"Since
Black Swanevents are unexpected, infrequent,
high-impact events which are unpredictable or extremely difficult
to predict,"
don't you agree that Russin attack on Georgia, Fed guarantee of
Fannie paper, Fed removing risk from Pet banks, are as you
say, "
unexpected, infrequent, high-impact events which are
unpredictable or extremely difficult to predict"by all
historical norms, an as such qualify as black sawn events. It's
really OK, we can disagree forever, and that's fine, our
interpretation of the matter differs, but I see events them and
interpret them as I do, and they may prove the undoing of this
cycle of the commodity market and the a real run in broader equity
markets.
BTW, there is no way you or anyone, big or small, can
embaress me, why would I feel embaressed, I either know something,
or I will learn it, no shame in learning,
I would consider the Russian attack on Georgia to be a Black
Swan event except for one thing: it was not enough of a high
impact event to be a Black Swan event IMO. Its market impact
was not particularly significant, let alone high.
I do not consider the Fed's "guarantee of Fannie paper" to have
been a Black Swan event because Fannie and Freddie have long
been considered to have an "implicit" federal guarantee, something
much discussed and criticized for years now. I do not think
that actions by the federal government to save Fannie and Freddie
when they became at risk should've been or were a surprise.
I'm not sure what you're referring to with respect to the "Fed's
removing risk from Pet banks".
I do not consider the Fed's "guarantee of Fannie paper" to have
been a Black Swan event because Fannie and Freddie have long
been considered to have an "implicit" federal guarantee,
OK, but in his last conference call, Coxe said he did not expect
such measures to be taken by the officials, so that was his black
swan, I see all things relative, in his universe, he did not expect
it and those who followed his advice suffered, many of his
followers are hedge funds who have been running with the commodity
idea
in two confrence call prior to that, he said, for gold all
systems were go, and that stood in absolute contrast with what I
was seeing studying internal dynamics of the gold sector
maybe you do not agree with my interpretation of black swan, and
that is fine, otherwise we would not be having this discussion
you see, all I was trying to say was that what Donald Coxe
believes in, however valid, may be at this moment is not the best
idea to pursue. and as for Black Swan, I think when a strategist
whose advice influences investment decision of billions of dollars,
by his own admission, cannot see what you could see, that, to
me, can be interpreted as a black swan in that universe of
gargantuan finance, it may have very dire consequences -- hedge
funds failing, further drops in oil and gold, S&P running away
from the bear?
Charts, however showed it all the time, that gold stocks
were breaking, base metal stocks were breaking, oil stock were
breaking.
he did not see that, maybe he sees decades ahead, but one needs
stretch one's capital onto decades ahead
I'm not sure what you're referring to with respect to the
"Fed's removing risk from Pet banks".
To me, by restricting the short sale of a select group, the full
force of SEC, FED, Treasury, .... is saying, it is safe to invest
in banks, whatever it takes, they'll do it, it is a question of
paper versus metal, the crisis that was brewing was a paper crisis,
a confidence crisis, and what they did was an indication to the
market that it would be safe to be on the side of banks, that
forced the short covering rally, and if they can push the hedgies
over, it may turn into a full blown blood bath resulting in a
market melt up, and change bring about a bout of assett
deflation
Again, I have nothing but admiration for the man himself, and
the thinker he is, and that admiration has grown even more,
when he admited lack of foresight, no ifs, no buts, no
bullshit, just that he did not excpect it,
and I am glad that I learned how to read charts and do my own
analysis regardless of whether others agree with my methods or
not, that will be it becomes my mistake to make and no other's
Even the best and most influential strategists are wrong
sometimes, even apart from when Black Swan events occur. That
does not mean that they are undeserving of admiration. If
that were so, none of them would deserve admiration. From
what I can tell from your messages, Coxe said that he did not
expect certain events to occur which have caused his forecasts to
falter recently but he did not claim that those events were
unforeseeable, i.e. that they were Black Swan events. That
speaks well of him; the best strategists generally have the
humility to accept and speak the truth and thus would not blame
their failures on Black Swan events which were actually foreseeable
as demonstrated by other strategists. Excellent strategists
often disagree. In such situations, unlike Black Swan
situations, the charts are likely to give prior indications to
technical analysts as to what may occur.
which were actually foreseeable as demonstrated by other
strategists.
You have a good point here. I still interpret the whole thing in
the context of the universe they impact and thos ewho inhabit that
universe, but I see your point and it is valid to me.
Newsletter
Subscribe to our email list for regular free market updates
as well as a chance to get coupons!
fair enough martin, but as you
gold
Posted by googool on 17th of Aug 2008 at 07:40 pm
fair enough martin,
but as you said:
"Since Black Swanevents are unexpected, infrequent, high-impact events which are unpredictable or extremely difficult to predict,"
don't you agree that Russin attack on Georgia, Fed guarantee of Fannie paper, Fed removing risk from Pet banks, are as you say, " unexpected, infrequent, high-impact events which are unpredictable or extremely difficult to predict"by all historical norms, an as such qualify as black sawn events. It's really OK, we can disagree forever, and that's fine, our interpretation of the matter differs, but I see events them and interpret them as I do, and they may prove the undoing of this cycle of the commodity market and the a real run in broader equity markets.
BTW, there is no way you or anyone, big or small, can embaress me, why would I feel embaressed, I either know something, or I will learn it, no shame in learning,
I would consider the Russian
Posted by martin on 17th of Aug 2008 at 08:23 pm
I would consider the Russian attack on Georgia to be a Black Swan event except for one thing: it was not enough of a high impact event to be a Black Swan event IMO. Its market impact was not particularly significant, let alone high.
I do not consider the Fed's "guarantee of Fannie paper" to have been a Black Swan event because Fannie and Freddie have long been considered to have an "implicit" federal guarantee, something much discussed and criticized for years now. I do not think that actions by the federal government to save Fannie and Freddie when they became at risk should've been or were a surprise.
I'm not sure what you're referring to with respect to the "Fed's removing risk from Pet banks".
I do not consider the
Posted by googool on 17th of Aug 2008 at 10:31 pm
I do not consider the Fed's "guarantee of Fannie paper" to have been a Black Swan event because Fannie and Freddie have long been considered to have an "implicit" federal guarantee,
OK, but in his last conference call, Coxe said he did not expect such measures to be taken by the officials, so that was his black swan, I see all things relative, in his universe, he did not expect it and those who followed his advice suffered, many of his followers are hedge funds who have been running with the commodity idea
in two confrence call prior to that, he said, for gold all systems were go, and that stood in absolute contrast with what I was seeing studying internal dynamics of the gold sector
maybe you do not agree with my interpretation of black swan, and that is fine, otherwise we would not be having this discussion
you see, all I was trying to say was that what Donald Coxe believes in, however valid, may be at this moment is not the best idea to pursue. and as for Black Swan, I think when a strategist whose advice influences investment decision of billions of dollars, by his own admission, cannot see what you could see, that, to me, can be interpreted as a black swan in that universe of gargantuan finance, it may have very dire consequences -- hedge funds failing, further drops in oil and gold, S&P running away from the bear?
Charts, however showed it all the time, that gold stocks were breaking, base metal stocks were breaking, oil stock were breaking.
he did not see that, maybe he sees decades ahead, but one needs stretch one's capital onto decades ahead
I'm not sure what you're referring to with respect to the "Fed's removing risk from Pet banks".
To me, by restricting the short sale of a select group, the full force of SEC, FED, Treasury, .... is saying, it is safe to invest in banks, whatever it takes, they'll do it, it is a question of paper versus metal, the crisis that was brewing was a paper crisis, a confidence crisis, and what they did was an indication to the market that it would be safe to be on the side of banks, that forced the short covering rally, and if they can push the hedgies over, it may turn into a full blown blood bath resulting in a market melt up, and change bring about a bout of assett deflation
Again, I have nothing but admiration for the man himself, and the thinker he is, and that admiration has grown even more, when he admited lack of foresight, no ifs, no buts, no bullshit, just that he did not excpect it,
and I am glad that I learned how to read charts and do my own analysis regardless of whether others agree with my methods or not, that will be it becomes my mistake to make and no other's
Even the best and most
Posted by martin on 17th of Aug 2008 at 11:24 pm
Even the best and most influential strategists are wrong sometimes, even apart from when Black Swan events occur. That does not mean that they are undeserving of admiration. If that were so, none of them would deserve admiration. From what I can tell from your messages, Coxe said that he did not expect certain events to occur which have caused his forecasts to falter recently but he did not claim that those events were unforeseeable, i.e. that they were Black Swan events. That speaks well of him; the best strategists generally have the humility to accept and speak the truth and thus would not blame their failures on Black Swan events which were actually foreseeable as demonstrated by other strategists. Excellent strategists often disagree. In such situations, unlike Black Swan situations, the charts are likely to give prior indications to technical analysts as to what may occur.
which were actually foreseeable as
Posted by googool on 18th of Aug 2008 at 12:08 am
which were actually foreseeable as demonstrated by other strategists.
You have a good point here. I still interpret the whole thing in the context of the universe they impact and thos ewho inhabit that universe, but I see your point and it is valid to me.