followed tags: 73
followed domains: 6
badges given: 180 of 222
member for: 2031 days
I don't know enough to answer with certainty but not in how I understand ETFs. AIG got blown up because they were trading CDOs - a contract whose value was tied to the inverse ability of groups of consumers to pay their mortgages. They were effectively long on the mortgage industry but short on its source of revenue. This went on because nobody knew what CDOs were or why they were being traded until the grenade had been blew up.
ETFs, on the other hand, are transparent. They are made up of actual securities traded on actual exchanges reflecting actual physical limits of quantities. The buying and selling of those securities is artificially managed in order to produce an outcome that mimics some magical number but at the end of the day, ownership of securities changes hands in order to produce their performance.
The argument is that the securities could take a shit so bad you wouldn't want to buy them but ETFs are made up of long holdings, not short ones. You can't lose more than the total value of the stock. Not only that, but you have to hold the stock - that's another place where AIG came apart at the seams, they didn't have securities, they had obligations.
I know the argument made in the article is that the APs aren't actually holding the securities, they're trading notes on big bits of them... but they still aren't multiplying them. They aren't playing with more than exist. That's a big difference... again assuming I actually understand this shit.
Totally blamed the democrats.
- “We had no Democrat support; we had no votes from the Democrats,” he said during a press availability following the decision to pull the effort. “They weren’t going to give us a single vote so it’s a very difficult thing to do.” The president also downplayed suggestions that his first major legislative effort ended in failure, telling reporters that he never once claimed during the campaign that he would repeal and replace Obamacare during his first 100 days. He continued: “And, again, I think what will happen is Obamacare, unfortunately, will explode. It’s going to have a bad year.” New York Times reporter Maggie Haberman wrote on Twitter, before the presser, that “Trump tells me in interview this is now the Democrats’ fault, and that he anticipates that when Obama[care] ‘explodes’ they will be ready to deal.” She added: “Trump told me he is happy having this in the rearview mirror. ‘It’s enough already,’ he said of the negotiations.”
Edit: which is effectively the same as giving credit for saving healthcare to the Democrats.
"hey, we noticed you were using an adblocker. Wouldn't you rather give us $10 a month?"
An ETF is, fundamentally, a derivative. A derivative trades differently than a security. Factored derivatives (2x ETFs, inverse 2x ETFs, etc) trade with a great deal more peril than non-factored derivatives. Beyond that, the rest of the article (as I read it - lots of jargon and alarmist phrasing) is basically an argument against the efficient markets hypothesis aimed at one of the purest tools the efficient markets hypothesis has ever come up with.
I mean, ETFs are algorithmically composed. What goes into them and how much is determined by software. The whole "the shit in the ETF is valued differently than the ETF" canard is an argument that the firms responsible for stewardship over the ETF cannot efficiently make markets.
I don't think that argument can be won or lost. We know derivatives blow up. We know leveraged derivatives blow up pyrotechnically. But if I understand ETFs correctly, this:
- "I'm not entirely sure how willing broker-dealers would be to arb this in a panic."
does not reflect the realities of ETFs.
If you are an "authorized participant" in the ETF, your buying and selling and arbitraging of the assets that make up that ETF aren't up to you. They're contractually controlled by the algorithms that make up the basket. You violate the terms of that contract, you run afoul of the SEC because ETFs are traded much differently than mutual funds because APs don't have the option to think twice about buying and selling. Step outta line and not only do you blow up that ETF, you blow up all the ETFs because all of a sudden, the market discovers that maybe they aren't actually algorithmic and everyone's investments are in peril to the whim of some chickenhearted trader they've never met. And unless your firm is only AP on that one ETF, it's in your best interests to take your lumps because fuckin'A, you're dead either way but if you don't fall on that grenade any assets you may have somewhere else are also fucked.
Excellent life advice. Piss-poor investment advice.
WHAT TO MAKE OF IT
1) The Republicans had seven years to come up with an alternate to Obamacare.
2) The alternate they came up with is perhaps the most universally reviled piece of legislation since the Fugitive Slave Act.
3) Paul Ryan attempted to gild the stinkflower by "amending" it; his amendments, according to the CBO, would still cause 24 million Americans to lose their healthcare but would also decrease the budget savings by 66%.
4) Democrats took the easy way out - point out what a piece of shit the bill was, and what a piece of shittier its amendments were.
5) Republicans were forced to choose between siding with Tinyhands or losing next term and punted, withdrawing the bill from consideration.
6) Trump, ever the skillful negotiator (as one of my friends pointed out, it takes some skill to go bankrupt in the casino industry), doubled down and said if the Republicans didn't bring the bill to a vote today, he'd veto any attempt to pass any further legislation.
7) Paul Ryan, growing more and more appreciative of the shitshow he saddled John Boehner with, tucked tail and ran to Trump to tell him that not even the Freedom Caucus is stupid enough to vote on this abortion of a legislation
8) UTTER AND TOTAL FAILURE OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY.
(8) is far and away the best part. This was literally the Republican put-up or shut-up moment and they gutterballed so hard it's going to be difficult for them to reach consensus for a while. They're going to need to rally back somehow because, as every Democrat has been pointing out for years, Obamacare is a Republican health care bill. It'sthe only thing that could make it past the Republicans and fuckin'A, it's a long goddamn way from perfect but there is no reasonable, logical way to do anything else "republican" that won't grenade the very lives of a majority of Republican voters.
one of my pundits commented this morning on what a stupid idea it was for the Republicans to go after healthcare reform first instead of tax reform because tax reform would have made all the republicans happy, nobody of consequence would squeal and it would give them a checkmark in the win column from which to broaden their domination campaign. Instead they charged the barricades with wiffle ball bats and got clobbered.
this is an unequivocal loss for the Republicans and anyone who tells you differently is delusional. It's also an unequivocal loss for Trump; if the chucklefuck who ran on what a great negotiator he is can't get a fucking Republican majority to pass fucking healthcare reform, how the fuck is he going to get Mexico to pay for a border wall? Or renegotiate NAFTA? Or strike new trade deals with China?
It's gonna be a fuckin' crazy weekend. Trump ain't sulking down to Florida for the first time in 5 weeks and he's got the whole FBI debacle, a resounding defeat on Trumpcare and Schumer's threatened filibuster to think about. And he can still tweet.
Hold onto your butts.
Dude. She lists falconry as a hobby. That's an easy 60 hours a week. And then she's homesteading. Alone. This is a person with zero time and less money dealing with a can't-put-it-off schedule that starts before dawn. Of course she doesn't want to travel. Her life would be in tatters inside 48 hours, assuming someone else bought her the tickets.
Don't overthink it.
Consequentialism: "the ends justify the means."
Deontology: "It's the principle of the thing."
Consequentially: it's okay that "today's crumbs are yesterday's loaf" because a loaf is a loaf.
Deontologically: It's not okay that "today's crumbs are yesterday's loaf" because crumbs are crumbs.