I've been thinking ...
Comments
-
I don't want anyone making that graph of Creepycoug and the Alliance Tech Fund circa March of 2000.FremontTroll said:
-
Good poast.GreenRiverGatorz said: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. -
That's true. Still, all we can do is try to stay ahead of them, and when we can't, catch up.
-
RaceBannon said:
That's true. Still, all we can do is try to stay ahead of them, and when we can't, catch up.
-
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.creepycoug said:
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?Sources said: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.
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 . -
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?
-
creepycoug said:RaceBannon said:
That's true. Still, all we can do is try to stay ahead of them, and when we can't, catch up.
-
If there were a line to that gif, it would be, "Where do I start?"RaceBannon said:creepycoug said:RaceBannon said:That's true. Still, all we can do is try to stay ahead of them, and when we can't, catch up.
-
1to392831weretaken said:
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.creepycoug said:1to392831weretaken said: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.
