Citi.....Its going DOWN!

[Mega]

http://www.ifaonline.co.uk/public/showPage.html?page=701695

Can't see the making it now, 1ST US BANK to go?
Mike

[sadsack]

It would appear on the surface that Citi would rather risk the ire of hedge funds in an attempt to preserve capital, than pursue a much more costly route such as upping the rates on cash deposits . . .

[rj1]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080219/bs_nm/morgan_stanley_citibank_japan_dc

They have sold their Japanese headquarters to Morgan Stanley for $445 million.

http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSN1553613520080115

And may sell a Brazilian credit card unit for $616 million.

[FRED]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080219/bs_nm/morgan_stanley_citibank_japan_dc

They have sold their Japanese headquarters to Morgan Stanley for $445 million.

http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSN1553613520080115

And may sell a Brazilian credit card unit for $616 million.

A friend with a relative in Asia who's worked for Citi for 18 years told us the relative told them recently: "Twenty gamblers ruined a great company and put 100,000 people out of work. What a tragedy."

You can be the judge of what they meant by that.

[babbittd]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080219/bs_nm/morgan_stanley_citibank_japan_dc

They have sold their Japanese headquarters to Morgan Stanley for $445 million.

http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSN1553613520080115

And may sell a Brazilian credit card unit for $616 million.

From Bloomberg:


Citigroup is also considering selling about 50 consumer- finance branches after cutting that network in half last year to reduce costs, the Journal reported.....

[touchring]

A friend with a relative in Asia who's worked for Citi for 18 years told us the relative told them recently: "Twenty gamblers ruined a great company and put 100,000 people out of work. What a tragedy."

You can be the judge of what they meant by that.



Is citi laying off 100,000 people? Or are they just selling off their units?

[Jim Nickerson]

A friend with a relative in Asia who's worked for Citi for 18 years told us the relative told them recently: "Twenty gamblers ruined a great company and put 100,000 people out of work. What a tragedy."

You can be the judge of what they meant by that.

FRED, as well as I can count, your post would make it fourth-hand to us, now if that is not the epitome of gossip, what is?

[rj1]

FRED, as well as I can count, your post would make it fourth-hand to us, now if that is not the epitome of gossip, what is?

The Kevin Bacon Rule of Six? :D

[metalman]

The Kevin Bacon Rule of Six? :D

looks like i'm the unofficial explainer of things itulip!

as readers we want to know the source's name and perhaps a phone number and email address! from the source's position they prefer itulip say nothing to connect them with the info. itulip's job is to strike a balance.

but we're all missing something... there's a reason why ej is also in harper's, gets interviewed, gives keynotes at investor events, a panelist and so on... itulip is a trusted source. well, so is ben stein to some, so that alone isn't enough.

my take: itulip rarely shares info like this so when they do i tend to pay attention. this person quoted appears to believe that citi as an institution is in trouble. don't know if i'll short them or what... i'm scared to short specific companies because of bailout risk... with my luck i'll go short just as citi gets big $$$ from the gov't. prefer to use the indexes as ej showed in dec. 07.

[Jim Nickerson]

looks like i'm the unofficial explainer of things itulip!

as readers we want to know the source's name and perhaps a phone number and email address! from the source's position they prefer itulip say nothing to connect them with the info. itulip's job is to strike a balance.

but we're all missing something... there's a reason why ej is also in harper's, gets interviewed, gives keynotes at investor events, a panelist and so on... itulip is a trusted source. well, so is ben stein to some, so that alone isn't enough.

my take: itulip rarely shares info like this so when they do i tend to pay attention. this person quoted appears to believe that citi as an institution is in trouble. don't know if i'll short them or what... i'm scared to short specific companies because of bailout risk... with my luck i'll go short just as citi gets big $$$ from the gov't. prefer to use the indexes as ej showed in dec. 07.

Mr. "unofficial explainer," just what did you explain here regarding Kevin Bacon's Rule of Six? Or for the matter, what did you explain period?

[metalman]

Mr. "unofficial explainer," just what did you explain here regarding Kevin Bacon's Rule of Six? Or for the matter, what did you explain period?

i give not two stinky shits about the rule of six... don't even know what it is. who cares?

why are you so thick? your reaction is always the same to hints and outright calls. ej says "time to short" and "bear market starts now" and you say "what do you mean"? you want "short this and buy that". this site is for adults who take the good info here and make their own decisions.

some day ej will say, "i'm selling gold" and you know what i'll do, i'll sell at least some of it but later wish i'd sold all of it. i know me!

what will you do?

[BiscayneSunrise]

Jim, Sorry to say, I'm with metalman on this one. iTulip & EJ offer great, reliable info. I forgive them for a little editorial license occasionally. Actually, quite appreciate the insight and trust their instinct to pass on hearsay.

As for the future of Citi; this past November, I was at keynote given by Louis Navellier, who is about as mainstream as they come. Even back then, Louis was predicting the demise of Citi, partly because someone would have to take the fall for the sub prime mess and when the torch and pitchfork crowd comes out, Citi will do just fine as the fall guy.

My wife, a former Citi exec, is already mourning their downfall. If, and when it does come it will be similar to the demise of Pan Am. The loss of a great American icon.

[Jim Nickerson]

i give not two stinky shits about the rule of six... don't even know what it is. who cares?

why are you so thick? your reaction is always the same to hints and outright calls. ej says "time to short" and "bear market starts now" and you say "what do you mean"? you want "short this and buy that". this site is for adults who take the good info here and make their own decisions.

some day ej will say, "i'm selling gold" and you know what i'll do, i'll sell at least some of it but later wish i'd sold all of it. i know me!

what will you do?

Why do you choose to write so poorly? Surely you are better educated than you write, metalman, or at least I presume that is a safe call.

Thinking back on the last 10-15 years, I have only known of EJ for coming up on two of them. I have made money and lost money, and none of my investment decisions (with one brief exception of about 4-6 months) have rested solely upon the thinking of any other single individual and that would include EJ, though certainly his expression of his thoughts have influenced my thinking in some way.

I can tell you that I am not waiting on EJ to tell me anything about when I should buy or sell anything. If I stay alive at some point I will take my profits/losses in my positions based on where I think they are headed next.

Whatever I am, I try hard not to be a lemming.

[Jim Nickerson]

Jim, Sorry to say, I'm with metalman on this one. iTulip & EJ offer great, reliable info. I forgive them for a little editorial license occasionally. Actually, quite appreciate the insight and trust their instinct to pass on hearsay.

As for the future of Citi; this past November, I was at keynote given by Louis Navellier, who is about as mainstream as they come. Even back then, Louis was predicting the demise of Citi, partly because someone would have to take the fall for the sub prime mess and when the torch and pitchfork crowd comes out, Citi will do just fine as the fall guy.

My wife, a former Citi exec, is already mourning their downfall. If, and when it does come it will be similar to the demise of Pan Am. The loss of a great American icon.

I think my original comment had to do with questioning "gossip." Nothing else. I took no position on where Citi may or may not end up.

[metalman]

I think my original comment had to do with questioning "gossip." Nothing else. I took no position on where Citi may or may not end up.

my point which you are missing is consider the source... gossip is if you or i say it. more than gossip if itulip says it. the opposite is true if the imf says it and they're rumoring about gold. it's a lie if ben stein says it. etc.

[Jim Nickerson]

my point which you are missing is consider the source... gossip is if you or i say it. more than gossip if itulip says it. the opposite is true if the imf says it and they're rumoring about gold. it's a lie if ben stein says it. etc.

metalman, we definitely ain't on the same wave length here I don't think.

FRED made a post, which I took to be a comment of one of the four FRED's. What I take as FRED's comments, I do not take as EJ's comments. FRED's ain't getting interviewed or writing articles for Harper's, so besides his record of running the site, which to me is fabulous, I personally don't put anymore confidence in what FRED posts that comes across to me as their opinions (which ever one posts) than I put in what you post.

My point is that personally I do not take FRED = EJ. And I don't take iTulip as meaning anything as an entity unto itself. iTulip does not equal EJ. EJ=EJ.

[The Outback Oracle]

I guess it was just coincidence! My son, who works for a major European Bank/Broker in Hong Kong, rang me one night (Aus time) a few weeks ago and said..."CITI is rolling over". The same day the Fed announced the between meeting 0.5% rate cut.
I keep wondering about that...they are desperate to keep the market up to avoid all these Banks going under because of their stupid derivative plays.

[The Outback Oracle]

I guess it's just gossip and idle speculation!!!!

[jk]

A friend with a relative in Asia who's worked for Citi for 18 years told us the relative told them recently: "Twenty gamblers ruined a great company and put 100,000 people out of work. What a tragedy."

You can be the judge of what they meant by that.

i'm not sure "gamblers" is the right description, though. they were playing with other people's money, and when the bets stopped paying off - or, in prince's metaphor, the music stopped and they had to stop 'dancing' - they still got plenty. they weren't going to lose either way. the incentives are screwed up- that's why i won't consider investing in hedge funds under current circumstances - the incentives are to lever up and take high risk positions. heads i win, tails you lose.

[EJ]

i'm not sure "gamblers" is the right description, though. they were playing with other people's money, and when the bets stopped paying off - or, in prince's metaphor, the music stopped and they had to stop 'dancing' - they still got plenty. they weren't going to lose either way. the incentives are screwed up- that's why i won't consider investing in hedge funds under current circumstances - the incentives are to lever up and take high risk positions. heads i win, tails you lose.

JK,

After more than a dozen interviews with hedge fund managers in NYC, Connecticut, Florida, and California I can see that the market is adapting to this by withholding new investment in hedge funds which are, as you say, structured as a can't-lose for management. To attract new investment management of many existing funds has to show that they are taking equal risk as investors. A new fund can't get off the ground unless management defers the carry on their 2/20, that is, the 2% management fee and 20% of gains, and unproven managers now find themselves deferring much of the 20% as well to demonstrate their commitment to the fund.

The golden age of the hedge fund free ride is over. We'll see how many managers want to continue in the business under the conditions of low returns and higher risk. I expect my forecast of an increase in the shut/launch ratio from 1:1 to 1:4 will happen in 2008 versus 2007. I was early with that one.

http://www.itulip.com/images/hedgeratio.jpg


On a separate note, hedge funds have been major contributors to Democratic candidates; none of us should expect much in the way of new regulation.

http://www.itulip.com/images/hedgefunds.gif

Eric

[Mega]

The Titanic didn't sink in 5 mins.
Mega

[Andreuccio]

metalman, we definitely ain't on the same wave length here I don't think.

FRED made a post, which I took to be a comment of one of the four FRED's. What I take as FRED's comments, I do not take as EJ's comments. FRED's ain't getting interviewed or writing articles for Harper's, so besides his record of running the site, which to me is fabulous, I personally don't put anymore confidence in what FRED posts that comes across to me as their opinions (which ever one posts) than I put in what you post.

My point is that personally I do not take FRED = EJ. And I don't take iTulip as meaning anything as an entity unto itself. iTulip does not equal EJ. EJ=EJ.

Jim,

I've been meaning to comment on this for a while. I think it's likely you're being too hard on Fred. I know that a few months back Fred said that there were in reality several different Fred's around the world and that you might be communicating with any one of them. But I think that comment was taken out of context.

As I see it, Fred performs 4 functions here.

1. He maintains the mechanics of the site.
2. He moderates the discourse on the site.
3. He makes posts for guest commentators and for EJ.
4. He makes his own posts.

My understanding of Fred's post about there being multiple Freds was that it referred to #1, and maybe #2. I doubt anybody would object to this. The website runs 24/7, with contributors from around the world. The real Fred can't be expected to stay up all night, every night, so they contract out the graveyard shift maintanance work.

#3 isn't really an issue, either, since it's clear Fred is just acting as a conduit for some other contributors, and it's clear who they are.

#4 is where the objections come in. I don't know, but I doubt Fred's comment about multiple Freds applied to the opinion and informational posts under the name "Fred".

This Fred clearly has been given editorial license by EJ, or he wouldn't be making those posts for long. I seriously doubt EJ would tolerate a loose cannon. So while it's true that Fred is not EJ , I think whatever this Fred posts has EJ's approval, either explicit or implicit, and can be taken as a representation of iTulip's editorial position.

My guess is this Fred is the guy listed as "Webmaster" here: http://www.itulip.com/company.htm. If you Google him you'll find he's been webmaster to other similarly themed websites in the past. Perhaps he and EJ had a meeting of the minds. It doesn't really matter who this Fred is, though. I mean, my real name isn't Andreuccio, and for all I know your real name isn't Jim Nickerson, either.

[Jim Nickerson]

Jim,

I've been meaning to comment on this for a while. I think it's likely you're being too hard on Fred. I know that a few months back Fred said that there were in reality several different Fred's around the world and that you might be communicating with any one of them. But I think that comment was taken out of context.

As I see it, Fred performs 4 functions here.

1. He maintains the mechanics of the site.
2. He moderates the discourse on the site.
3. He makes posts for guest commentators and for EJ.
4. He makes his own posts.

My understanding of Fred's post about there being multiple Freds was that it referred to #1, and maybe #2. I doubt anybody would object to this. The website runs 24/7, with contributors from around the world. The real Fred can't be expected to stay up all night, every night, so they contract out the graveyard shift maintanance work.

#3 isn't really an issue, either, since it's clear Fred is just acting as a conduit for some other contributors, and it's clear who they are.

#4 is where the objections come in. I don't know, but I doubt Fred's comment about multiple Freds applied to the opinion and informational posts under the name "Fred".

This Fred clearly has been given editorial license by EJ, or he wouldn't be making those posts for long. I seriously doubt EJ would tolerate a loose cannon. So while it's true that Fred is not EJ , I think whatever this Fred posts has EJ's approval, either explicit or implicit, and can be taken as a representation of iTulip's editorial position.

My guess is this Fred is the guy listed as "Webmaster" here: http://www.itulip.com/company.htm. If you Google him you'll find he's been webmaster to other similarly themed websites in the past. Perhaps he and EJ had a meeting of the minds. It doesn't really matter who this Fred is, though. I mean, my real name isn't Andreuccio, and for all I know your real name isn't Jim Nickerson, either.

Andreuccio, whoever you are, I am Jim Nickerson.

Thanks for your attempt, perhaps 100% correcto, to explain FRED. I have reached my own conclusions about whoever or whatever is FRED. This little bantering began with my simply calling to the attention of any readers who may be less objective than I (and god help them if they are) that what whichever FRED put up was surely an example of gossip. I think I am correct in having identified that as gossip--which probably is worth two hoots to have done so.

Also following that OutbackOracle put up his example of gossip. In my opinion gossip is useless, though it is possible for it to be 100% correct.

Regarding FRED, whoever he is, I must compliment him on however he achieves bringing back certain facts from the past here to recall them to the attention of the readers. He has either an excellent memory, an excellent system of finding stuff, or some helpers with either or both of the the attributes just mentioned. Good job, FRED, just don't get carried away with putting gossip on the hallowed pages of iTulip, there is already enough BS in the world.

[EJ]

Andreuccio, whoever you are, I am Jim Nickerson.

Thanks for your attempt, perhaps 100% correcto, to explain FRED. I have reached my own conclusions about whoever or whatever is FRED. This little bantering began with my simply calling to the attention of any readers who may be less objective than I (and god help them if they are) that what whichever FRED put up was surely an example of gossip. I think I am correct in having identified that as gossip--which probably is worth two hoots to have done so.

Also following that OutbackOracle put up his example of gossip. In my opinion gossip is useless, though it is possible for it to be 100% correct.

Regarding FRED, whoever he is, I must compliment him on however he achieves bringing back certain facts from the past here to recall them to the attention of the readers. He has either an excellent memory, an excellent system of finding stuff, or some helpers with either or both of the the attributes just mentioned. Good job, FRED, just don't get carried away with putting gossip on the hallowed pages of iTulip, there is already enough BS in the world.

Jim,

All major moves in markets result from gossip, thus the trader's truism: buy on rumor, sell on fact.

A lot of market analysis that is shared with outsiders is done after the fact to justify buy/sell decisions by insiders that were based on gossip.

Insiders make money off of outsiders via the closed circulation of gossip.

The timing of my Dec. 27 call of the start of the Debt Deflation Bear Market was based on gossip. It is the most reliable source of information to confirm the timing of a long analysis if your sources are good.

Whatever gossip insiders collectively believe is truth whether fact or not.

Respect gossip but consider the source.

Eric

p.s. "I'd be a bum on the street with a tin cup if the markets were efficient."
- Warren Buffett

[Jim Nickerson]

Jim,

All major moves in markets result from gossip, thus the trader's truism: buy on rumor, sell on fact.

A lot of market analysis that is shared with outsiders is done after the fact to justify buy/sell decisions by insiders that were based on gossip.

Insiders make money off of outsiders via the closed circulation of gossip.

The timing of my Dec. 27 call of the start of the Debt Deflation Bear Market was based on gossip. It is the most reliable source of information to confirm the timing of a long analysis if your sources are good.

Whatever gossip insiders collectively believe is truth whether fact or not.

Respect gossip but consider the source.

Eric

p.s. "I'd be a bum on the street with a tin cup if the markets were efficient."
- Warren Buffett


Eric,

There is nothing about gossip that I respect, but that is just me, there is so much potential for misinformation on the web, surely when on the web one must be wary of whatever has the underpinnings of gossip.

I must remain cautious in the future about offering compliments to FRED, whoever he is, as upon doing so today it seems someone there must have hit the reset button and iTilip was unreachable for 20 or so minutes--seemingly forever--as I had a question pop up which thankfully for the grace of the computer-gods I can now pose.

What snatched defeat (for those of us long) from the jaws of victory (those who are short) today. What was the "gossip" if you insist?

I really think it detracts from anyone's credibility to defend gossip, but that may be a short-coming of my own due to the connotation I assign to the word. If one wishes to defend insider information with regard to possible validity, that probably would be something different--if one thinks it's fair, honest to trade off insider information.

Main Entry:1gos£sip Merriam-Webster
Pronunciation:*g*-s*p
Function:noun
Etymology:Middle English gossib, from Old English godsibb, from god god + sibb kinsman, from sibb related — more at SIB
Date:before 12th century
1 a dialect British : GODPARENT b : COMPANION, CRONY c : a person who habitually reveals personal or sensational facts about others
2 a : rumor or report of an intimate nature b : a chatty talk c : the subject matter of gossip
–gos£sip£ry \-s*-pr*\ noun

If an insider, whoever that is because I know none, were to tell me something having to do with markets's directions, if I knew the guy well-enough I might act upon the information if I were feeling poor, greedy, or just perhaps asinine. But if I told the report to my neighbor who passes it on down the street--as things certainly happen around where I live--at some point of furtherance, it would become useless information because of likely distortion or passage of time. It may have been a reliable report at its beginning, but odds are great it deteriorates into an unreliable rumor.

Main Entry:1ru£mor
Pronunciation:*r*-m*r
Function:noun
Etymology:Middle English rumour, from Anglo-French, from Latin rumor clamor, gossip; akin to Old English r*on to lament, Sanskrit rauti he roars
Date:14th century
1 : talk or opinion widely disseminated with no discernible source
2 : a statement or report current without known authority for its truth
3 archaic : talk or report of a notable person or event
4 : a soft low indistinct sound : MURMUR


Anybody, I would like your observation on my question.

[Rajiv]

One other thing will burn people who trade -- not understanding the true dynamics of the trade they are making -- in particular, I am talking of short selling and selling or buying futures and options -- also of people who are "momentum traders"

The other thing that will burn people is the psychology of not being willing to take a loss - even when necessary -- and not cashing out gains.

[Andreuccio]

I must remain cautious in the future about offering compliments to FRED, whoever he is, as upon doing so today it seems someone there must have hit the reset button and iTilip was unreachable for 20 or so minutes--seemingly forever--


I assumed the busy server was because I had revealed Fred's true identity and he needed time to cover his tracks.

[FRED]

I assumed the busy server was because I had revealed Fred's true identity and he needed time to cover his tracks.

Our email servers went off line, too, so it was not a server but a connection problem.

We though for a while there maybe Bluehost had kicked the bucket. Turns out it only turned a little pail. :rolleyes:

[Jim Nickerson]

<BIG class=pr>To answer my own question, http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/080222/wall_street.html?.v=49</BIG>
<BIG class=pr></BIG>
<BIG class=pr><B>
<BIG class=pr>AP</BIG>
Stocks Turn Positive on Ambac Report
Friday February 22, 4:38 pm ET
By Tim Paradis, AP Business Writer
<TABLE height=4 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 border=0><TBODY><TR><TD height=4></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
Stocks Reverse Steep Losses After Report Deal to Shore Up Troubled Bond Insurer Is Near

NEW YORK (AP) -- Wall Street staged a dramatic turnaround Friday, shooting higher in the last half-hour of trading after word that a bailout plan for troubled bond insurer Ambac Financial could be announced next week.
</B></BIG>

To support Eric's contention, sort of, notice "rumor" rather than "gossip" in this dude's comment.

"There's probably some validity to the rumors," said Jim Herrick, manager of equity trading at Baird & Co., referring to traders' speculation about Ambac. "With the overall financial crunch we've experienced, this brings new confidence in the sector."


Looking at ABK and MBI today, and I didn't follow them all day, there must have be some semblance of truth to the "rumor" or "gossip" that turned the market up Friday. I try not to look for news while the markets are open, but I expect there will be some stories about some entities stepping into aid, or band-aid, the monolines.

[EJ]

<big class="pr">To answer my own question, http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/080222/wall_street.html?.v=49</big>
<big class="pr"></big>
<big class="pr"></big><big class="pr"></big>

To support Eric's contention, sort of, notice "rumor" rather than "gossip" in this dude's comment.

Jim,

From the home page: "There is the dangerous cliché in the financial world that everything depends on confidence. One could better argue the importance of unremitting suspicion.” - J. K. Galbraith

How's this for a finance and economics web site analogy: it is like a restaurant. Every time you go the food has to be fresh and unique. You may go for years then one day you go and the food is not good. You think, "That's too bad. Well maybe the chef is sick. I'll try again." You go back and the food is up to snuff and you forget the bad visit. But if you go back and the food is bad again, twice in a row, will you go back? Probably not, at least not for a while even if you've been going for years.

If iTulip out of 100 articles writes two that give questionable advice we lose a lot of readers. That's why if we, on rare occasion, share one of out 100 rumors we hear it is because we believe that risk is low.

Yet this is not nearly as hard as running your average high end restaurant. I have friends who do and it's wildly difficult. The product is every single plate of food. A near infinite variability of inputs – source of ingredients, dishes, method, labor, etc. – yet with a customer expectation of near perfect output consistency, both product and service. The trick is to make each unique plate of food as good as the last that each customer ever had, the uniqueness of a hand crafted product with the consistency of a mass produced product. The more complex the preparation, the harder this is to do.

This is why most people who run good high end restaurants are often quite odd: perfectionistic, exacting, obsessive.

Eric

[Jim Nickerson]

Jim,

From the home page: "There is the dangerous cliché in the financial world that everything depends on confidence. One could better argue the importance of unremitting suspicion.” - J. K. Galbraith

How's this for a finance and economics web site analogy: it is like a restaurant. Every time you go the food has to be fresh and unique. You may go for years then one day you go and the food is not good. You think, "That's too bad. Well maybe the chef is sick. I'll try again." You go back and the food is up to snuff and you forget the bad visit. But if you go back and the food is bad again, twice in a row, will you go back? Probably not, at least not for a while even if you've been going for years.

If iTulip out of 100 articles writes two that give questionable advice we lose a lot of readers. That's why if we, on rare occasion, share one of out 100 rumors we hear it is because we believe that risk is low.

Yet this is not nearly as hard as running your average high end restaurant. I have friends who do and it's wildly difficult. The product is every single plate of food. A near infinite variability of inputs – source of ingredients, dishes, method, labor, etc. – yet with a customer expectation of near perfect output consistency, both product and service. The trick is to make each unique plate of food as good as the last that each customer ever had, the uniqueness of a hand crafted product with the consistency of a mass produced product. The more complex the preparation, the harder this is to do.

This is why most people who run good high end restaurants are often quite odd: perfectionistic, exacting, obsessive.

Eric

Eric, not uncommonly do you lose me, meaning I am incapable of sorting out (grasping the full meaning of) what your write, usually this refers to matters economic, "bankical," or financial, but it seems we are not on those issues exactly here now.

You'll likely never know, but I was driven by the goal of perfection for many years, and looking back it was a fool's journey. I fully agree with aiming as high as one can in order to achieve a goal, but with the realization that one will not achieve perfection, one will have to accept and deal with something less than perfect.

I'm into trying to be "exacting" and am too goddammed "obsessive" so I think I can relate to what I perceive may be a part of what drives you,
BUT, I will wager you 20 bonars, there is not 5% of people who visit iTulip who expect to get only "perfectionistic" information. Such isn't realistic, nor do I think expected by visitors or members here except by individuals who I likely would judge as foolish. You know better than anyone your track record (you reference it enough:):):):):)--seriously joking) so the end result of that is your site and you are credible.

If you think you can never fail at what you do and strive to achieve that, I think you are headed for a short lifetime. No one can do better than the best that they can do, and even when the effort may be the best, the results may come up a degree or three short.

I think you and your supporting staff, informants, and whoever else is on your end would have to fuckup mightly to lose interest from the people who choose to visit here. You obviously are not into just blowing idle smoke.

Back to what if I can recall so long ago that started this was a post by FRED that I labeled then as gossip (unbeknownst that it would cause so much discussion). I hope none of this is actually in defense of FRED's post, which I took as worthless, because by my definition, it was gossip. That post did nothing to the credibility of you, or even FRED, whoever he is, or whichever one it was, and certainly not iTulip--at least in my eyes.

Actually, I don't look upon iTulip as anything other than a web address where I know I can go for some information that interests me and that has made me a bit smarter. At iTulip you "reside" and you have some good insights. To me iTulip represents no philosophy, or set of rules by which some group of people interested in investment act. It represents a place where you, EJ, put forth your ideas and analyses as do a few other very bright contributors. I sure as hell do not spend time here looking for the perfect answer to how I invest, simply because no one, including you, is going to put it forth.

It's looking to me as if this discourse should be reaching its endpoint sometime soon.

Hang in there, EJ.

[EJ]

Eric, not uncommonly do you lose me, meaning I am incapable of sorting out (grasping the full meaning of) what your write, usually this refers to matters economic, "bankical," or financial, but it seems we are not on those issues exactly here now.

You'll likely never know, but I was driven by the goal of perfection for many years, and looking back it was a fool's journey. I fully agree with aiming as high as one can in order to achieve a goal, but with the realization that one will not achieve perfection, one will have to accept and deal with something less than perfect.

I'm into trying to be "exacting" and am too goddammed "obsessive" so I think I can relate to what I perceive may be a part of what drives you,
BUT, I will wager you 20 bonars, there is not 5% of people who visit iTulip who expect to get only "perfectionistic" information. Such isn't realistic, nor do I think expected by visitors or members here except by individuals who I likely would judge as foolish. You know better than anyone your track record (you reference it enough:):):):):)--seriously joking) so the end result of that is your site and you are credible.

If you think you can never fail at what you do and strive to achieve that, I think you are headed for a short lifetime. No one can do better than the best that they can do, and even when the effort may be the best, the results may come up a degree or three short.

I think you and your supporting staff, informants, and whoever else is on your end would have to fuckup mightly to lose interest from the people who choose to visit here. You obviously are not into just blowing idle smoke.

Back to what if I can recall so long ago that started this was a post by FRED that I labeled then as gossip (unbeknownst that it would cause so much discussion). I hope none of this is actually in defense of FRED's post, which I took as worthless, because by my definition, it was gossip. That post did nothing to the credibility of you, or even FRED, whoever he is, or whichever one it was, and certainly not iTulip--at least in my eyes.

Actually, I don't look upon iTulip as anything other than a web address where I know I can go for some information that interests me and that has made me a bit smarter. At iTulip you "reside" and you have some good insights. To me iTulip represents no philosophy, or set of rules by which some group of people interested in investment act. It represents a place where you, EJ, put forth your ideas and analyses as do a few other very bright contributors. I sure as hell do not spend time here looking for the perfect answer to how I invest, simply because no one, including you, is going to put it forth.

It's looking to me as if this discourse should be reaching its endpoint sometime soon.

Hang in there, EJ.

Jim,

You are a great guy and your response is much appreciated.

Actually, I wasn't complaining. I really am glad I'm not running a restaurant. Too much work!

iTulip in fact has several quite distinct philosophies and I'm surprised you have not picked up on them. Maybe others here can fill you in.

Glad you are not looking for the perfect answer because if you have learned anything here it is that there isn't one. Not for everyone and not for all time.

There is a continuous flow of change in the markets and the economy; the art is in understanding the flow and nature of the change. It is an enormous waste of time to try to pin things down. Pinning down the markets and economy is like describing an amoeba so that someone can identify it later. You can say what's in an amoeba, its components, but a description which is at any time accurate is in a moment inaccurate. The only difference with markets is that they change more slowly, except when they are changing quickly. This fact is quite frustrating to minds that are looking for absolutes.

Eric

[Jim Nickerson]

Jim,

You are a great guy and your response is much appreciated.

Actually, I wasn't complaining. I really am glad I'm not running a restaurant. Too much work!

iTulip in fact has several quite distinct philosophies and I'm surprised you have not picked up on them. Maybe others here can fill you in.

Glad you are not looking for the perfect answer because if you have learned anything here it is that there isn't one. Not for everyone and not for all time.

There is a continuous flow of change in the markets and the economy; the art is in understanding the flow and nature of the change. It is an enormous waste of time to try to pin things down. Pinning down the markets and economy is like describing an amoeba so that someone can identify it later. You can say what's in an amoeba, its components, but a description which is at any time accurate is in a moment inaccurate. The only difference with markets is that they change more slowly, except when they are changing quickly. This fact is quite frustrating to minds that are looking for absolutes.

Eric

Probably, if someone gave me a multiple choice exam with regard to what are the philosophies of iTulip, I would pass. I'm not here because of whatever are those philosophies. I'm here becasue I think it is a good place for what seems to me to be worthwhile information--even given the limitations I have in digesting some of it.

[jk]

keynes famously compared the markets to a beauty contest, but a beauty contest in which you voted not for the contestant you found most beautiful, but for the one you thought most people would vote for. thus the value of gossip and rumor is in providing [only] small bits of data about how others in the crowd are judging the "beauty" of various assets.

my own attitude towards gold, for example, [which i've explicated before, but am repeating nonetheless] is that it's not really worth much to me, because i'm not attracted to trinkets, but for some reason the crowd thinks that the crowd thinks [sic] it's a good reservoir of value in inflationary times. thus, tautologically, it turns out that it is indeed a good reservoir of value in inflationary times. if i were to start reading a lot of commentary, however, that others viewed it as cynically as i do, i'd start getting worried about holding so much of it.

i want to know what the crowd is thinking, and how that thinking is shifting. rumor and gossip are some of the inputs in that process.

[Jim Nickerson]

keynes famously compared the markets to a beauty contest, but a beauty contest in which you voted not for the contestant you found most beautiful, but for the one you thought most people would vote for. thus the value of gossip and rumor is in providing [only] small bits of data about how others in the crowd are judging the "beauty" of various assets.

my own attitude towards gold, for example, [which i've explicated before, but am repeating nonetheless] is that it's not really worth much to me, because i'm not attracted to trinkets, but for some reason the crowd thinks that the crowd thinks [sic] it's a good reservoir of value in inflationary times. thus, tautologically, it turns out that it is indeed a good reservoir of value in inflationary times. if i were to start reading a lot of commentary, however, that others viewed it as cynically as i do, i'd start getting worried about holding so much of it.

i want to know what the crowd is thinking, and how that thinking is shifting. rumor and gossip are some of the inputs in that process.

So, jk, where are you hanging out in order to learn what the crowd is thinking?

I 'hang" with the sentiment surveys, market breadth, and the put/call data.

[metalman]

So, jk, where are you hanging out in order to learn what the crowd is thinking?

I 'hang" with the sentiment surveys, market breadth, and the put/call data.

those are useful... like reading all the stats before you bet on a baseball game. a call from a friend on the team who you know and trust who happens to know that the star pitcher is injured.... heck, that doesn't hurt.

[Jim Nickerson]

those are useful... like reading all the stats before you bet on a baseball game. a call from a friend on the team who you know and trust who happens to know that the star pitcher is injured.... heck, that doesn't hurt.

metalman, you didn't answer what jk is using with regard to understanding what the crowd is thinking or how it might be shifting its thinking, and we aren't writing about betting on baseball games, we are writing about betting on investments.

[Basil]

I was informed by a former Citi exec that the money they borrowed from abroad was at 11.5%. That smacks of utter desperation.
She, however, is of the opinion that they will be bailed out, as the psychological impact of Citi failing would be too much for the markets to bear (pun intended).

[Jim Nickerson]

I was informed by a former Citi exec that the money they borrowed from abroad was at 11.5%. That smacks of utter desperation.
She, however, is of the opinion that they will be bailed out, as the psychological impact of Citi failing would be too much for the markets to bear (pun intended).

So based on this rumor you heard, gossip to me, what do you think we should do Monday to exploit this apparent inside information?

Edit: I guess this is related about as much as anything else is here. I was reading a story an hour ago or so about the reversal in the markets today, and one thing mentioned was that Merrill Lynch analyst(s) today downgraded FRE and FNM to sells from holds. Look at the charts on those two pieces of shit, both having fallen over 50% from recent highs, and tell me people in high places on Wall Street know their asses from their elbows. Such astute signals by major brokerage firms appears to me to be giving anything labeled "insider information" a bad name.

[metalman]

I was informed by a former Citi exec that the money they borrowed from abroad was at 11.5%. That smacks of utter desperation.
She, however, is of the opinion that they will be bailed out, as the psychological impact of Citi failing would be too much for the markets to bear (pun intended).

no one thought enron could go down, either.

[Basil]

I quite agree. But I do think that such a possibility would urge one to exercise caution in how they play this one, if they do so. But I should clarify, this is not rumor—even worse—it is opinion.:D

[Jim Nickerson]

I quite agree. But I do think that such a possibility would urge one to exercise caution in how they play this one, if they do so. But I should clarify, this is not rumor—even worse—it is opinion.:D

I don't know that an opinion from someone I know, if I were to figure they actually know something, is worse that a rumor.

Whatever, I was pulling your leg to see what else you had to write. I wouldn't play C one way or the other as a single investment, though I am long UYG which is +200 DJ US Financials, and I am sure includes some percentage of C.

[GRG55]

So, jk, where are you hanging out in order to learn what the crowd is thinking?

I 'hang" with the sentiment surveys, market breadth, and the put/call data.

Not answering for jk of course.

For me the rumours and "gossip" add context to the "facts".

As you know I am not much of a market technician or chart reader, so I watch some other things to figure out what the crowd is thinking, and more important, to try to figure out what the crowd might be thinking in the not too distant future.

Favourite is to compare what is in the headlines, and what is being talked about around the water cooler, with what is buried half way back in the newspaper & the Economist magazine, and what is "nagging" me in the back of my head. An example, I have been watching the news from Pakistan fairly closely since the Taliban were ousted from Afghanistan. I have thought for quite a long time that what happens there is going to prove pivotal to Middle East political stability, oil, the "next war", nuclear proliferation/terrrorism, and so forth - more so than Iran which has more often dominated the front page headlines. After all, it is Pakistan that is the less cohesive "nation", politically unstable, semi-governable, with violent tribalism, the "Islamic bomb" and scientists all too willing to sell state secrets. The military and security people I talk to here in the Gulf most often don't give out hard facts (they either don't have the facts, or can't disclose them), but one can often glean much from careful listening to the stories and gossip - as long as one never forgets that's what it is.

[touchring]

citi going down? But they are saving ambac?

http://bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aHkTNYiHGd2Y&refer=home

Feb. 23 (Bloomberg) -- Ambac Financial Group Inc. (http://bloomberg.com/apps/quote?ticker=ABK:US), the bond insurer facing a crippling credit-rating downgrade, may get $3 billion in new capital as part of a rescue agreement with banks, according to a person with knowledge of the discussions.

Eight banks including Citigroup Inc. (http://bloomberg.com/apps/quote?ticker=C:US) and UBS AG formed a group to consider providing financing, a person familiar with the matter said earlier this month

[BiscayneSunrise]

I, for one appreciate the tidbits of non technical info.

I can read charts, and the like and make inferences, but I have found that, in the end, I'm no quant. I take the data and add in my gut instinct. As others in this thread have pointed out, the market is a great big psychology machine and any insight into psychology is an advantage. Relying strictly on proven data is at best, a lagging indicator, at worst, the recipe for disaster (LTCM)

Plus, I like the titillation of "insider" information. :D

Again, read the descriptive differences of Dr. John vs. Fat Tony in "Black Swan" When I get some more time, I will post the appropriate paragraph.

[jk]

So, jk, where are you hanging out in order to learn what the crowd is thinking?

I 'hang" with the sentiment surveys, market breadth, and the put/call data.

jim, the sentiment numbers, put/call ratios etc are geared to a shorter term time frame than i use. you are more of a trader than i. i am looking for trends that will play out over months to years, while you are trying to catch moves that last days to weeks to maybe sometimes months.

Not answering for jk of course.

For me the rumours and "gossip" add context to the "facts".

As you know I am not much of a market technician or chart reader, so I watch some other things to figure out what the crowd is thinking, and more important, to try to figure out what the crowd might be thinking in the not too distant future.



for me it's all grist for the mill in producing a picture of how the economy and society will be unfolding over the coming months to years. it's gossip posted here, it's stories in the ny times or on the radio, it's economic factoids or investment tidbits picked up here or on certain blogs i read or services to which i subscribe.

i am really macro in my thinking, a top-down investor. i decided 5-6 years ago to buy pm's for reasons i've already described. over these years i've trimmed and expanded my holdings, never going below 20% or above about 34% [so far; i expect to let the percentage increase in the next months-to-years period]. i've noticed that over the last 4-6 months or so bloomberg business radio now SOMETIMES gives the gold price during its every-10-minute market summary. i've noted that an a.m. nyc all-news station still NEVER gives the gold price during its half-hourly business summary, while i recall that in the late '70s that same station reported the gold price EVERY HALF HOUR. when they start reporting gold every half-hour again, as i expect they will at some point in the future, i will know that we are getting close to the end of the run.

i've mentioned that i've trimmed and added to my position at times, trying to catch shorter term moves. i have not been very good at that, so i've stopped trying. those moves, or similar moves in equities, however, are what you are trying to catch with the indicators you use. i'm sure it's possible, but it's not a way of thinking that i find congenial.

[Jim Nickerson]

jim, the sentiment numbers, put/call ratios etc are geared to a shorter term time frame than i use. you are more of a trader than i. i am looking for trends that will play out over months to years, while you are trying to catch moves that last days to weeks to maybe sometimes months.



for me it's all grist for the mill in producing a picture of how the economy and society will be unfolding over the coming months to years. it's gossip posted here, it's stories in the ny times or on the radio, it's economic factoids or investment tidbits picked up here or on certain blogs i read or services to which i subscribe.

i am really macro in my thinking, a top-down investor. i decided 5-6 years ago to buy pm's for reasons i've already described. over these years i've trimmed and expanded my holdings, never going below 20% or above about 34% [so far; i expect to let the percentage increase in the next months-to-years period]. i've noticed that over the last 4-6 months or so bloomberg business radio now SOMETIMES gives the gold price during its every-10-minute market summary. i've noted that an a.m. nyc all-news station still NEVER gives the gold price during its half-hourly business summary, while i recall that in the late '70s that same station reported the gold price EVERY HALF HOUR. when they start reporting gold every half-hour again, as i expect they will at some point in the future, i will know that we are getting close to the end of the run.

i've mentioned that i've trimmed and added to my position at times, trying to catch shorter term moves. i have not been very good at that, so i've stopped trying. those moves, or similar moves in equities, however, are what you are trying to catch with the indicators you use. i'm sure it's possible, but it's not a way of thinking that i find congenial.

jk, if it happens while your brain, fingers, and computer are still working will you come back here and announce that the nyc all-news station has begun again to give gold price quotes every half hour?

I probably have long needed psychiatric care because the longer I am alive the more I shut myself off from the business news (5-6 years), the evening news (3-4 years) and US radio news PBS (2 years). I do listen to the BBC each night as I go to sleep, but probably don't recall much the next day. In its business reports not much is added to what I have picked up here or on the web somewhere. Point being I am less unhappy with the less I hear from the outside world. Do I need meds?

From time to time I check http://www.alexa/data/details/traffic_details/kitco.com which supposedly shows traffic to kitco.com. I have no idea as whether is has any validity to demonstrating the true interest that may exist with regard to precious metals. The current runup in PM's has not produced so much traffic as did the spike up in gold in Q206. If there is any validity to the traffic graph it suggests there is a long way to go before the crowd becomes manic in its interest in PM's.

[FRED]

jk, if it happens while your brain, fingers, and computer are still working will you come back here and announce that the nyc all-news station has begun again to give gold price quotes every half hour?

I probably have long needed psychiatric care because the longer I am alive the more I shut myself off from the business news (5-6 years), the evening news (3-4 years) and US radio news PBS (2 years). I do listen to the BBC each night as I go to sleep, but probably don't recall much the next day. In its business reports not much is added to what I have picked up here or on the web somewhere. Point being I am less unhappy with the less I hear from the outside world. Do I need meds?

From time to time I check http://www.alexa/data/details/traffic_details/kitco.com which supposedly shows traffic to kitco.com. I have no idea as whether is has any validity to demonstrating the true interest that may exist with regard to precious metals. The current runup in PM's has not produced so much traffic as did the spike up in gold in Q206. If there is any validity to the traffic graph it suggests there is a long way to go before the crowd becomes manic in its interest in PM's.

Google Trends is also instructive. (http://www.google.com/trends?q=bullion)

[c1ue]

More on the ground info:

2 of the owners in the owner's training I went to were ex-financial types: 1 a CFP in Connecticut, the other a New Jersey/New York trader.

Both have been buying gold coins and small gold bullion 'collectibles' for over a year.

I'd say this indicates a more than specialist interest in inflation hedge commodities - note also that all 3 of us had bought into what I had chosen as a low hierarchy of needs business.

[Jim Nickerson]

<BIG class=pr>To answer my own question, http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/080222/wall_street.html?.v=49</BIG>
<BIG class=pr></BIG>
<BIG class=pr></BIG>

To support Eric's contention, sort of, notice "rumor" rather than "gossip" in this dude's comment.


From looking at the gains on MBI and ABK today, it seems there must have been some truth to the rumors or gossip that turned the markets up late Friday. So what is next, the news, which I do not follow while the markets are open, and the selling tomorrow.

[metalman]

From looking at the gains on MBI and ABK today, it seems there must have been some truth to the rumors or gossip that turned the markets up late Friday. So what is next, the news, which I do not follow while the markets are open, and the selling tomorrow.

proof is in the pudding, as they say.

[jk]

From looking at the gains on MBI and ABK today, it seems there must have been some truth to the rumors or gossip that turned the markets up late Friday. So what is next, the news, which I do not follow while the markets are open, and the selling tomorrow.
putting $3billion into abk is a joke- they insure $549billion. ratifying mbia's aaa rating is another joke- they just raised some money by issuing paper paying 14% - a typical aaa interest rate just like other aaa credits such as the u.s. gov't and ge pay.:rolleyes: apparently the market, demanding 14% rates on their paper, is not taking their aaa very [I]seriously.

[metalman]

putting $3billion into abk is a joke- they insure $549billion. ratifying mbia's aaa rating is another joke- they just raised some money by issuing paper paying 14% - a typical aaa interest rate just like other aaa credits such as the u.s. gov't and ge pay.:rolleyes: apparently the market, demanding 14% rates on their paper, is not taking their aaa very [I]seriously.

peeing on a forest fire.

[Jim Nickerson]

I still have not gotten around to reading the news of today, but something moved the markets. I believe it is Alan Newman--Crosscurrents--whom I read sometimes over at decisionpoint.com who makes the point that most of the trading volume these days is institutional which makes me think--in my little brain--that their actions must have something to do with moves such as today's which was not that shabby, except volume on the NYSE sucked as did the volume for the four days of last week and the two weeks before that.

The equity markets' indices are still all below their highs obtained during the last trip up that ended on 2/1/07 and was reached with much better volume than has been occurring since then. However, back on 2/1 and 2/2 the breadths of the NYSE and Nasdaq (to a lesser extent) were much more overbought than is indicated now, so I guess there is still some room for this move to continue up, whether or not that happens remains to be seen.

[GRG55]

peeing on a forest fire.

...and from the downwind side of the conflagration too!

[metalman]

I still have not gotten around to reading the news of today, but something moved the markets. I believe it is Alan Newman--Crosscurrents--whom I read sometimes over at decisionpoint.com who makes the point that most of the trading volume these days is institutional which makes me think--in my little brain--that their actions must have something to do with moves such as today's which was not that shabby, except volume on the NYSE sucked as did the volume for the four days of last week and the two weeks before that.

The equity markets' indices are still all below their highs obtained during the last trip up that ended on 2/1/07 and was reached with much better volume than has been occurring since then. However, back on 2/1 and 2/2 the breadths of the NYSE and Nasdaq (to a lesser extent) were much more overbought than is indicated now, so I guess there is still some room for this move to continue up, whether or not that happens remains to be seen.

debt deflation bear market (http://itulip.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2774). reflation boom is over. this puppy is going down. ej said more than 50% of the capital in the markets is funds. think ron ward said that in an interview as did others he interviewed.

you are way more of a trader than i am. my idea of trading is sell stocks buy gold in 1970, sell gold buy stock indexes 1980, sell stocks go to cash 2000, buy gold in 2001 and wait for a sign that stocks will come back.

all this trading in and out in between makes your brokerage happy but does nothing for your bottom line.

[touchring]

debt deflation bear market (http://itulip.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2774). reflation boom is over. this puppy is going down.


So, we're gona to have deflation? Or what? :confused:

[Jim Nickerson]

debt deflation bear market (http://itulip.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2774). reflation boom is over. this puppy is going down. ej said more than 50% of the capital in the markets is funds. think ron ward said that in an interview as did others he interviewed.

you are way more of a trader than i am. my idea of trading is sell stocks buy gold in 1970, sell gold buy stock indexes 1980, sell stocks go to cash 2000, buy gold in 2001 and wait for a sign that stocks will come back.

all this trading in and out in between makes your brokerage happy but does nothing for your bottom line.

metalman, you are making some assumptions here, I think. You'd have to look at my bottom line before you could assert "nothing."

In 11/97 I traded 1000 shrs of SPY for 95.59/shr and the brokerage fee at Scwhab was 190.55.

11/98 1000 shrs NXTL @ 11.34 fee 82.87

11/99 1000 shrs TTF @ 7.50 fee 29.95

Since a rather long time now, stock trades have cost me 9.95 plus exchange fees on sells.

I got a letter the other day from Schwab where online trading fee is 8.95 and I didn't even look to see if that is for an order of any size or just 1000 share orders.

It these fees today make Schwab happy, good. They are insignificant as far as I am concerned.

I take it from your posts somewhere you own a "lot," whatever that is, of real PM's. What will be your spread and taxes when you sell those?

Whatever it is, it will not be insignificant--or at least it wouldn't be to me.

This issue of whether to buy and hold anything or to attempt to buy low and sell high during the up and downs surely differs among those of us here. Who is to say who is correct? If it were a contest, we'd have to submit our brokerage statements to a third party to decide.

Counting quickly, I have made ~40 stock trades this year. Fees about $400, that is not jack-shit as I see it.