I didn't say he has the same gravitas as a climate scientist who has spent her/his career studying climate change, and has multiple refereed papers to her/his name. I said I'm willing to take him seriously. His word alone obviously is not enough to inform public policy. However, he does illustrate the issue in a way that is useful.
And the reason is classified. County-level government has no legally-enforceable national security information classifications.
Elections are explicitly local. National security information classes are explicitly federal.
For crying out loud, it's right in TFS and TFA:
However, three people familiar with the intelligence tell NBC News that there is a classified basis for Nelson's assertion, which he made at a public event after being given information from the leaders of the Senate Intelligence Committee. The extent and seriousness of the threat remains unclear, shrouded for reasons of national security.
NBC claims it has three sources who say the intel is federal, and it is classified at that level. And it is not at all uncommon for the media to keep their sources confidential.
But if you can look at that and aren't the least bit alarmed
If you can look at XKCD and take it seriously, you're already done.
Randall Munroe, the author of XKCD, has scientific credentials. He majored and graduated in physics and worked for NASA before devoting himself full-time to his web comic.
Munroe's style is whimsical and sometimes irreverent, but he does take considerable effort to get the science right. So yes, I can look at XKCD and take it seriously.
His Excellency, President for Life, Field Marshal Al Hadji Doctor Idi Amin Dada, VC, DSO, MC, Lord of All the Beasts of the Earth and Fishes of the Seas and Conqueror of the British Empire in Africa in General and Uganda in Particular.
He also claimed to be the uncrowned king of Scotland. Can you say 'unhinged?'
But what exactly is the source of their profits? Is new money magically being made? Nope, every penny gained by HFT is a penny lost to another HF trader.
FTFY.
In the very short term, I'll grant you that HFT is a zero-sum game. But the only players are HFTs. The rest of us, who wait on the market for longer periods of time, take profits or losses depending on larger-scale factors such as trend, sentiment, company fundamentals, and the economy. That would be true whether HFTs existed or not.
My 401(k) contributions are supposed to purchase new shares every Wednesday. I've noticed that sometimes it's Thursday, or Friday, sometimes they even miss a week and it's delayed into the next week. Wouldn't surprise me a bit to learn that the money is being held and used for other things in the meantime. Or that they sell me shares when the price is best for them.
The financial industry is heavily regulated. 401(k) trustees and mutual funds (which most 401(k) plans consist of) are no exception. Mutual funds do (and must) hold money for lots of "things", such as paying expenses and honouring reimbursement requests. Remember that a mutual fund is not like a stock. It is priced once a day after the market closes, and then transactions are processed at this price. We can be (perhaps rightly) cynical about a day or two slippage here or there, as your contributions make their way through your 401(k) trustee to your mutual funds, but I don't think it's some kind of giant conspiracy to hold onto your money for a day or two before it is invested. If it were, there would be shit to pay.
And while we're on the subject of 401(k) plans and mutual funds, if you are concerned about their lack of transaction speed, you might want to consider rolling over to an IRA, where you can trade not just mutual funds, but also stocks and ETFs. The latter are like index mutual funds, but with lower administrative fees, and you can trade them just like a stock.
When I sell shares in my Fidelity account, the brokerage holds my money for 3-5 days.
Trades take 3 days to settle. (They used to take 5.) That's true for anybody, not just you. A broker may not give you your money until then because, to put it simply, they may not have it. They're waiting for the guy who bought your shares to pay them. (And maybe so is his broker.) The buyer has -- you guessed it -- three days to put the money in his account with his broker.
Your broker might also be waiting for you to deposit the shares in your account. You can sell shares without them being there yet (but may need to put them there in three days unless you want to go short.) In fact, in certain situations, you can still make trades on money that hasn't settled. You must be careful about this in order to avoid cash/margin/good faith/freeloader violations, or being identified as a pattern day-trader. And lots of brokers will sweep your money from a trade immediately (or at least the next day) into your interest-bearing core cash position. I'm a Fidelity customer, and I'm pretty sure this is true for them.
I understand this may all sound moot because many traders have cash accounts, in which you must have the money or shares present at the time of the trade in order to effect the transaction. But the settlement rules have existed for awhile, and have been designed to protect all parties, not just the big shots.
I missed something. How do high frequency traders rip off the rest of people?
They don't. They provide liquidity and depth to the markets. Those are good things -- they keeps bid-ask spreads small, and provide lots of inventory for both buyers and sellers.
Of course, all of that high-frequency speculation occasionally can result in some rapid swings in the price of stock, but that's not the only reason stocks fluctuate. And HF traders are not ripping off those of us in longer-term positions. If anyone, HF traders are trying to rip off (i.e., outgame) other HF traders.
These days, the American dream is more apt to be realized in South America, in places such as Ecuador, VENEZUELA and Argentina, where incomes are actually more equal today than they are in the land of Horatio Alger. Who's the banana republic now?
His point was that 3 "Banana Republics" had more equally distributed wealth than what is ostensibly the Greatest Nation on Earth. He was right to point that out, but like all popular politicians fighting against the American oligarchy he's got to be careful how he says things least people take quotes out of context to smear him.
^^ This,
If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him. -- Cardinal Richelieu
It's just soooo handy to quote someone out of context, isn't it? And so disingenuous.
the current Supreme Court is stacked against government regulation of any kind. That is by design.
I'm not so sure about that. Generally it seems the SCOTUS tries to find a reason to uphold what Congress decides, except when it doesn't. And generally it doesn't when it thinks something is unconstitutional.
It's a journalism technique. Paraphrasing the subject of a story reduces repetition of her/his/its name over and over again. It reads better.
The technique can have amusing consequences if taken too far. Once, a CBC reporter was doing a story about bananas, and the reporter's editor insisted that he reduce the number of repetitions of the word "banana." His solution? Refer to it as "yellow, tubular fruit."
It's like going to a casino and then losing your money at the craps table when you roll snake eyes, and then trying to sue the casino./p>
No, it's nothing like that at all. The market (not Facebook) is the casino. Facebook, if you will, makes the dice, and its senior employees are also playing the game with us. And they can, as long as they show us how they bet, and give us their expectations of how the dice will roll. It just so happens that Facebook senior employees bet a good deal more more on a certain roll of the dice this time around, but failed to notify the other players how they expected the dice to roll.
There, FTFY. But frankly, comparing markets to casinos really isn't fair. Maybe someone has a car analogy?
"Earnings per share: $1.74 vs. $1.72 per a Thomson Reuters consensus"
A one percemt drop im expected earnings causes a ten percent drop in share price? I thimkit was overpriced in the first place
Earnings actually beat the Thomson Reuters consensus. But that's just the consensus. Various analysts had estimates well above $1.74.
In the current after-market, the stock price is starting to bounce up from around $164. Was the sell-off an over-reaction? Probably. Sooner or later, the stock will recover.
And as for it being overpriced... valuations can be weird, and the market can ignore them. Look at Tesla for example. There's no reason for its stock price to be above $300. Yet it is.
Judging from other responses in this thread to this AC, I'd say that Poe's law is strong here.
I wrote a new book called "How to Get Along with Other People". I didn't write it on my own though. I wrote it with this other asshole jerkoff... -- Steve Martin
Slashdot Mirror
I didn't say he has the same gravitas as a climate scientist who has spent her/his career studying climate change, and has multiple refereed papers to her/his name. I said I'm willing to take him seriously. His word alone obviously is not enough to inform public policy. However, he does illustrate the issue in a way that is useful.
It's also not at all uncommon for the media to just parrot whatever the government says uncritically. that's how we ended up in Iraq.
You're not wrong. But I'd say that bogus WMD intel and post-9/11 paranoia were stronger factors.
And the reason is classified. County-level government has no legally-enforceable national security information classifications.
Elections are explicitly local. National security information classes are explicitly federal.
For crying out loud, it's right in TFS and TFA:
However, three people familiar with the intelligence tell NBC News that there is a classified basis for Nelson's assertion, which he made at a public event after being given information from the leaders of the Senate Intelligence Committee. The extent and seriousness of the threat remains unclear, shrouded for reasons of national security.
NBC claims it has three sources who say the intel is federal, and it is classified at that level. And it is not at all uncommon for the media to keep their sources confidential.
But if you can look at that and aren't the least bit alarmed
If you can look at XKCD and take it seriously, you're already done.
Randall Munroe, the author of XKCD, has scientific credentials. He majored and graduated in physics and worked for NASA before devoting himself full-time to his web comic.
Munroe's style is whimsical and sometimes irreverent, but he does take considerable effort to get the science right. So yes, I can look at XKCD and take it seriously.
Should a cup of Starbucks cost a quarter?
No, but if you'll die if you don't get one, then it shouldn't cost $600.
Whoops, forgot this last part:
His Excellency, President for Life, Field Marshal Al Hadji Doctor Idi Amin Dada, VC, DSO, MC, Lord of All the Beasts of the Earth and Fishes of the Seas and Conqueror of the British Empire in Africa in General and Uganda in Particular.
He also claimed to be the uncrowned king of Scotland. Can you say 'unhinged?'
"I challenge anyone to come up with a more fun name to same than Francois Mitterand."
Boutros Boutros-Ghali
His Excellency President for Life, Field Marshal Alhaji Dr. Idi Amin Dada, VC, DSO, MC, CBE.
Talk about compensating.
'Course his name might be fun, but he sure wasn't.
So when does it land on the sun?
It won't land. It will just orbit very near the sun. The orbit adjustments (via Venus fly-bys) will take about 7 years.
"unattended consequences"
I HATE unattended consequences. They're even worse than unintended consequences.
Are you paying attention?
Paying attention? Obviously not, because he is not attending the consequences. :-P
This.
Obligatory XKCD.
But what exactly is the source of their profits? Is new money magically being made? Nope, every penny gained by HFT is a penny lost to another HF trader.
FTFY.
In the very short term, I'll grant you that HFT is a zero-sum game. But the only players are HFTs. The rest of us, who wait on the market for longer periods of time, take profits or losses depending on larger-scale factors such as trend, sentiment, company fundamentals, and the economy. That would be true whether HFTs existed or not.
My 401(k) contributions are supposed to purchase new shares every Wednesday. I've noticed that sometimes it's Thursday, or Friday, sometimes they even miss a week and it's delayed into the next week. Wouldn't surprise me a bit to learn that the money is being held and used for other things in the meantime. Or that they sell me shares when the price is best for them.
The financial industry is heavily regulated. 401(k) trustees and mutual funds (which most 401(k) plans consist of) are no exception. Mutual funds do (and must) hold money for lots of "things", such as paying expenses and honouring reimbursement requests. Remember that a mutual fund is not like a stock. It is priced once a day after the market closes, and then transactions are processed at this price. We can be (perhaps rightly) cynical about a day or two slippage here or there, as your contributions make their way through your 401(k) trustee to your mutual funds, but I don't think it's some kind of giant conspiracy to hold onto your money for a day or two before it is invested. If it were, there would be shit to pay.
And while we're on the subject of 401(k) plans and mutual funds, if you are concerned about their lack of transaction speed, you might want to consider rolling over to an IRA, where you can trade not just mutual funds, but also stocks and ETFs. The latter are like index mutual funds, but with lower administrative fees, and you can trade them just like a stock.
When I sell shares in my Fidelity account, the brokerage holds my money for 3-5 days.
Trades take 3 days to settle. (They used to take 5.) That's true for anybody, not just you. A broker may not give you your money until then because, to put it simply, they may not have it. They're waiting for the guy who bought your shares to pay them. (And maybe so is his broker.) The buyer has -- you guessed it -- three days to put the money in his account with his broker.
Your broker might also be waiting for you to deposit the shares in your account. You can sell shares without them being there yet (but may need to put them there in three days unless you want to go short.) In fact, in certain situations, you can still make trades on money that hasn't settled. You must be careful about this in order to avoid cash/margin/good faith/freeloader violations, or being identified as a pattern day-trader. And lots of brokers will sweep your money from a trade immediately (or at least the next day) into your interest-bearing core cash position. I'm a Fidelity customer, and I'm pretty sure this is true for them.
I understand this may all sound moot because many traders have cash accounts, in which you must have the money or shares present at the time of the trade in order to effect the transaction. But the settlement rules have existed for awhile, and have been designed to protect all parties, not just the big shots.
https://www.sec.gov/reportspub...
I missed something. How do high frequency traders rip off the rest of people?
They don't. They provide liquidity and depth to the markets. Those are good things -- they keeps bid-ask spreads small, and provide lots of inventory for both buyers and sellers.
Of course, all of that high-frequency speculation occasionally can result in some rapid swings in the price of stock, but that's not the only reason stocks fluctuate. And HF traders are not ripping off those of us in longer-term positions. If anyone, HF traders are trying to rip off (i.e., outgame) other HF traders.
I'd rather stab my penis with an icepick - lengthwise through the opening than live under "socialism"
You'd be hard-pressed to find a country on earth that doesn't have some kind of socialistic policy, even if it's military, police, or firefighting.
Good luck with your icepick fetish. Count me out.
So, in context, you're saying that the "American dream" is equal levels of poverty for all? Because that's what Sanders is promising in context.
You get your pick: wealth for all or equality for all. You cannot have wealth and equality for all: it's a logical impossibility.
I saw what you did there.
You know better.
why not include the full quote:
His point was that 3 "Banana Republics" had more equally distributed wealth than what is ostensibly the Greatest Nation on Earth. He was right to point that out, but like all popular politicians fighting against the American oligarchy he's got to be careful how he says things least people take quotes out of context to smear him.
^^ This,
If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him. -- Cardinal Richelieu
It's just soooo handy to quote someone out of context, isn't it? And so disingenuous.
This.
Authoritarianism can work on anybody. Anybody. All it takes is the following:
1. Make the population afraid, angry, or confused about something.
2. Present yourself as the only way to solve the problem.
Sound familiar?
the current Supreme Court is stacked against government regulation of any kind. That is by design.
I'm not so sure about that. Generally it seems the SCOTUS tries to find a reason to uphold what Congress decides, except when it doesn't. And generally it doesn't when it thinks something is unconstitutional.
Who gives a shit about their address?
It's a journalism technique. Paraphrasing the subject of a story reduces repetition of her/his/its name over and over again. It reads better.
The technique can have amusing consequences if taken too far. Once, a CBC reporter was doing a story about bananas, and the reporter's editor insisted that he reduce the number of repetitions of the word "banana." His solution? Refer to it as "yellow, tubular fruit."
It's like going to a casino and then losing your money at the craps table when you roll snake eyes, and then trying to sue the casino./p>
No, it's nothing like that at all. The market (not Facebook) is the casino. Facebook, if you will, makes the dice, and its senior employees are also playing the game with us. And they can, as long as they show us how they bet, and give us their expectations of how the dice will roll. It just so happens that Facebook senior employees bet a good deal more more on a certain roll of the dice this time around, but failed to notify the other players how they expected the dice to roll.
There, FTFY. But frankly, comparing markets to casinos really isn't fair. Maybe someone has a car analogy?
"Earnings per share: $1.74 vs. $1.72 per a Thomson Reuters consensus"
A one percemt drop im expected earnings causes a ten percent drop in share price? I thimkit was overpriced in the first place
Earnings actually beat the Thomson Reuters consensus. But that's just the consensus. Various analysts had estimates well above $1.74.
In the current after-market, the stock price is starting to bounce up from around $164. Was the sell-off an over-reaction? Probably. Sooner or later, the stock will recover.
And as for it being overpriced ... valuations can be weird, and the market can ignore them. Look at Tesla for example. There's no reason for its stock price to be above $300. Yet it is.
I'll just leave this here.
Judging from other responses in this thread to this AC, I'd say that Poe's law is strong here.
I wrote a new book called "How to Get Along with Other People". I didn't write it on my own though. I wrote it with this other asshole jerkoff... -- Steve Martin
Amen! Be polite and courteous to everybody. It pays in the long run.
It certainly does. Oh, wait.