All excellent, foundational questions. I'd expect nothing less from our deep thinking financial guru/dear leader.
It "seems" like a growing problem that I still struggle to fully understand. I think everyone is inherently uncomfortable with a stock market that can be so uncorrelated with the rest of the macroeconomy. That becomes extremely pronounced when something like the GME saga goes mainstream and shows everyone just how fickle the market can be. And all it takes is a legion of retards gathering on a subreddit. Of course, this kind of manipulation has been going on for as long as capital markets have existed. Jim Cramer and all his hedge fund asshole friends have built their fortunes on peddling nonsense to move prices. Tales of the Dutch East and West Indies Companies bullshitting about each others' cargoes with the aim of moving their stock price are common lore. I'm sure our ancient bartering ancestors relied on similar tactics to badmouth their neighbors' crops in order to generate sales.
So while we are in a period of relatively high P/E ratios with an alleged bubble burst somewhere around the corner, none of this is necessarily unprecedented. The market is still an excellent source of capital for companies, and "the fundamentals" still drive and shape the labor market and therefore the lives of the rest of us. I don't think this "peak irrationality" we're seeing really threatens that. Or maybe it does. Maybe the masses now recognize what a sham short-term stock prices actually are and we're entering a new period of unchecked volatility as consumer confidence waxes and wanes with the frequency of husky recruiting (that analogy worked better when the program wasn't a consistent piece of flaming garbage). EWIWBI.
Would be nice just to start with eliminating high frequency trading and sale of counterfeit shares. Absolutely no economic utility in either. Won't happen though.
This is essentially what I'm getting at. Who fucking benefits from that shit other than the person getting the lease payments from siting the servers on their office property right next door to the exchange, and the traders themselves? Otherwise, is this a useful activity for anyone else?
And before I get any libertarian-inspired responses from the peanut gallery to the effect that we're all free to make our own deals and use our agency to better our position irregardless of how it affects others, I'll remind us that the markets are regulated and for very good reason, and they exist at all by the grace of others. Think of the stock markets as analogous to the US Highway system. You? didn't build it, we? built it, and you? can use it so long as you abide by our? rules. Nobody is perfectly free. Not even @RaceBannon .
Allegedly HFT firms are providing a benefit by cutting out the middleman (trading floor brokers), adding liquidity to the market and narrowing bid/ask spreads. Allegedly. The origin story for HFT is fascinating and I would suggest reading Dark Pools for the whole backstory for how the "plumbing" was initially created. HFT actually grew out of good intentions as a way for hedge funds to circumvent trading floor brokers, which had a different set shenanigans to manipulate the market before everything was automated. I'd agree with the other posts that it's mostly a net negative now since there are a select number of HFT firms which control the market and scalp every trade.
I think I get the gist of what you're saying: The system should not allow for people to get inconceivably rich while providing zero or net-negative societal benefit?
I think I get the gist of what you're saying: The system should not allow for people to get inconceivably rich while providing zero or net-negative societal benefit?
I mean, yeah. Or, stated another way, don't participate in a public system that is meant for one thing and turn it into something else. We? don't care if you get fabulously wealthy. Fine. But don't warp the real market value of equities with your Malarkey. I think that's how I'd put it.
I think I get the gist of what you're saying: The system should not allow for people to get inconceivably rich while providing zero or net-negative societal benefit?
I mean, yeah. Or, stated another way, don't participate in a public system that is meant for one thing and turn it into something else. We? don't care if you get fabulously wealthy. Fine. But don't warp the real market value of equities with your Malarkey. I think that's how I'd put it.
I think this sums of my view of Wall Street most succinctly. I think the type of investors who should be rewarded are like those, for example, who got in on Amazon or Microsoft early. My wife has always gotten stock awards from the various firms she's worked for and those companies have mostly done well and the stock increases in value. The Malarkey part of the markets is beyond me and I can't possibly begin to understand its purpose or benefit to society. It's not "rent seeking" if you will, but it doesn't add anything of value or increase productivity.
I think I get the gist of what you're saying: The system should not allow for people to get inconceivably rich while providing zero or net-negative societal benefit?
I mean, yeah. Or, stated another way, don't participate in a public system that is meant for one thing and turn it into something else. We? don't care if you get fabulously wealthy. Fine. But don't warp the real market value of equities with your Malarkey. I think that's how I'd put it.
I think this sums of my view of Wall Street most succinctly. I think the type of investors who should be rewarded are like those, for example, who got in on Amazon or Microsoft early. My wife has always gotten stock awards from the various firms she's worked for and those companies have mostly done well and the stock increases in value. The Malarkey part of the markets is beyond me and I can't possibly begin to understand its purpose or benefit to society. It's not "rent seeking" if you will, but it doesn't add anything of value or increase productivity.
That's really my view. Since the markets are a part (and not apart) of our public lives, we? need to ensure that participants are not abusing it and fucking it up.
If the average guy believes he's always going to be on the ass-end of the Malarkey, then he's going to start investment his money elsewhere, including in his mattress.
I think I get the gist of what you're saying: The system should not allow for people to get inconceivably rich while providing zero or net-negative societal benefit?
I mean, yeah. Or, stated another way, don't participate in a public system that is meant for one thing and turn it into something else. We? don't care if you get fabulously wealthy. Fine. But don't warp the real market value of equities with your Malarkey. I think that's how I'd put it.
I think this sums of my view of Wall Street most succinctly. I think the type of investors who should be rewarded are like those, for example, who got in on Amazon or Microsoft early. My wife has always gotten stock awards from the various firms she's worked for and those companies have mostly done well and the stock increases in value. The Malarkey part of the markets is beyond me and I can't possibly begin to understand its purpose or benefit to society. It's not "rent seeking" if you will, but it doesn't add anything of value or increase productivity.
That's really my view. Since the markets are a part (and not apart) of our public lives, we? need to ensure that participants are not abusing it and fucking it up.
If the average guy believes he's always going to be on the ass-end of the Malarkey, then he's going to start investment his money elsewhere, including in his mattress.
Part of me wishes all stocks had to pay a dividend. I mean that's what a share is, right - i.e., a stake in the firm - and if you're a part owner you should realize some of the profits. But at the same Tim, I understand that companies need to re-invest profits in things that will help drive future bidness.
I think I get the gist of what you're saying: The system should not allow for people to get inconceivably rich while providing zero or net-negative societal benefit?
I mean, yeah. Or, stated another way, don't participate in a public system that is meant for one thing and turn it into something else. We? don't care if you get fabulously wealthy. Fine. But don't warp the real market value of equities with your Malarkey. I think that's how I'd put it.
I think this sums of my view of Wall Street most succinctly. I think the type of investors who should be rewarded are like those, for example, who got in on Amazon or Microsoft early. My wife has always gotten stock awards from the various firms she's worked for and those companies have mostly done well and the stock increases in value. The Malarkey part of the markets is beyond me and I can't possibly begin to understand its purpose or benefit to society. It's not "rent seeking" if you will, but it doesn't add anything of value or increase productivity.
That's really my view. Since the markets are a part (and not apart) of our public lives, we? need to ensure that participants are not abusing it and fucking it up.
If the average guy believes he's always going to be on the ass-end of the Malarkey, then he's going to start investment his money elsewhere, including in his mattress.
Part of me wishes all stocks had to pay a dividend. I mean that's what a share is, right - i.e., a stake in the firm - and if you're a part owner you should realize some of the profits. But at the same Tim, I understand that companies need to re-invest profits in things that will help drive future bidness.
I poasted a video of Mr. Wonderful who makes this very point. Find it; watch it.
But, I'll say, company's with real growth potential should be reinvesting that cash in the bindess. You would not have wanted MS paying a dividend in the 90s. No sir.
I think I get the gist of what you're saying: The system should not allow for people to get inconceivably rich while providing zero or net-negative societal benefit?
I mean, yeah. Or, stated another way, don't participate in a public system that is meant for one thing and turn it into something else. We? don't care if you get fabulously wealthy. Fine. But don't warp the real market value of equities with your Malarkey. I think that's how I'd put it.
I think this sums of my view of Wall Street most succinctly. I think the type of investors who should be rewarded are like those, for example, who got in on Amazon or Microsoft early. My wife has always gotten stock awards from the various firms she's worked for and those companies have mostly done well and the stock increases in value. The Malarkey part of the markets is beyond me and I can't possibly begin to understand its purpose or benefit to society. It's not "rent seeking" if you will, but it doesn't add anything of value or increase productivity.
That's really my view. Since the markets are a part (and not apart) of our public lives, we? need to ensure that participants are not abusing it and fucking it up.
If the average guy believes he's always going to be on the ass-end of the Malarkey, then he's going to start investment his money elsewhere, including in his mattress.
Part of me wishes all stocks had to pay a dividend. I mean that's what a share is, right - i.e., a stake in the firm - and if you're a part owner you should realize some of the profits. But at the same Tim, I understand that companies need to re-invest profits in things that will help drive future bidness.
I poasted a video of Mr. Wonderful who makes this very point. Find it; watch it.
But, I'll say, company's with real growth potential should be reinvesting that cash in the bindess. You would not have wanted MS paying a dividend in the 90s. No sir.
I think I get the gist of what you're saying: The system should not allow for people to get inconceivably rich while providing zero or net-negative societal benefit?
I mean, yeah. Or, stated another way, don't participate in a public system that is meant for one thing and turn it into something else. We? don't care if you get fabulously wealthy. Fine. But don't warp the real market value of equities with your Malarkey. I think that's how I'd put it.
I think this sums of my view of Wall Street most succinctly. I think the type of investors who should be rewarded are like those, for example, who got in on Amazon or Microsoft early. My wife has always gotten stock awards from the various firms she's worked for and those companies have mostly done well and the stock increases in value. The Malarkey part of the markets is beyond me and I can't possibly begin to understand its purpose or benefit to society. It's not "rent seeking" if you will, but it doesn't add anything of value or increase productivity.
That's really my view. Since the markets are a part (and not apart) of our public lives, we? need to ensure that participants are not abusing it and fucking it up.
If the average guy believes he's always going to be on the ass-end of the Malarkey, then he's going to start investment his money elsewhere, including in his mattress.
Part of me wishes all stocks had to pay a dividend. I mean that's what a share is, right - i.e., a stake in the firm - and if you're a part owner you should realize some of the profits. But at the same Tim, I understand that companies need to re-invest profits in things that will help drive future bidness.
I poasted a video of Mr. Wonderful who makes this very point. Find it; watch it.
But, I'll say, company's with real growth potential should be reinvesting that cash in the bindess. You would not have wanted MS paying a dividend in the 90s. No sir.
Would have made no difference to me
Well, we all know what happened to you Mr. 20% profit.
Comments
I mean, yeah. Or, stated another way, don't participate in a public system that is meant for one thing and turn it into something else. We? don't care if you get fabulously wealthy. Fine. But don't warp the real market value of equities with your Malarkey. I think that's how I'd put it.
If the average guy believes he's always going to be on the ass-end of the Malarkey, then he's going to start investment his money elsewhere, including in his mattress.
But, I'll say, company's with real growth potential should be reinvesting that cash in the bindess. You would not have wanted MS paying a dividend in the 90s. No sir.