**** you, method of characteristics

[Jon Miller]

I have no insight as to that case at all. However, I will say that I can't take RS seriously after the laughable GS piece.

Yeah, no question that RS is biased. Doesn't mean that they are wrong about everything.

JM

[KrazyHorse]

I don't care about bias. I care about ignorance and stupidity.

Like I said, I'm not saying that they don't have a real story; I just don't know anything about it.

[KrazyHorse]

Skimmed the rest of the article. Whoever wrote it doesn't even have a clue about how short selling works. It's nothing but an ignorant screed.

[KrazyHorse]

There really is no problem with naked shorting that needed fixing. PEOPLE COVERED THEIR SHORTS. There wasn't a string of cases where people failed to cover or something. WTF is the problem?

EDIT: read some more. what a ****ing retarded article. I like how he started with some claim of an actual crime and then proceeded to write a bunch of crap that doesn't even make logical sense. "Counterfeiting shares" my ass. Do banks "counterfeit money" when they print deposit statements exceeding their reserves? What a ****ing nincompoop.

[Jon Miller]

Yeah, some things didn't make sense even to me.

But the 1.7m for it dropping 50% in 10 days is a bit suspect. As were some of the other things.

JM

[Ben Kenobi]

I can't stop running that through my head, trying to see if there was some kind of meaning buried in it...

I'll try again.

Is KH referring to the daily world of trades? If so, I agree with his comment that the prices of stocks go up randomly.

I am arguing that as a larger process, that the overall value and wealth in the market will increase over time, wrt to constant dollars (ie, taking out inflation). This is not random, and is predicated by larger market forces towards increases in efficiency and production.

I guess I'm drawing the analogy between brownian motion being predominant for very small things, while Gravity becomes predominant for the larger things.

[KrazyHorse]

Yeah, some things didn't make sense even to me.

But the 1.7m for it dropping 50% in 10 days is a bit suspect. As were some of the other things.

JM

That was the part I read first, and I had assumed the rest of the article was about that. He just used it as a springboard.

Options with 9 days to expiry that deeply out of the money are NOT usual, AFAIK. And they certainly would be the best way to make the most out of insider knowledge of a looming catastrophe. But I have no knowledge of whether what's being claimed is true, nor am I particularly trusting, given the source.

[Asher]

I'll try again.

Is KH referring to the daily world of trades? If so, I agree with his comment that the prices of stocks go up randomly.

I am arguing that as a larger process, that the overall value and wealth in the market will increase over time, wrt to constant dollars (ie, taking out inflation). This is not random, and is predicated by larger market forces towards increases in efficiency and production.

I guess I'm drawing the analogy between brownian motion being predominant for very small things, while Gravity becomes predominant for the larger things.

Quoted to punish KH

[Ramo]

Gravity? If you're going to use half baked physical analogies, the second law of thermodynamics is where you'd want to go.

[MrFun]

Quoted to punish KH

quit it

[KrazyHorse]

Quoted to punish KH

I ****ing hate you.

[Darius871]

So Goldman Sachs is looking to hire a physicist who is boning up on his math

Seriously, WTF? Maybe I should lock my content advisor onto some wiki articles and start applying.

[Asher]

Goldman Sachs doesn't even look at people who are dumb enough to do any liberal arts.

[KrazyHorse]

Seriously, WTF? Maybe I should lock my content advisor onto some wiki articles and start applying.

Good luck. There are some places that hire non-mathy types. The quant divisions at Goldman are not among those.

[Ben Kenobi]

Uh, it was KH with the half-baked analogy of comparing shifts in prices to brownian motion.