Seeking Alpha


Send Message
View as an RSS Feed
View dcb's Comments BY TICKER:
Latest  |  Highest rated
  • Commercial Paper Market Continues to Contract [View article]
    thanks for explaining. the "hat this means" section of the article was missing, also what is the imopact section needs to be expanded. otherwise it's why should we care
    May 2, 2010. 11:59 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Why It's Not Goldman's Fault [View article]
    I didn't take the article as a defense of GS. I took it as who do you expect GS to behave when the system is structured to encourage bad behavior. it doesn't mane the bad behavior was right, it just means throw a whole bunch of sociopaths together, incentivize them with really big bucks, and devise a structure that encourages cheating. What do you expect.

    Nobody is harder on the vampire squid than me, but reform has to deal with structural issues and not just punishing GS. becuase we want to make it harder to do again.

    It all just depend on how you view the statement. Lets atttack GS, but lets not forgeet the structural issues that need reform so nobody can get away with it again, and the environment makes it difficult for them do do.
    Apr 30, 2010. 01:03 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Real Recovery or Eye of the Storm? [View article]
    the speed of the rise with the marketis proof to me that it is another bubble blowing. when it stops nobody knows. but you still shouldn't sit out. go in put a stop loss, I move up slowly with buy stops on the inverse funds. . I've made good money on each correction, and made money going up too.
    Apr 25, 2010. 03:34 PM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Why It's Not Goldman's Fault [View article]
    Been saying this for ever: letter I wrote to ft putting all that as shit under one roof ensures corruption

    For well over a year now I have been writing the editorial staff regarding the danger of having a few financial oligopolies dominate the market place. I have expounded upon the conflicts to effective functioning of the capitalist system in having under one roof all of the functions of a modern large investment bank. Origination, sales, prop desk, trading positions, market maker, analyst, liquidity provider, etc. Surprise, surprise, investigations reveal problems with Goldman and cds origination and sales, the influence of big banks on the rating agencies, and now Ms Tett points out a fact I haven’t even thought of which is taking legal action against an “all powerful financial firm”. (Goldman roles in spotlight Pg. 13, bankers influenced ratings agencies, )
    None of these events come as a surprise to me, and if one thinks about the situation they are/were to be expected because of the design flaws inherent in the current system. This is why I have no problem discussing stock market manipulation. If any one firm trades a high percentage of the market the market has the potential to be manipulated, and in fact I would define it as manipulated. The structure encourages bad behavior. Remember for every event that comes to light there are likely many more that never reach public scrutiny. Even if these events never occurred, it is clear on theoretical grounds why having such concentrated power in a financial system is damaging to market function. Just on the principle of excessive pricing power and (banks charging too much for their services) and the barriers to entry the industry should be broken into smaller pieces. Add the potential/expected conflicts and what should happen is clear.
    I would like to add that had the Goldman cds deal gone through more firms would it have seen the light of day? If Goldman had put it together, but not been the seller would the seller of the cds performed due diligence and refused the sell the product.? In a system that provides itself on the ethos “buyer beware”, the more hands that check the product the more likely problems are to be caught.

    additional reasons to break up big banks:
    1) political power
    2) pricing power and competition
    3) the very theory of how the market functions (invisable hand, potential manipulation, conflcits of interest designed within the system, potential fraud)
    4) matching design with desired policy:
    the big banks can effectively starve the system of capitial, this keeps the fed funds rate low, and allows them to continue with massive trading profit. this means they may do better starving main street instead of helping it. it destroyes the federal reserves mechanism of transmission of monetary policy
    5)it makes the economy hostage to a few firms. effectively they can blackmail the government
    6) conflicts of interest within the firm (seen in the goldman cds deal)
    7) influence on other market parties (big banks influencing s&P, Moody's). since each player provides such a large income stream the rating agencies are tempted to behave badly to maintain business. if many players originate bonds much easier to say no to someone becuase you hve multiple sources of income

    if you are goldman sachs, and have enough short positions you make money in your prop desk dropping the market. you do so until you get the policy response you want from the fed (zero interest rates, QE, become a bank holding company, get rid of mark to market). the huge banking oligopolies have a perverse incentive to destroy things becuase the more they do the more they gain
    to ft:
    Apr 25, 2010. 01:41 PM | 3 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Barry Ritholtz: Ten Things about the SEC vs. Goldman Sachs Case [View instapost]
    Not the real issue
    1) tells the world/ wall street the sec has some teeth now, so you better behave
    -who cares if they loose if wall street adjusts their behavior
    2) exposes the ponzi scheme that wall street is
    - a rigged game for insiders

    3) may effect reform efforts
    -harder to fight reform
    - if it aint against the law now, it may be soon!!!

    4) damages the vampire aquid regardless

    5) Why do these products with no edonomic values exist in the market place. thse asses don't give out loans but hav unlimted to borrow at the fed window for their risky bets. diverts economic resources (no wonder this coungry is so screwed if we are diverting money to this crap).
    John Authers in the ft long view today says it best. the legal issue
    is the least important in the big scheme

    this is big news, but just as big to me is how the big boys rigged the muni bond market. the entire system is based on fraud. andd they have been allwed to get away with it for so long that their internal checks and balances are screwed. the think fraud is a normal way of doing business becuase they have been allowed to get away with it.
    Apr 24, 2010. 07:15 PM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Maria Bartiroma: Where's the Fraud? [View instapost]
    she gets paid to look good, he gets paid for analysis.

    the issue isn't even if theire was "fraud". it exposed how the street works and that's the point of regulation. and maybe if it isn't fraud now, it will be made into fraud later.
    Apr 24, 2010. 06:49 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Learning From the 1998 Russian Debt Default [View article]
    well done article.
    I have noticed the wedge also, qappears to be breaking to the upside for reasons I don't understand. rest of world sells off on greece, but not the good ole usa.

    i don't try to make much predictions anymore with hft tradding doing the vast majority in the market. the hft ruins stuff. my internals had the dump the at the goldman day. wit an expected 5% CORRCTION AT LEAST. ALSO NOTED long term treasuries hit a double bottom and figured a kind of confoirmation off my signals. I kept my longs, and have some buyt stop orders in for the inverse leveraged tading funds
    Apr 24, 2010. 06:43 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Volcker Rule Gets Rougher, Outlook for Airlines Bumpy [View article]
    I do not think you understand what the real purpose of the Volker rule is. I do not think our officials are willing to state what the real purpose is.
    1) under the current system you can
    front run
    because of the structure of the big banks, you write faulty securitues (sub prime) the prop desk ramps un the value on trading, and off on unmonitired exchanges you make bespoke contracts that pay off when the crap fails
    the purpose of to prevent in house trading up of your own crappy products and then betting against it on other forums
    the information asymetry is so large those underwriting, securitizing, merging, etc should be controlling prop desks that trade large percentages of the total daily volume. the potential for abuse is too high.
    Another reason is market trust. I don't trust the markets, does anyone else.
    It's funny I can trade world commodities easily, they follow regular buy and sell signals. money flow index, macd, wilders. Not the NYSE. Why is this market unique in the world? Because there is something funny going on. That's reason enough to move the prop desks out of there firms. funny how I sold commodites and euro the other day, they all dropped, other world markets, not the US though.

    Honestly, I think you lack insight as to what is really happening behind the scenes. Pushing up the market by buying over the ask price, or at market, but then selling a bit below that so the market doesn't fall while the prop desk is selling. How would you think the public would react if they understood who easily it is for the big boys to manipulate the nyse and how they do so. This has to be kept out of public knowledge. So get rid of the prop desk.
    Mar 5, 2010. 09:07 AM | 6 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Charlie Gasparino: Another Crash 'Has to Happen Again' [View article]
    us senator asks you to sign a petition against too big to fail policy geitner is attempting to establish

    please see link and consider signing I have.
    Nov 7, 2009. 01:43 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Dark Pools Are Not Scary Damp Places Where Investors Get Ripped Off [View article]
    There are times in life when you know things are wrong. Dark pools are one of them. Just the idea that we have exchanges offf the book is unamerican. I can assure you banks wouldn't be in such a huff about them if they didn't benefit their bottom line. Please once the banks start telling me how I benefit from something I don't want I know the thing is wrong. All market transactions on open exchanges. If HFT does not allow for trading large blocks of shares then HFT should be done away with. trading stratagies adopt to the exchange, you don't open new exchanges so banks/hedge funds can more easily maintain a trading strategy.

    If it cost society more to have an open system where all players receive the same information it is worth the price. god knows what can happen in these pools, and it is simply something I don't want to worry about. seeing order flows, etc. It just opens a can of worms.

    Please excuse me if I just decide not to trust banks at their word in this regard.

    As for HFT, you should know that there really is no comprehennsive study on the subject. My intuitive gut is that they increase magnify a concept called resonance, meaning when I trade O try to find out what algorhythm the other person is using and follow it. this amplifies highs and lows. I am also sick of see what I think is a run and the HFT trader sells out. it turns the usual signals into useless mush. Very simply there should be a transaction tax. Think about it. the exchanges are paying people to trade on them. No wonder they want HFt. No paying for trading, and transaction tax. if you want to do HFT then do so, but by adding some kind of tax it means one would have to think about things like cash flow and valuation before trading. the idea that you get paid from the system for trading doesn't help anyone.

    wth HFT, just mean those who have access to the discount window , and are the exclusive supplemental liquidy providers to and exchange have unlimited fire power in 2000 unit trades to do what ever they want with the market.

    Big trades that would move the market and upset those delicate computer algos have to be kept off the system. that's why they don't want it.

    Example from Jan to march indexes dropped but vix decreased. Because on lower trading volumes quants can tailor the drop to keep vix down. Big sell orders screw up the quants and that's what happened after Lehman. the systems couldn't cope and algo trading becomes useless. that is why dark pools are wanted. It just makes it easier for them to manipulate the market.

    I have sold lots of vix options. I want to drop the market but not pay, I use my HFT quant fund to do it. See Jan to March this year. Means I can be short but not trigger those expensive options I have sold!!!

    You think the market going down have anything to do with the call/put ratio being high. Now that the wall street players have sold so many calls they drop it in order not to pay off. they can buy puts, sell vix options, etc. control the movement with high speed computers that move like lightning. You can tailor your program to look at your entire portfolio and max your profits, shorts, call, etc.
    Big trades fuck up the program so they have to be taken into dark pools. That is what this is about!!!
    Oct 27, 2009. 05:49 PM | 4 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Nouriel Roubini, One on One: More Doom and Gloom [View article]
    Oct 26, 2009. 05:17 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Nouriel Roubini, One on One: More Doom and Gloom [View article]

    On Oct 24 06:27 PM TLassen wrote:

    > No it's cheaper for the Chinese to buy gold and other commodities,
    > it is not because they are diversifying out of the USD, the commodities
    > are bought to meet the demand needed for their expanding economy.
    > They will move out of the USD when it strengthens again in the future,
    > not now when it is at a low relative value to their currency.
    Oct 26, 2009. 05:15 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • The Secret Paulson-Goldman Meeting [View article]
    Dude, you are drinking way too much of the cool aid they are handing out.
    the problem is not a single episode. It is a pattern of behavior that has happened over an over again. May I suggeset doing some background reading on the issue. Any truly informaed person that has an understanding of the sum totality of events can reach conclusions that are not consistant with american democracy or capitalism (at least the way it should be).
    My guess is that you wouldn't consider goldman having two stock trading days of losses in a quarter to perhaps indicate the ability to manipulate the market, along with the code that says the justice department could be used ot manipulated the market. the 100% on the dollar from AIG, the appointment of Liddy, the fact that blankfein wass the only person in the room when the meeting went down between treasury and AIG, or perhaps the variance become a commercial bank in record time but the waiver to have to follow commercial bank trading rules and risk positions. Yeah you're right there isn't any potential issue here.

    I tried real hard to not be overly insulting, but I think your comments insult you enough.

    On Oct 21 02:25 AM John Aislabie wrote:

    > What is the matter with everybody? The frenzied to need to show everything
    > is a conspiracy is puerile.
    > The guy has a social meeting with his old colleagues - only after
    > checking with General Counsel. What is he supposed to do to stay
    > in touch with the currents of banking activity? ~Chat with Last National
    > of Podunk, Arkansas ?
    > We should want our administrators to be well informed and preferably
    > on first name terms with the movers and shakers, this stuff is much
    > too serious to be handled by amateurs.
    Oct 21, 2009. 11:48 AM | 11 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Long-Term Interest Rates Suggest Low Inflation [View article]
    Your view is benign compared to the conclusions I have decided I believe in. I think he had a good idea of what was going to happen. But the masters at the Fed down in wall street really didn't care because the goal was to keep the party going and they knew they would be cashing out with their gains and the tax payer would eventually have to cough up the dough to bail them out. The guy was the greatest student of the great depression and yet he didn't understand the role of leverage and excessive cheap credit in the cause of the crisis. I'm afraid I can no longer believe that. Esp one must consider that in the summer of 2008 they were all having meeting about what to do with the impending crisis when geitner suggested making all wall street debt backstopped by US government. Then they were all on TV all the way down saying all things were going to be fine.

    If I knew were going to collapse when the price of oil got high because I understood the nature of how much debt was in the system and a bit of a commodity induced recession, inflation, would make consumers unable to pay their debts and then collapse. I saw it, yet the best and brightest on wall street and the fed didn't. Too hard to believe I'm afraid. That's just fiction for the public.

    the crash, destruction of household wealth, and the reflation of the system in a manner they knew was going to happen suited wall streets interests. Esp Goldman Sachs. Investment banks are the power behind the NY Fed, and NY Fed is the power in the Fed. I see huge profits and record bonus as clear reasons as to why the crisis has been good for them. Big Ben knows he is going to be set for life on leaving the FED, as to the other policy makers. all they need to do with the current system is maintain plausible deniability. Conformation of this theory is appointments of Geitner, Summers, and reappointment of Bernanke. Why else would you be putting in people who have had such a large role in ensuring the crisis happened and not being able to see it would happen.

    I hate to say it, but one should look for easy explanations before complex ones. Other explanations just involve too many errors and too many rewards for people who made those errors for me to believe.

    It suits those who hold the power to have the cheap easy credit go on for as long as they can, to drop the dollar and cause inflation. remeber they were telling us there was no inflation before when oil was rocketing. all you have to do is follow commodity prices to see the inflation in the piple line.
    they rig the data because thye make a comparison right before the crash when inflationary prices were the highist. There is absolutely no reason why anything is wrong after what happen to have deflation for a few years other than it doesn't help wall street to earn money. strong dollar= lower energy prices= more free spending money for over indebted consumers=faster recovery. Why don't the Fed choose to engage in policies that deliberately prolong the recovery, why do we keep funding costs low when the money isn't being used to expand credit but inflate asset prices, why are we forcing the banks to lend.

    1% of the US own 24% of wealth, they took a big hit and policies are designed to restore that wealth desparity as quickly as possable under the cover of "helping us". The rise in oil helped to trigger the crisis. caused by Bernanke's early rate lowering. the thoery was that by lowering rates early we would recover faster and be early to raise. that hasn't happened and won't happen. I'm sorry but other ways to explain the crisis, the response, and the continued headwinds to reform, etc. just don't allow any other way to explain what happened.

    why did we pay AIG debt at 100%? why did we convet goldman to holding company, the list goes on and on. Rob emanueal said never waste a crisis. Well wall street hasn't they have used it as a way to consolidate power in the system and used the excuse of helping us to do it!!!

    On Oct 18 05:04 AM Dave Wrixon wrote:

    > All this shows is that Bernanke's blatant attempts to rig the market
    > are holding for now. If you are betting on long-term interest rates
    > you would need to be very confident that this guy knows what he is
    > doing. Don't forget, he never even seen the financial crisis coming
    > and was a substantial contributor to the problem. He is also squandering
    > tax payers money to attempt to redress the balance without having
    > a mandate to do so. Frankly, I would sooner trust Madhof. At least
    > he came clean before the scam was obvious to everyone.
    Oct 18, 2009. 12:44 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Smart Guys on Wall Street: The Trillin Theory [View article]
    If you take a look at this articleyou will see a graph. That graph clearly shows that a decline in united states power is directly correlated to earnings in the financial sector. weaker currency, excessive leverage, excessively cheap credit= excessive profits. The things that help out wall street hurt this country, but because of excessive power and influence you don't hear this. The American people are in conflict with their own government, they just don't know it.

    My theory is this meant more money was actually going to productive investment capacity instead of being paid to the folks who just shuffle the money around skimming off what would be other wise better served in productive uses. This is the difference between a financial sector that serves the country and one that serves themselves.

    Note also that in both cases we had financial crisis. Look at the years, the pay. This episode and the great depression. Maybe there is something inherently unstable about the system that allows so much excess profits.
    The conditions that allow the creation this wealth disparity are inherently unstable. Yet our government wants to bring it back!!!

    Note that the pay level distortion took off at exactly the same time as securitisation. When debt to GDP ratios took off and increasing amounts of debt did not increase nominal GDP. An excessively profitable financial sector is inherently unstable and bad for 99% of the country. The conditions that create the profitability create instability. Knowing what you now know is it any wonder these pundits keep saying what they do. All that concerns them is their excessive profitability, not america. They see we need securitisation for growth, the exact opposite is in fact the case. they need securitisation for excessive profitability. This creates instability. Austrian economics understands this, which is why they aren't allowed in our government and you don't see much of them working for corporate controlled media. It doesn't matter if they are fresh or salt water economists because this keeps the liquidity flowing. Of course the mountain economists (Austrian) take it away. Therefore you have a government, media, industrial bias on the information you hear and those that advocate these positions move up the ladder. After all they keep the party going!!!!
    Oct 15, 2009. 09:22 AM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment