This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
In the News
Progress
There is the appearance of progress on an important issue facing the capital markets:
Actually there is no progress at all. The CFTC’s Gary Gensler was just talking nice before the election. From the article (Link):
Gensler said he had a designed a broad package of potential rules, which address some of the dangers of high-speed trading, and he hoped to put it before the commission "shortly."
What a weasel. “Potential” rules? This is lawyer talk for “no rules”.
Gensler is “hoping” to put the rules before the commission? He runs the damn CFTC. Why is Gary hoping to do something? He should just do it. And what is this business about “shortly”? The flash-crash was 30 months ago. What the hell has Gensler doing for all that time? Hoping? It gets worse:
This broad package, known as a concept release, is designed to initiate a public debate. Based on feedback the CFTC will get the agency may then move to propose new rules.
Concept release? How can they think this stuff up?
The “feedback” will come from the guys with the white spats who are running the robots. This topic is very complicated. There are very few outsiders who understand what is going on in nano-second land (I don’t, neither does Gensler). Tyler Durden at Zero Hedge knows as much as anyone who is an outsider. If he wrote Gensler on HFT, it would not be considered. Only insiders will write rules for this club.
Separately, the Chicago Fed wrote the SEC on the issue of HFT. The Chi boys are worried that the robots have no skin in the game. (What’s to worry?) Machines trade stocks in seconds, so they don’t create positions that are subject to margin requirements. The Fed’s letter summed this up pretty well:
"This strikes us as imprudent"
Imprudent? I looked it up:
Ill-advised, unwise, heedless, careless, rash, negligent
I think “negligent” is the best description of Gensler’s plan for “potential rules shortly”.
++
More Progress
For the past ten years thousands of accountants and lawyers have been working to design global standards for reporting financial information for publicly traded companies.
This is a big deal. It’s a once-in-a-century opportunity to re-write/up-date the rules for disclosure of key financial information. Uniform standards would (finally) allow investors (and regulators) to look across borders and make apples to apples comparisons.
Sound good? Forget about it; it’s not going to happen. “Why?” you might ask. The answer is the big US banks put the kibosh on the effort. The issue that blew the chance for global accounting transparency: (Link)
How to force banks to recognize losses earlier on bad loans.
Recognize losses early? No wonder the banks did not go for it. But tell me again why the US banks get to call the shots on this?
++
Incredible Progress
How about Face Book? The stock opened 25% higher and closed the day up a very impressive 20%. The catalyst for the big jump was evidence that the deep thinkers at FB have figured out how to make money on the back of mobile FB users.
The top line revenue from mobile was $115Mn for the quarter. A few seconds after the news, FB had tacked on $12Bn of market cap! It doesn’t matter that FB didn’t make a dime in selling those ads. Everybody loves the stock now. CNBC’s David Faber said (Three times!):
“I’m hearing that ‘Buy-side only’ funds are now getting involved.”
I suppose this is good news for Dave’s viewers. I’m thinking the dumb money has been in FB since the IPO, and more dumb money doesn’t make it smart.
Real smart guys, like Dan Niles, have played the short side of FB. Dan says he got his short off at $42 (Possible, but highly unlikely). On TV, Dan said that he covered his short a day before the big news. This guy is so smart that he not only cut his short, he put on a tidy long. I’m thinking fantasy-land.
With all the fast talkers, smart traders and dumb money involved at this point, the stock probably has found a floor. Me? I’m not convinced. FB is trading at 50Xs 2012 EPS and 40Xs 2013 EPS estimates. It’s currently valued at 16Xs revenue. All this for a company that figured out to put pop-up ads on a phone (and piss off its users in the process).
Unbelievable Progress
There was a terrible earthquake in Italy in 2009. 300 people were killed in Abruzzo, when the ground shook.
Today, the Italian justice system found six Italian seismologists guilty of manslaughter for having failed to warn the folks in Abruzzo that a quake was coming. The scientists are headed to the slammer for a six-year term.
The scientists were found guilty of providing:
“Imprecise, incomplete and contradictory information”
What would happen if the standard set in Italy for seismologists were applied to economists, Wall Street soothsayers, politicians and the technocrats who run everything these days?
The prisons would be full.
- advertisements -








Well, that's funny to read, because it is Michael Mann who's suing assholes smearing his reputation. Given how incredibly hard it is to win a libel suit, that should tell you something about the climate deniers criminals and their MO.
It suggests to me that Mr. Mann's calculations with regards to evaluating possible legal outcomes are as flawed as his calculations regarding "climate change".
Besides, a legal fishing trip on the good ship Contingency Fee is always good fun.
I'm thinking climate change deniers should be broken on the wheel and their families made to watch.
Written like a true religious fanatic with the Spanish inquisition refererence most revealing. How dare anyone question a religious dogma, AGW, that is so popular with central planners and NWO control freaks? Its safe to say you've never done any scientific research yourself or you'd understand uncertainly is the hallmark of all scientific models.
Here's something to consider-consensus in science means nothing-it is in fact historically a negative indicator of theories (e.g. Newtonian mechanicals (the overwhelmingly consensus model) vs quantum mechanics at the turn of the last century) Skeptism is the hallmark of all good science. Theories can only be falsified, never proven. If you really want to understand the scientific method a knowledge of the writings of Richard Feynmann are essential. He would be very skeptical of a climate model which excludes the most important green house gas, water, from consideration while focussing entirely on a minor gas, CO2.
But hopefully you're just being satirical with your silly comment.
.
I'm thinking anyone who is against global warming should be broken on the wheel and their familes made to watch.
Turn up the heat! Ban Winter! Turn up the damn heat!
Down with Winter!
I love trolling the shit out of the subject, too.
+1
Meanwhile, I'm old enough to remember when this phenomena was called "weather."
Anybody who adopts politicized science as reasoned opinion... well, they are going to get exactly the future they deserve. Sad thing is, they do their damndest to drag the rest of humanity down to their level.
Which part of "politics is evil" do you NOT UNDERSTAND?
Oh, and while all human actions have consequences, our total release of carbon into the atmosphere had been dwarfed by that of a single volcano.
Like I said, EVIL.
Both words, climate and weather, have existed since well before you were born. Weather is the changes of the seasons, within the broad scope of climate. We would not expect snow storms in October in Sacramento CA even though that is what Truckee CA got (1.5 hours away by highway). Get it? Two different words with different meanings.
As for politics, there are winners and losers. The winners would not consider it evil, the losers might. But once again, the word evil has a meaning. Your black and white thinking is not helping. The world is full of nuance, it is better to see it then to ignore it. More fun too!
As for volanoes, my limited research (15 seconds) indicates you are incorrect:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/volcanoes-and-global-warming.htm
Pfff! Come on...we've evolved (cough! cough!) since then. ;-)
Better would be to strip them of all their wealth and make them live in Nature where they could enjoy the "new and improved" climate.
I think China has at least one and probably several climate engineering projects underway. Heard one briefly mentioned on NPR today but I cannot find a link.
They do indeed, it's called burning coal.
He's talking about an actual project with the intended purpose of modification of rainfall patterns. I have heard about it as well. I don't know the specifics enough to comment.
just put "geoengineering china" into a search engine, top o' the list:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/geoengineering
a lot of geoengineering links for amrka came up, despite the china tag, wonder why. . .
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2011/oct/06/us-push-geoengine...
http://www.scidev.net/en/agriculture-and-environment/planet-under-pressu...
further research will lead one to facts that "geoengineering" has moved well beyond the "proposal" stages, despite newsy reporting saying otherwise. . .
Yeah, the thing you guys are missing is the ethereal nature of "climate science" as politically bound and more importantly, still quite specuous.
Nobody claims that climate change is false. Everyone knows it has been changing as long as the planet has existed. How you intend to stop it is, however, hilarious.
But do tell, how did Global Cooling turn into Global Warming, then Climate Change? Do you fellas see any sort of incongruency here?
Let's all pretend we're mystified. I just don't get the name change, it must be wrong!
It was never Global Cooling. The Global Warming phrase was too scientific, since it referred to overall climate temperature, a concept that, though correct, missed the point, which is more severe weather and unpredictable changes. Hence, Climate Change. What you pretend to be mystified by is the difference between climate and weather. We are not talking about weather change here, we are talking about forests burning and being replaced by scrub, coastlines slowly drowning, arid regions becoming deserts. Climate Change, get it?
If it makes you feel any better, it is too late to actually stop it (our impact on CLIMATE). We need to try and slow it down.
Exhibit A: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling
Exhibit B: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming
Exhibit C: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change
Please pick one.
I'm not arguing against the science.
I am arguing against the political influence in the science, the questionable nature of the funding of the scientists involved, and the corruption thereof in the solutions presented by the thoroughly compromised political class.
I am also arguing against the poor handling of data, and more importantly the destruction of data by the CRU. Please show me where I can find the raw data used in the modelling done by the CRU. I do a bit of modelling myself and I would love to see that data. It might even make me consider shutting up about all this if I could verify their models against raw data. Oh, that's right, I can't get that data because there is A: not enough, and B: what does exist has been 'adjusted/expanded' by various metrics and processes in order to be able to model it.. Hmm.
The incongruence I see here is running against scientists which make bad calls in subjects we can't stop (climate CHANGES mainly because of externalities to the earth system, we cannot predict earthquake INTENSITY AND TIME based on precessors data, etc.) like in a whitch hunt but just do nothing about banksters that make not only bad calls, but also abuse the people.
Wait, Mike Mann is paid by the people... BURN THE WHITCH!!! /sarc
There is evidence of fraud at the CRU. It is different.
Those seisemologists were making a judgement call based on the information they had at the time. They were in all likelihood doing the best that they could.
Can't really say that about the CRU.
Very different situations/cases.
That Italian seisemologist case reminds me of the Bulgarian nurses HIV trial in Libya a few years ago.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HIV_trial_in_Libya
Indeed. Scary that it's happening in a "free", "modern" society.
There is NO evidence of fraud at the CRU.
5 (FIVE!!!) different investigations have proven that beyond a reasonable doubt.
But reasonable doubt are for reasonable people only.
Mrs Tze Tung was found guilty in a court of law.
How many investigations against the various banks have found that there was no fraud?
Keep the hits coming.
Man that guy Gensler is some cockroach.
Yep. Integrity, honesty and responsible behavior are just thought experiments to Gensler.
Please tell him not to think so much.
My jaw dropped when I read about those seismologists. I doubt that people or even that judge fully comprehend the ramifications of that judgement.
Very, very irresponsible ruling. Pure witch-burning.
As for the charlatans on the street, well, maybe the seismologists should have adopted their strategy.
I don't want to go hunting for the links again, but the info is out there: this is all about the local authorities scapegoating some scientists to cover their asses. Years of taking kickbacks and flat-out bribes to go easy on code enforcement came back to bite the locals, so they need to find a target to take the heat(check out the history of "amnesties" for unapproved housing in southern Italy). The local council has joined the multi-million euro lawsuit against these scientists, so it's clear there's a strong push to deflect the blame.
The only real surprise is that it's being done so blatantly in public, even by Italian standards.
Okay, che cazzo, eh? Here's some links:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/08/world/europe/08codes.html?_r=1
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/italy/8777084/Relatives...
Just need their predictions to be accompanied with full disclosure that they really have no idea what will actually happen and that no one should rely on their predictions.
I, Fu Manchu, am not one to act in haste but maybe the President's Council of Economic Advisors should be given a dose of witch-burning.
Or at least tarred and feathered and run out of town on the same rail as their mulatto Marxist overlord.
Vote FU MANCHU, the REAL non-white peril!
Absolutely bonkers, isn't it?
What next... if a meteorologist fails to predict a tornado and someone dies, are they guilty of manslaughter too?
Different rules for economists, though. As so many said in 2008, "no-one could have foreseen the financial crisis".
Everything is nuts these days. Welcome to planet bullshit - population 7 billion :(
The problem with weathermen is not under-prediction of tornados and hurricanes, but they way over-predict these things -- which is very costly.
That's Italy for you, the world's worst cars, and now, no science. Even the threat of jail (there is a mandatory appeal before they are actually sentenced) will shut down all science and research. If you were ever worried about Italian competition you can relax. Pretty people, though.
Coming to a courtroom near you: Savers on Trial for causing economic treason!
So does this mean we can throw Al Gore and his cronies in jail and shut them up?
May a water fall come and expose your underside. Wecome to the hillside blues.
Seismic events are observably stocastic.
i.e. they are implicitly unable to be predicted with completeness, nor precision, let alone with even reasonable accuracy, for location, energy and energy distribution with time.
I remember when the USGS made predictions in 1989 about the next "big one", on the US West coast, they did so in terms of percentages of statistical likelihoods of it occuring within the next THREE DECADES! And that is still the sort of statistical predictive capacity that's available right now!
i.e. It is basically a building code, emergency planning and mitigation guideline, and nothing more.
So, what happens to alleged 'Judges' who don't, or won't, face basic physical material facts of nature?
Are they imprisoned and their careers and families destroyed too?
Fucking retard.
No, it means that in this age of Godless Fucking Statists (the state being God, itself) that to disagree on Global Warming is a Crime as the State decrees truth.