet seems to not notice, given her lessons from Alan and Ben.

Remarks:  Modified: 03/07/2014

03/07/2014 -- Not arguing that equity ownership is not necessary. Rather, it is the financial market's current state of evolution (madness, really) that is suspect; especially, the use of algorithms to game the system has no basis beyond merely mercenary motivations (resulting in useless churn accompanied by endless pilfering). ... One thing to notice is that these financial dealings have little to do with the operation of a business. And, as we will show, the modern configuration of these is very much like a casino (general adoption of gaming as the basis for ontology -- sheesh, I agree with my friend, Albert, on this - we'll get to that , too). ... We intend to get back to cosmology. And, the Wilshire 5000 looks like a better Index to use for our purposes. So, we will use it.   

Wednesday, March 5, 2014

BENefits

Moral: Wherein we look at Ben, then and now.

"Then?" Yes, back during the downfall of finance. Those who play were sweating (many took their balls home as they knew the games were crooked and wanted to keep their cookies). Some lost a lot of money. For the most? It has been difficult for those whose lot is not to hold oodles of money; the FED has not made it any easier, since it is oriented toward making sure that the bankers get their take.

Take? Yes, in the sense of those running the game have guaranteed income (some might say, pilfering - note, I said some and did not say I said).

"Now?" We have to wait to see what Yellen will do. In the meantime, let's compare Ben's position. The image is a snap from a July 2009 article. It reports that Ben lost a bit due to the downturn. Notice that his wealth went from $2M to $1M (thereabouts, more on that below).

That was 2009. Now, fast forward to 2014. A search now will show that Ben is worth $2M+, again. But, he's also in the position to rake it in. There's a book coming. He made $0.25M, at  one talk, it is reported. So, expect his new wealth to go up dramatically.

That has been the normal state of affairs. After all, does he not need his rewards for being in a crummy government office (actually, wood trimmed) for so many years and for being driven around by the likes of government workers? And, is there not an open door into which the moneyed sashay into government work (many of them with the expectation of the rewards ex post facto?)?

Except, Ben started to slap the savers silly about this time; that torture has not abated. The savers? Who are those? In one sense, they're part of the whole lot that do not find themselves in the situation of getting while the getting is good (not that I'm saying that Ben is thusly positioned). In another sense, they are the ones who want a sustainable economy.

Ben? Some say that he left a toxic situation; he did roll the printing presses day and night, it seems; ah, need we do the litany, again?

---

Now, we could talk paper wealth and all that. You see, not everyone could sell out of the market and get their money. Granted, many do pull out enormous amounts. Ever notice how small that set is, comparatively?

But, there is real wealth. That it seems to concentrate into the hands of the few is a natural phenomenon. That world views (I could talk this with our guy) have emerged that could make a sustainable economy is well known. Yet, these, for the most part, are not given much attention.

Then, there is the wholesome view of wealth that many know is shortchanged as all seem to clamor after the chimera.

Remarks:  Modified: 03/06/2014

03/06/2014 -- For everyone who is ga-ga about the chimeras' rise (any one of them) on the backs of the taxpayers (Ben's and Janet's huge balance sheet, plus issues of near-zero being ignored), please consider this tale:

Call it, slapping savers more than silly. Ben made $250K with about 40 minutes of work (well, there was travel - he didn't pay - and preparation - he's using his notes from the past decade). That is equivalent to what he caused TWO savers to lose (give or take) with his policy (let's say they have 500K, each, in their savings for retirement purposes) over the past five years (give or take). And, that is a $100K+ loss for each saver which can be (is, in this case) figured with a very conservative interest rate differential (make this delta a little more reasonable, and the losses are indeed tragic). ...

Not get the message? Let's save 20 savers with $50K each. ...

The real tragedy? Ben has, as well, pushed US Savings Bonds (like you would expect the moms and pops to buy -- or, a patriot, got it?) returns down to minuscule amounts that are an insult in many senses and laughable in others.

Thanks, big guy. You did the savers a lot of favors. ...

More of this type of analysis will follow (we can all hope that Janet comes to her senses).




Wednesday, February 19, 2014

Dalio's view

Moral: Wherein we see that the FED had a fractious meeting. Did Yellen have to yell to get people back into line?

Do any of those care about savers being slapped silly?

---

From those people, let's go over and listen to Ray Dalio. He was interviewed for Business Week (need I put in the Bloomberg?) by Charlie Rose. In that interview's write up, there is a link to a video.

   How the Economic Machine Works

It was only 30 minutes, so I watched (and cut out a few snaps). The topic deals with an economy that recognizes markets (see basis, this blog). Starting from transactions, Dalio lays out how things get to where credit comes about, then we have the multiplying effects, and more. Of course, the nature of the beast is cyclic.

So, we have the ups and downs. Into the mix, Dalio adds central agents: government and bank. Now, the former we can think of from several angles; but, let's just leave it for later. We see that Dalio defines the work of the central bank (Yellen's bailiwick) as two things: interest changing and printing money. Of course, it also buys bonds from the central government so that they have money to spend beyond that taken in by taxes.

It's a nice little video. Let's look at a few things; see the video for the remainder. What we're commenting on relates to the theme of the blog.

 This snap comes 05:43 of the video. If an economy only uses money, things can be dire. Why? For one, restraints (something that Ben never applied).

Dalio equates spending and income; that is, what you spend is someone else's income. Now, see the borrower in the image. If one can borrow, and that is determined by ability to pay, then one can spend more than one could if only the money was spent. It's that simple. So, there is a multiplying effect since everyone can contribute by borrowing and spending. How far does it go?

Well, then, if you put on your thinking hat, you would hope that the spending was not wasteful, as in, for something that might make money later. Unfortunately, much borrowing is not wise. Too, ought borrowing be done without collateral.

You see, before this last downturn, we had people claiming collateral that was bogus. Ah, how many ways was this done. For one, people borrowed to buy stock which is risky (it's still happening, folks). For another, with creatively defined financial instruments (fictional capital, ala Marx) we had things that were only chimeric come to fore.

Oh, what did we learn?

This snap comes at 08:41. You see people standing on credit on the upside. Then, you see people burdened on the downside (that is a wave, if it wasn't apparent - as in, what goes up must come down - unless, of course, it's propped up by Ben and Janet). For any credit situation, at some point, the debt needs to be settled.

Well, we had people walking from houses and mortgages. And, much worse (even if we ignore Made-off).

If credit was founded upon collateral, the many problems could be contained. Yet, the FED has this thing about bubbles (quoting Alan, can't see it before the bust - no, clean up - much like diapers).

So, that brings us to this. The image, at 09:53, shows how money (based upon something - perhaps, gold, if we were lucky) is far outweighed by credit (due to the multiplying effect). And, what do we know of the credit?

Let's ask Janet if she has looked at Ben's books yet. And, that booming size of the credit realm, in many cases, is not based upon any type of collateral.

Rather, we have serious leveraging.

And, lots of spending can be used to buy financial assets (called such, but they might very well be toxic and of no value). We see the markets soaring. What is behind that other than mania pushed by Ben's (and now Janet's) coddling of the addicts who need to deal daily in such manipulative schemes.

We'll have to go on about this, again and again.
 
Finally (18:53), we get to some point where the debt load outweighs money. Wait! Didn't we say earlier that credit outweighed money? Yes, we did say that. When things are rosy, no one seems to care. It's when the risk of non-payment becomes visible, banks close their doors.

Remember in 2008? They all took their money home and wouldn't play. Why? Well, they knew that the underpinnings were crap. Ben didn't really clean things up.

In fact, what does he have in his possession (er, Janet's) that is toxic?

As Dalio says, it's a brief little thing that touches lightly. Yet, it's not a bad overview. This use of snaps was meant to show how there are things to discuss all along the video.

Perhaps, we'll get back to it with more comments.

Remarks:  Modified: 03/06/2014

03/06/2014 -- Watched this, again, with another viewer who thought that it was a nice little video. A couple of things stood out for me. One was his use of "thin air" (or, in other words, highly-ephemeral collateral) several times. The whole multiplier thing is based upon faith in getting repaid. A recent article pointed to where things were grim for future retirees. Many face the retraction of a promise sometime in the future; some are already facing the reality of a withdrawal. How do we ensure promised payments? One of the toxic types, supposedly, dealt with that (the CDO). ... Around the 19:40 frame, he talked about four ways to de-leverage. We have go on in length about leveraging. Many seem to have forgotten as we hear of people borrowing to buy stock, again; it was a no-no from way back. One of the four was was printing money. Ben made good use of that.

Wednesday, February 12, 2014

Yellen effect

Moral: Wherein we look at what Yellen brought that might be different. Actually, it's too early to tell, yet.

Yellen is the boss;
she likes slapping savers silly
We can see what's up with this little thing from USAToday. It lists five reasons for the markets (investors, addicts, what have you, ...) feeling coddled. One is that Janet is a continuation of Ben (we'll have to look at that, at some point). Another is that she will keep slapping the savers silly (ah, that ilk, who cares about any "investor" who isn't into risky gaming?). Then, she's the boss; yes, we know that (it's now on her head that millions are being screwed out of their potential earnings - why is this allowed? - so that some "investors" (those who throw tamper tantrums) can continue to play the ca-pital-sino).

---

Earlier, there was Alan's put (yes, bail out at any time that he deemed necessary). Then, we had Ben's bounce (yes, lifting up to carry the markets when they were too weak to walk [reminder, weak due to excessive partying and screwing around]; then, placing training wheels so that they could continue to play their game of raking in oodles from the pockets of the hapless and of being those who milk the system). Now, we have the Yellen effect (which will be a focus for a long while).

But, big mama Yellen might wake up one of these days (we can only hope). When? After she realizes that she can move from under that cloud of puts offered, for years, by males who wanted to their buddies to dominate finance. At some point in time, she will hear the slaps (torture, really, being done under her reign -you did not know that, Janet?) up besides the heads of the millions of hapless.

---

We have these little reactions to the FED speak all the time (in fact, be truthful Alan and Ben, is it not downright additive? - such power (people eating out of your hand?)? - it'll be interesting to see how Janet handles that part of the role). So, there is a pop/fizz; then, a few days later, the dope (that which the FED provides to the addicts - what is in the punch bowl, by the way?) wears off.

---

Oh, for a mature mind that would consider a proper economic model.

Remarks:  Modified: 02/12/2014

02/12/2014 -- Because of Yellen, perhaps, the markets are up. USAToday has a headline (today, let's say): Dow has first 4-day winning streak of 2014. What? Winning? You mean more dupes came into the market. Remember, those who lost from this last drop (bought recently) have not recovered their paper loss. Other than some FED titillation, what was there that would cause anyone to think of "winning" as the proper word? Usually, teams have winning streaks from being better than their opponent in whatever game is being played. How can that concept be used here? Too, those supposed gains are chimeric, to say the least.