Sunday, June 23, 2013

Central Banks and Addiction

Moral: Wherein we let some particular events of the past week (irrational fear of the taper) motivate a few thoughts; too, Romain Hatchuel has a nice review in the 06/21/2013 WSJ that is worth attention.

---

First, what happened? Ben let up with his silly promises (so to speak); or, if we look at it correctly, Ben just talked the truth. What people read into it tells us a lot.

As said here before, the training wheels need to come off some time or another. Too, Ben and his ilk ought to consider savers who have been slapped silly for the past few years. Why? Ben, and his kind, have some type of debt infatuation. Gosh, PhDs, and other brains, are pushing this type of viewpoint?

Addicts would sell their mothers down the river. The whole thing of the past few years has been very much analogous to some type of unstable thinking related to overuse of substances (in this case, Ben's largess).

---

Aside: It's not Ben's fault, entirely (after all, the role of the pusher seems to be a consistent factor in human affairs -- so why not finance, too?); except, he seems to be trying to outdo King Alan as the chimera's main face (Ben, the wizard?).

---

So, as we've said before, let's go back to the basics, please. The whole regimen of Ben's pretty face out there with everyone trying to read something into his communications (verbal and non) is more than plain silly. It's stupid, folks. A proper view would demonstrate why this is so.

I know, how long will it take to get this defined? You see, the addicts want their daily fix. Some cannot live with just the five-day workweek. No, they have to use the other two days, as well, for their gaming.

Ever heard of a sandbox? This gaming type of mind would best be situated in such a thing. You know, sandboxes can be used by "children" for play. Too, though, consider how cats use sandboxes. Yes, those who need such could crap all they want. Then, they could clean up after themselves (unlike this past downturn where we had to clean up the crap from these people - diaper change, essentially).

The adults would run the financial community (Harvard, where are you on this matter? Or, are you in the class of trying to make the fast buck to the detriment of all but those in your class?) with the sandbox isolating the serious gaming minds. Would we learn anything from such play?

---

Now, finally, to Romain's article. He is a manager partner of Square Advisors, LLC that is based in New York. The firm deals with asset management. That focus implies his interest.

So, what did Romain write that struck a chord? Well, he writes, for one, that investors have been acting like "a bunch of junkies" using whatever "crack" is being pushed by financial markets. Behind all of this is the dealer with whom we are all familiar (who? Ben, of course). So, Ben just lets a glimmer out that he's limiting the supply, and those who are using his stuff go bananas.

Later, Romain goes into how addicts are drawn to their favorite substance and why. You have to love this little bit of analogy.

Now, after that, Romain compares the period of '50-'80 and from '80 to '10. You see, I am very much familiar with those eras as they correspond to my adult work life. And, from that perspective, I see that the financial world has gone bonkers. Look, since the downturn started, I've been looking to see where things have gone awry. It's simple, folks. As this blog has been trying to detail, albeit in a, probably too mocking, manner.

---

Aside: Academic work touched upon finance, from an economic perspective. Frankly, it didn't look interesting. Later, I heard that armies of youth were heading that way. Why? In retrospect, it was inevitable, given how technology evolved, that finance morphed. Too, though, the whole motivation for truth engineering has a lot in common with the embedded error-ful ways (we'll have to get back to this).

---

Romain's words resonate many ways, but we'll hold that for later. Let's just continue. You see, before '80, the debt to GDP ratio was small. Now, this is more than at the National level. You have to know that it deals with the personal debt, too. Romain says that in the 30-year period, to '80, the GDT grew 191% while debt grew only by 12%.

Now, after '80 (please, note, this is when the upturn of things like the DOW start -- sheer madness, when looked at properly, hint: near zero -- look it up in this blog, okay?), for the next 30 years, the GDP and the debt went up about the same.

Add caption
Aside: Ben, you might think that lowering the rate would help those in debt. But, many could not redo their loans. Note, too, guy, that many of the larger pockets got their debt forgiven (what? you're doing the 7-year thing that we saw in Leviticus? Actually, Romain, I would go further and say that rather than "junkies" which is pejorative, somewhat, what we have are immature ones who expect others to take care of them. There are several ways to characterize this, but "sugar daddy" comes to mind. That is, at some point, we seem to want someone else to pay. Where are the mature minds who will realize this? By the way, don't politicos always have their hands out - like takers?

Aside: Despite these immature takers, we do have those who give. Take the enlisted class in the military who give their all without sufficient reward. Not talking the O-class, who consider themselves, by the Grace of God (I suppose), as better. We, as a nation, have asked for supreme sacrifices from the few over the time periods mentioned in this post. At the same time, we've spawned many big pocketeers who never performed in any type of national service. ... There are many other types of givers. Actually, the whole economy rests upon those many (even though most of the attention is given to the fat-cat errants - the times) who have been striving despite difficulties to perform roles of substance. ... By the way, did you hear about Goodwill managers making 100Ks of bucks while paying some workers cents (yes, cents -- by the way, I was paid, in the 1959 timeframe, less than a dollar an hour for performing the duties of a hospital orderly - my senior year in high school - that was 1/2 a century ago -- this is 2013!) per hour?

---

Yes, debt is borrowing from the future (Romain sees this as do a lot of others). ... Too, the whole talk of liquidity is a game being played (and they're using phony mathematics as the basis for the argument) out by those who want to take the cream off the top -- ill-begotten gains, for one).

Look, some one trolling to find suckers is not adding to market value. Consider, do we let the legal authorities entrap? Yet, we let the financial idiots to this as if they're great brains. Gosh, folks, how did this madness come to be? Financial schools (yes, academia) need to step up as some type of authority. Oh, Ben is from such? What was his problem (besides trying to control a gigantic system with incorrect knobs)?

Romain quotes Krugman on austerity (see Wiki for a good discussion). Of course, Krugman stresses liquidity's usefulness (which we can show is mainly used by insiders to tweak the system in order to enhance their gain potential). Does Krugman consider that we've hocked our progeny's future?

---

The debate will continue. Romain seems to rue opportunity lost.

Well, reading the article got me to thinking about the times of six years ago (see 7oops7, when the first glimmers of idiocy stated to peek around all attempts to keep the public in an unaware mode). When things started to tumble, there was more discussion of things like moral hazards, and such. Of late, it's like the whole game is Ben and his largess and the resulting frothing of the markets.

What does it mean to a saver to have the DOW soaring when the banks slap you silly? Yes, they want you to get into equities, too (as in BofA trying to gain from taking over ML -- yes, nauseating, somewhat).

Aside: Tranche or not - This was the first post related to finance. You see, after the glimmers started, I got back to work trying to see what had happened in the financial world (I had worked in applied engineering - real products) that was so unstable. The whole notion behind tranching struck me as being like looking for perpetual motion (yes, indeed). Finance deals with the abstract and has become more divorced from reality through time. Most of the market activity daily is pure crap, meant mainly to churn and to generate fees. Why this became more problematic in the latter part of the 1900s is due to computation's ubiquitous-ness, in part.

Remarks:

09/17/2014 -- Yes, she did. The coo-coo, goo-goo goes on. The landscape is strewn with the lifeless bodies of the savers. Thanks, Janet.

12/05/2013 -- If only Ben would put a shot across the bow.

08/15/2013 -- FED siteFEDofNYPre-FOMC Announcement "drift"

08/05/2013 -- Let's see. Financial Engineering needs some attention. Perhaps, with the likes of MIT involved, this discipline can learn to lead the way out of the morass. Expect more on this topic. If things continue as they are, markets will be pure chimera (as in, ca-pital-sinos). Investors? We'll go on about that, too. It's guaranteed that most in the equity markets will lose. Why is that not talked about by those heads we see daily yakking on TV and newer media? No, they would rather go gaga (apologies to the Lady). So, we'll have to address this issue: the point (price) at which loss outweighs any gains to date. All cannot sell to make a profit. Now, there is a way that all could sell high (government as the buyer of last resort - Ben has been doing this, albeit with bonds - yet, it frees up money that can go to equities -- government? of course, taxpayers). We'll have to look at the misuse of mathematics; plus, doers need to be brought back to a respectful position.

07/12/2013 -- Will wonders never cease? Jon knocks early-lookers?

07/11/2013 -- Wherein we consider that Ben is entrapped by the expectations of the addicts. Too, this warps his view; except, he started to slap the savers early; now, he's torturing them (Guess what? Some nominee for a position admits that water boarding is torture. Ben has been doing worse than that to savers.).

06/27/2013 -- Plenty of talking has been done by several of Ben's buddies (of both genders). Now that the markets show that they have legs (or can, at least, stand?), perhaps, the thing would be to go cold turkey. Or, either quit the latest QE or raise the interest so that savers can start to heal their faces that have been slapped so many times that their skin is in worse shape than it would have been if they had undergone lashes across the face (yes, Ben, and his ilk, need to think of that part of the equation, too). With lashes, one knows when it (the ordeal) ends.

06/25/2013 -- Ben doesn't have to talk goo-goo. No, his hawks can do that. Today, the MN guy saying that they need to continue accommodation due to financial crises. Sheesh. Crises? When do they ever end? And, what about accommodating savers? Those who sold were the ones in early making "gains" almost beyond bound. It would be nice to have quiescence once to do an accounting (about as much a pipe dream - several reasons - as it is for someone on the Fed to argue for the little savers).

06/24/2013 -- The convulsions of DT continue. When, and how, can health be restored? Ben, do you think of that or do you just like to tip toe before the fat cats of Wall Street?

06/23/2013 -- As we expand the cosmology of business series, we'll get more into why mathematics and computation have led things astray (you'll hear it here, first).

06/22/2013 -- WSJ editorial: Central banks can't keep floating the world economy forever, and our view is the sooner the withdrawal begins the better. But as with all addictions, the withdrawal is going to be volatile.

Modified: 09/17/2014

Tuesday, June 11, 2013

Tranching, again

Moral: Wherein we look at tranching's resurgence (see WSJ CDO article on 06/10/2013), given that Ben's largess knows no bounds, evidently.

This post might be a milestones for future readers. Too, it may represent a broadening of focus.

---

We have mentioned the technique, called using tranches, a few times. Of course, we were derisive of the notion, especially since a lot of the turmoil of the latest downturn was greatly increased by the uncertainty of these types of things. We said: they left the game since who did not knew who was not a crook (given that it takes one to know one or something of that order). That's the lemon problem, folks.

Also, these things magnify losses. Actually, we may still have to unwind some of this type of idiocy from before (toxic assets - how soon we forget?).

Notice the image. It talks about how banks walked away. Sure. They knew the crookery 'neath their crap.

---

What is the change here? Well, let's just say that people will game. It's part of our character. So, the issue ought to be to keep gaming's influence to that of the gamer or his/her family (assuming that they have a say). For the rest of us (speaking for myself, I don't want to deal with the fallout from idiots, even (perhaps, especially so, for) those with Italian suits), we will tell the bankers (and their ilk) to keep the gaming to their own little milieu.

---

The CDO (collateralized debt obligation) is a type of gaming. First of all, this is enabled by computation (about which I know a whole lot). Too, it's a way for those who want more to take it (albeit, with a gentleman's agreement) from those who don't mind so much (but, we have to ask about the fiscal responsibility of these people who are giving up to the idiots).

Aside: Forgive me as I pull myself away from the derisive tone. After all, that addiction is a lessor offense that what we see with those who are feeding at the golden teat that Ben has provided (use the taper, Ben, please -- wait, where ought he aim the thing?). Perhaps, the thing to do is to limit mockery to asides, such as this.

The WSJ article talks about the CDOs coming back big time. They're not regulated.

Now, the truth of the matter is that this might be a useful means if the derivatives had something of real value beneath them. How could we assure that? Also, how much information ought we to have when these things are being done behind walls? Say, private equity? You see, more publicly oriented wealth managers might buy in which changes the game.

---

It may be that this would be a means to have a "sandbox" for those who want to play. We're open to anything that is reasonable and that honors the issues of near zero.

So, expect more quantitative and technical foci here, folks. We'll subsume all this, of course, under the cosmology of business.

Remarks:

08/13/2013 -- Yesterday, we mentioned that President Obama wants to change the mortgage arena.This seems like a good opportunity to start a look back. One would hope that those who are in charge of the changes know the intricacies of why we have idiots running things now. If not, we'll attempt such an analysis here. Idiots? Yes, such inconsistencies of tying up money for 30 years, at a low interest (without acknowledging that taxpayers allowed this to occur in the first place, early on for veterans coming back from WWII). There are others things like this that seem so like chasing after the perpetual-motion machine. Finance, built upon bogus money, has no way to ground itself, essentially. So, let's start with Investors II.

06/22/2013 -- So, how many traded their paper gain (chimera) to solid debt with the downturn? Okay, forget the size of the loser set, how much went from illusory gain (backed by a promise to pay later) to real debt that has to be paid with blood and guts? Wait! Some of those doing the margin calls, and ilk, have some way to weasel (not disparaging the grand animal) out, not doubt.

06/20/2013 -- Can Ben stand quiet? Some charts show that Ben has turned over (morphed, whatever) every time there was a downturn. He would come up with something new to tell the chimera addicts. And, then we saw a rally; there are several charts (and articles) that show this. The net result is that we're at a point where those in the game had their tongues wagging as they awaited another bone. But, there wasn't one. Now, this downturn might just be like messing on the carpet to show displeasure. ... Look, who is selling? I would bet that it's those who bought in long ago, so they've got a gain (ill-begotten, remember?) there. The losers, if they need to sell now, will be the later buyers. ... We really would learn something to see how this settles without Ben's intervention. Would he have to wait for the next opportunity? Not really. But, can he keep from playing hero? ... Too, Ben is not there to inflate the markets. ... Of course, Ben does have to hear what people like the Speaker say about him. Poor guy. Ben pleases the idiots/addicts when he's loose (as he has been for years now). When he talks maturity (like play a fair game, don't expect rigging in your favor, don't look for handouts, ...), does anyone of the idiots listen? ... But, Ben, you've slapped the savers silly now for a long time. You can't hear their groans?

06/19/2013 -- All the media (financial type) were saying that investors were awaiting "guidance" from Ben, and the Fed, this morning. So, Ben has spoken. No change. Yet, other heads, like Stockman (ought we agree with him on this?), say that Ben is asea, doesn't know how to extract himself from the corner into which he has painted himself and us. All the while, Ben has been slapping the savers, way beyond silly.

Modified: 08/13/2013

Thursday, June 6, 2013

Ben and the taper

Moral: Wherein we digress further from our business of cosmology while we consider a new concept that has been pointed to as being behind a drop.

Taper? Yes, it's the same as unwind, remove the training wheels, and a number of other ways to look at the reversal of Ben's largess.

No doubt, Ben will talk goo-goo (baby talk) again, and the equity markets will soar (partly on the backs of the savers). How far can it go with Ben's assist?

Also, one source said that Ben doesn't like the use of taper. Okay? Why?

---

Actually, we ought to ask, how far ought it to go? We're in new territory, several ways. So, that gets us back to the post-Ben (new era) analysis that will come about. Too bad, this look back won't help Ben (as he told the Princeton crowd, recently -- actually, Economics does not even have 20-20 hindsight - but, then, who does? singularities (search "singularity") prevent this) extricate himself from a bad situation. Bad? Yes, junkies who are dependent upon his handouts. Talk about a sense of entitlement.

It goes like this: I, as an investor (playing in the ca-pital-sino), must (deserve to) have the Fed wrap itself around the axle (forgive the vernacular'ly oriented usage) in order to make things well for my kind at the expense of all other economic kinds.

---

Taper? or
Go cold turkey?
Now, back to the subject: taper. This implies some type of graduated approach. Ben might see this as being long with a slight, incremental change. You know, Ben, some see "cold turkey" as more advantageous. Consequences? No more than a tailored withdrawal. Besides, the memory of enduring the withdrawal might cause a little more reflection in the future before settling into another addiction. Wait! That type of thing may not be in Ben's worldview. I'll have to look more closely at his speech. There is one problem; he was trying to be humorous. The truth can be funny; but, many times, funny is very much untrue. Yes, one of those dilemmas that we find ourselves in.

The real crux? Ben knows what audience that he is playing to. But, patting fat cats on the back now may not add much of value to his long-term reputation.

Remarks:

02/11/2015 -- Wikipedia: Zero interest rate policy.

12/19/2013 -- Ben did his parting shot (whimper that it was); they're going to taper slowly, less than a 1/8th on the bond buy, starting next month. And, he's going to torture savers for another year or so. We'll have to see how the pieces fall. The markets got heavily seeded today in hopes of luring in the idiots and moms/pops (who cannot afford the pending losses). So, it's pop, fizz, ..., again. Too, we'll see more goo-goo talk to the immature markets and the addicted investors thereof. One of many technical issues that we'll have to get into: Nanex's view.

10/31/2013 -- Finally, a voice of reason. Just the headline tells the tale: Tapering without tears - how to end QE3 - by Ronald McKinnon, WSJ, 10/28/2013. Essentially, going to zero was an error. Thanks, Ben. There are too many negative effects. Besides, trying to control unemployment with that little knob (which Ben dialed to the maximum, early on -- see "out of bullets" discussions from 2008/9 -- which, by the way, was untrue as Ben creatively ventured into new areas, taking us down the perdition path). Actually, what he is trying to do is push string (try that for ringing a bell -- push needs to be changed to pull).

08/21/2013 -- I was wrong. I thought that Ben would go goo-goo, again, as his doves want him to do. But, there is talk of a taper, albeit slowly. Sheesh. No one does "cold turkey" anymore? That's how I quit smoking. Why is it that the FED feeds addiction (that's a monetary policy?)? Now, when does the slapping the face silly quit?

08/15/2013 -- FED siteFEDofNYPre-FOMC Announcement "drift"

08/07/2013 -- Investors? After the last taper talk (more than a month ago), things jiggled a bit. Some lost money. Some gnashed their teeth (but, for someone, like my ilk, who has been slapped silly for several years now, what comfort ought we give to those who don't know how to wean themselves from their addiction? --- in the meantime, Ben, we, the savers (saviors?), continue to be good citizens despite the Fed's attempt to trample us under the dirt). At that time, Ben had his Doves talk goo-goo. So, the mania began again. Yesterday, there was a slight downturn supposedly as some Hawk (or two) said, perhaps, next month there might be some fiddling with the taper (the talk wasn't that the investor would get reamed - forgive me, I was in the U.S.Army at 17 and learned some good lessons -- also, I was a medic so I know of orifices, to boot). Ben's problem is that he's in a fog (who isn't?). Yet, he runs around with the elite like an oracle (he ought to consider some of the Prophets about which he knows, perhaps), strokes the addicts, bends in to the money'd, and more. And, he looks for signs (omen analyzer -- ah, age-old behavior). And, he misses the obvious. For instance, what they're calling jobs (related to his triggers) are really just glorified indentured servancy roles. In fact, these things are to drive a consumer-oriented economy? ...

08/05/2013 -- Let's see. Financial Engineering needs some attention. Perhaps, with the likes of MIT involved, this discipline can learn to lead the way out of the morass. Expect more on this topic. If things continue as they are, markets will be pure chimera (as in, ca-pital-sinos). Investors? We'll go on about that, too. It's guaranteed that most in the equity markets will lose. Why is that not talked about by those heads we see daily yakking on TV and newer media? No, they would rather go gaga (apologies to the Lady). So, we'll have to address this issue: the point (price) at which loss outweighs any gains to date. All cannot sell to make a profit. Now, there is a way that all could sell high (government as the buyer of last resort - Ben has been doing this, albeit with bonds - yet, it frees up money that can go to equities -- government? of course, taxpayers). We'll have to look at the misuse of mathematics; plus, doers need to be brought back to a respectful position.

07/31/2013 -- Ben cannot unwind or taper downhe has too many Doves.

06/25/2013 -- Ben doesn't have to talk goo-goo. No, his hawks can do that. Today, the MN guy saying that they need to continue accommodation due to financial crises. Sheesh. Crises? When do they ever end? And, what about accommodating savers? Those who sold were the ones in early making "gains" almost beyond bound. It would be nice to have quiescence once to do an accounting (about as much a pipe dream - several reasons - as it is for someone on the Fed to argue for the little savers).

06/22/2013 -- So, how many traded their paper gain (chimera) to solid debt with the downturn? Okay, forget the size of the loser set, how much went from illusory gain (backed by a promise to pay later) to real debt that has to be paid with blood and guts? Wait! Some of those doing the margin calls, and ilk, have some way to weasel (not disparaging the grand animal) out, not doubt.

06/20/2013 -- Ben talked, the markets took a downturn (hey, go to 12K or less for the DOW, please). You see, he didn't say goo-goo and talk additional little goodies for the idiots. No, all he did was not throw in help (addicts will steal their own mother's assets) that is not needed; too, there was the slightest hint that, at some point, the idiots will have to stand on their own as adults (meaning, removing the gaming thrill and moving toward something more mature and sustainable). ... Of course, there have been these before. People call them corrections. Then, things get hot,again, as some want to explore new levels. All the while (this is from the beginning of equities, folks), the real measurements are far from getting attention. Look. Rigged markets? It's worse than that, as we've alluded to here since the beginning. ... However, to where ought we to go? That is not an easy question to answer. You see, the idiots have driven things this way a long time. Ben knows that as his academic work looked at the '30s (as in, 1930s). Why idiots? Well, it has to do with several things, not necessarily moral in context. We won't dance away from that, though. Perhaps, we could paraphrase Oscar Wilde's look at war as vulgar versus wicked. Same here. The types of things that seem so smart in finance are vulgar at their core. Why? They hurt people as much as bombs. The latter kills or maims you. Financial flimflam maims but in a more insidious way. No, these ways are not wicked, they're vulgar. We'll have to characterize that as we continue our look at cosmology.

06/19/2013 -- With computer-based trading taking such a big role, what does all of this gaming mean, day to day? Ben's word watched so closely? Is that not a funny thing? I wonder if he worries about the legacy that he will leave with his upcoming departure? There are two key factors to all of this: savers have been slapped silly (it's a wonder that there is any skin left on their face), these triple-digits upswings suck from a very large number of pockets (that is, near zero is the situation - with those running the game growing their pockets).

06/11/2013 -- So, volatility is back from its languid ways. Some see this measure as a risk indicator. ... It's interesting to watch the twice daily rationale given for ups and downs (example, today). Then, there is running commentary, daily. Some of it right on the nose. ... Ben ought to think about those who he's been sacking, namely, a large, important element (savers). The current means may lessen the load of debt for those who want to build their proverbial ball-and-chain, but it also encourages the run-amoks (especially, those who run after risk like junkies after the pusher (ought volatility be enough for them?).

06/06/2013 -- Ben hasn't spoken yet, on his tapering ideas. But, the DOW was losing, then it turned around. His group, the Fed, did say that American's net worth has regained ground (to around the 2007 level - before inflation). Nice (but, Ben's balance sheet is now tripled (or more) the size -- from which position he'll need to move, at some point). It was admitted, too, that it's the top 20 percent who are raising the level. So, do all boats, then, rise (or does wealth trickle down?)? BTW, please try to keep procto comments to the minimum.

Modified: 02/11/2015