Re: You can't spell v-o-l-a-t-i-l-i-t-y with a "why?".
 

You don't exchange ideas. That's not what you want. You want to argue an issue until you either tire the opponent out or find some way to reconfigure the description of the original debate so that you can either "win" or save face. I addressed you nastily here because you don't get to be sarcastic when you're wrong, and obtuseness, however repeatedly redefined as something else, is never substantive rebuttal.

To address you on the merits here is to repeat the obvious. The market absolutely, irrefutably went up because of the FASB thing. To suggest otherwise is simply preposterous. The random walk argument fails for the reasons Burger cited, the timing argument fails for the reasons Cletus cited and your overall randomness argument isn't something Taleb would even raise.*

It looks like a duck, it walks like a duck, it quacks like a duck and it's got a pile of ducklings walking behind it. It's a fucking duck.

*Oh, and to make sure you're aware that I have bona fides on the Taleb comment, I've not only personally emailed with the guy, but also happen to be friends with someone who has had him speak at conferences and is quite familiar with, and critical of, his theories on randomness and narratives. If you want a clarification the how, where and what of that, shoot me a PM.

Re: You can't spell v-o-l-a-t-i-l-i-t-y with a "why?".
 

In my very first post on this subject, I suggested that financial stocks hadn't gained any more than the rest of the market. To me, this undercuts the chosen narrative. TM (I think) responded that other firms are up because what's good for lending is good for everyone. I don't buy it. The FTSE was up, too, by a comparable margin. Did FASB's action cheer European markets similarly?

To repeat two other points made yesterday, I'm not at all sure that the FASB change wasn't expected by the market, and so I suspect it was factored into the closing prices on the prior day. OTOH, it was a 3-2 vote, as Adder's link noted, so maybe it was a surprise. And Less pointed out that the markets plausibly were reacting to what the IMF did. Who at the New York Times decided that it was FASB and not the IMF that markets reacted to? And how?

Re: You can't spell v-o-l-a-t-i-l-i-t-y with a "why?".
 

I thought you might like to know that you were undermining yourself by misusing your second finance term of the day.

Apparently you would instead prefer to (again) argue in favor absolutist doctrine rather than concede even in the slightest to common sense.

Re: You can't spell v-o-l-a-t-i-l-i-t-y with a "why?".
 

What else caused the uptick? Answer that with anything sensible.

Re: You can't spell v-o-l-a-t-i-l-i-t-y with a "why?".
 

So you think the rest of the market isn't down in large part because of the overall uncertainty, in particular about access to credit, that has banks at its heart? Fascinating.

You can't possible think that. And if you do, you are perhaps the only person in the world who doesn't think the financial sector and credit are absolutely vital, especially when ithey as fragile as they are reported to be now.

Yes.

You're esstentially back to strong form efficient markets. You are pretty much alone here too. Do you know what the primary evidence that undermines strong form efficient market theory? The tendancy of prices to overreact to news.

How can you post this mere minutes after saying you understand the point you are arguing against? I don't think anyone has said that the FASB news was the only cause of anything, or entirely explained the day's price movements.

Re: You can't spell v-o-l-a-t-i-l-i-t-y with a "why?".
 

I already did. $1.1T from the G20. Evan Bayh and Ben Nelson are my new heroes.

Re: You can't spell v-o-l-a-t-i-l-i-t-y with a "why?".
 

Come on. Reasonable minds can differ on whether the anticipated announcement of the change to the accounting principle affected the market. An announcement by Bernanke that he is raising or lowering interest rates a full point has a clear effect (to what extent, no one knows, of course). And there are plenty of examples like this. I thought we were arguing whether or not the one we've been discussing qualifies. If not, you're buying into your theory way too much.

TM

Re: You can't spell v-o-l-a-t-i-l-i-t-y with a "why?".
 

Your first point is one of the dumbest things I've ever heard. The rest of the market wouldn't respond as favorably to the biggest potential cause of credit thaw in the past five months?

On your second paragraph, because the market has been salivating about a change in MtM for weeks. See: Phrase including word "thaw" above.

Re: You can't spell v-o-l-a-t-i-l-i-t-y with a "why?".
 

A full day after we started on this topic, you mischaracterized the conversation, and asked if that's what we were talking about. I responded by repeating my views, in three full paragraphs. I wasn't arguing with you, because you hadn't taken a position. I wasn't arguing with anyone else. I repeating myself because you asked me to. In other words, I was exchanging ideas. In response, you just said I was "clearly" wrong, or some such thing -- hardly an exchange of ideas. Instead, I sarcastically tried to point out that all you offered was your own say-so, and said it was time to move on. And I'm still not arguing with you, because you're not saying anything. I'm responding to you, because that's what people do when they converse.

I'm going to pass on returning your insults, though, because I'd rather be above that. I read your PMs but I'm not going to respond to them because I might say something I'll regret later.

Re: You can't spell v-o-l-a-t-i-l-i-t-y with a "why?".
 

No way. The primary concern is credit thaw, which is why the uptick was broad. Did the IMF thing play into it? Sure, but the driver was MtM adjustment. People have been screaming about that for months.

Re: You can't spell v-o-l-a-t-i-l-i-t-y with a "why?".
 

I couldn't care less what you say to me in a PM.

Re: You can't spell v-o-l-a-t-i-l-i-t-y with a "why?".
 

Thanks for your ersatz charity, but I also understand what volatility is. I think that journalists are especially prone to create a narrative to explain big market swings, and there are more of them lately.

Re: You can't spell v-o-l-a-t-i-l-i-t-y with a "why?".
 

If you want another narrative, start with Less's post from yesterday about the IMF. But my main point is that there is a lot of volatility in the market, which creates large movements that need to be explained. Why did the market drop so much on Inauguration Day?

Re: You can't spell v-o-l-a-t-i-l-i-t-y with a "why?".
 

See, this is where you're doing a revisionist characterization. I said the overwhelming circumstantial evidence makes you point that the MtM adjustment was not the cause ridiculous. There's a substantial difference between that statement and what you've characterized my statement to have been.

Re: You can't spell v-o-l-a-t-i-l-i-t-y with a "why?".
 

That is undoubtedly true. Although I think they are even more full of shit when trying to explaining small market swings.

Re: You can't spell v-o-l-a-t-i-l-i-t-y with a "why?".
 

TM quoted a series of news organizations which offered FASB as an explanation, and nothing else.

Re: You can't spell v-o-l-a-t-i-l-i-t-y with a "why?".
 

I don't know why it dropped on Inauguration Day, but that's not a valid rebuttal. In this circumstance, the whole of the banking community, and every business in the country dependent on lending (all of them) have been praying for an adjustment to MtM for months now. It came, and when it did, lo and behold, the market went up. Coincidence? No.

And I'm still waiting for your PM. You can let me have it between the eyes. I want you to address my initial point raised in the first one.

Re: You can't spell v-o-l-a-t-i-l-i-t-y with a "why?".
 

So now we are arguing against the articles that TM cited in support of his argument, and not against what TM said? I missed the transition.

You are right and, assuming that your characterization of the articles is correct (I didn't read them), the articles are wrong. You have won. But I thought I covered that when I said you were both wrong.

Re: You can't spell v-o-l-a-t-i-l-i-t-y with a "why?".
 

There is so much background movement in the market these days that you really can't look at what it did yesterday and conclude that it's explained by what FASB did. If the market were flat for weeks, and then jumped suddenly yesterday, that would be different. That's not the world we're living in. Go to Google Finance and look at the S&P and other indices for the last month. Yesterday just doesn't stand out.

Re: You can't spell v-o-l-a-t-i-l-i-t-y with a "why?".
 

You didn't read any of those articles, did you? I would have assumed you had given how you lecture everyone else about clicking through.

TM

Re: You can't spell v-o-l-a-t-i-l-i-t-y with a "why?".
 

So, now your theory only applies when the market is generally volatile? Okay. I don't want to argue about this anymore. Difference of opinion. End of story.

TM

Re: You can't spell v-o-l-a-t-i-l-i-t-y with a "why?".
 

Because they're kissing Ty's ass in Iowa?

Re: You can't spell v-o-l-a-t-i-l-i-t-y with a "why?".
 

Unless I did my math wrong, the S&P opened up 3% yesterday over Wednesday's close. I haven't yet found the data to be able to compare, but I would guess that thre are few if any comparable upticks in the last six months.

ETA: Ooops. Nevermind. The Google finance data was bad. The spread between close and open was not particularly significant.

Re: You can't spell v-o-l-a-t-i-l-i-t-y with a "why?".
 

Jesus Fucking Christ, Adder. You said, "I don't think anyone has said that the FASB news was the only cause of anything, or entirely explained the day's price movements." But of course the NYT article he posted did exactly. If you think that point is uninteresting now, you shouldn't have asked the question.

Re: You can't spell v-o-l-a-t-i-l-i-t-y with a "why?".
 

Go look. Maybe I was wrong.

Re: You can't spell v-o-l-a-t-i-l-i-t-y with a "why?".
 

You know what, you don't get to do that. He was paying attention. You keep slicing the issue down or changing your theory or saying someone was mischaracterizing your initial point every time somebody makes a valid point against you. I understand your point that the NYTimes ran a narrative. I agree that they do that a lot and it's a flawed practice. But on the point of whether or not FASB made the market jump, he offered a sensible response there. You should pay attention to him, not hand out a dismissive brush-off, because from what I see, he's offered a lot more sensible substance to the debate today.

You do realize that when you make your argument into such a moving target, you pretty much concede the absence of one.

ETA: Damn you, Adder. I should have looked before I wrote.

Re: You can't spell v-o-l-a-t-i-l-i-t-y with a "why?".
 

Apologies, I meant "anyone participating in this conversation." I guess I should have anticipated that you would read "anyone" to mean "anyone in the world." I will be more careful in the future.

Fuck it, I'm out of here
 

Uncle.

Ty, it's never anything personal. I just don't like the way debates work on this board anymore. It's irritating. I should just stay away.

Have a good weekend.

Re: Fuck it, I'm out of here
 

New Board motto?

Re: You can't spell v-o-l-a-t-i-l-i-t-y with a "why?".
 

You asked for "anything sensible."

Re: You can't spell v-o-l-a-t-i-l-i-t-y with a "why?".
 

If only.

I don't really care what the reason is.
 

"The market finished with its fourth weekly gain in a row. The Dow's total gain since March 6 is about 21%, with the S&P up 23.2% and the Nasdaq up 25.3%."

And I have made three major purchases since October 1. Go me!

Re: You can't spell v-o-l-a-t-i-l-i-t-y with a "why?".
 

I understood TM to be posting the stock market's (supposed) reaction as evidence that the market saw and approved of FASB's action. I didn't see it that way, but that's why we were arguing about it as a sole cause. I wasn't thinking that everyone saw it that way, but that's what got us going.

Re: Fuck it, I'm out of here
 

I think just about everyone on this board generally posts in good faith, and doesn't mean anything personal. I sometimes think a post is dumb, but I don't mean to be calling posters dumb, and if that is not clear then I haven't been careful enough.

Peace. Out.

Re: I don't really care what the reason is.
 

I'm jealous. I have been holding too much cash (although with some reasons). I take solace, however, in the fact that I saw Jim Cramer predicting that the market was past it's bottom this week on one of the morning news shows. That guy is always wrong.

Re: Fuck it, I'm out of here
 

Kum-bay... eh... fuck it. I have been listening to too many Ricky Gervais podcasts lately. I now hear your posts in Karl Pilkington's voice. Probably not fair, but there it is.

Re: Fuck it, I'm out of here
 

since everyone else has now arrived at the point I first brought up two years ago, perhaps I should be made the PB mod. First thing is I will delete a fuck of a lot of stuff.

Die Hard quote #1
 

Welcome to the party, pal.

Re: You can't spell v-o-l-a-t-i-l-i-t-y with a "why?".
 

I'm really glad I've been to busy to post. Although it's often rare that I agree with TM these days, so maybe I should pay closer attention.

I'm not going back and reading all the who said what, etc., but let me add, from the trenches - and anyone but a Obama "Special Olympics gimp/idiot/whatever" knows I deal with this probably more than any of you.

The new FASB ruling killed about 4 prospective vuture funds I'm aware of, has everyone working this weekend re-modeling all of their Tier 2 and 3 assets, and has everyone in the industry salivating at paying back TARP early.

Ty - love you kid, but you have no effing clue what you are talking about here. Sorry.

Re: You can't spell v-o-l-a-t-i-l-i-t-y with a "why?".
 

Apropos of nothing, the Grey Lady, perhaps the last old guard paper supporter of everything "Union Label" day in and day out, just threatened to shutter the Boston Globe, lest its workers take concessions.

Get that? - your paper is leaning on the Unions.

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

Aside from irony being a bitch, its awesome watching Pinch and the rest of the Sulzburgers go down hard.