5/10/2012 8:31 pm
View Thread
View Post
. said: Interviews in the Magbas sense of the word?
Maybe. Telephone interviews. It's a start and its better than nothing.
5/10/2012 8:29 pm
View Thread
View Post
. said: You don't even have your MBA
Yes I do.
5/10/2012 8:28 pm
View Thread
View Post
. said: How well is your degree working out for you Sean.
Great, actually. Just started applying to companies this week. Have a couple of interviews lined up already. It's going to be a long process and I will have to work hard for a long time.
The majority of people I speak with admire the 'MBA' credential especially since I have taken several quantitative courses. You know, courses like advanced econometrics, shit you wouldn't have a prayer of understanding.
5/10/2012 8:20 pm
View Thread
View Post
5/10/2012 6:52 am
View Thread
View Post
. said: I can't believe 1982 was 30 years ago.
Playing adventure on atari
5/10/2012 5:22 am
View Thread
View Post
KM.as.a.dot said: The fuck if I know. The sheet itself is protected so I cant dig into how the sausage is made and I have never seen a 30 year overnight index swap trade in the market so I have no idea if its right or not.
You need a lot of correlation data to make these things work, which is kinda pointless with illiquid products.
True. But I know what you are getting at. :)
5/10/2012 5:15 am
View Thread
View Post
KM.as.a.dot said: Its pretty incredible, those guys can answer any question you need to know on modelling in great detail for free. The overnight index swap pricer I have built into my current spreadsheet was lifted directly from somebody there.
What model does it compare to?
5/10/2012 5:08 am
View Thread
View Post
KM.as.a.dot said: If you want to see what quant work is like check the numerical methods forum here:
http://wilmott.com/categories.cfm?catid=34
Been there many times.
5/10/2012 5:02 am
View Thread
View Post
KM.as.a.dot said: Most of the really good stuff is written by the guys who rip peoples faces off in the market, and THEN write a paper laughing at their counterparties and showing them why their model is wrong.
This happened in my market a year and a half ago. One guy figured out a better way to model his OTC derivatives trading around underlying collateral arbitrages and made a fortune ($1 billion off of ONE counterparty alone).
The dorks at universities spout a lot of nonsense that means nothing in reality. I would argue that basing your trading strategies around the macro economic fundamentals you were taught in university is a 169% GUARANTEED way to lose money.
The concept of using stochastic asset models to price derivatives originally came from academia.
All of the PhD's hired away to work in large financial institutions come from academia.
5/10/2012 4:53 am
View Thread
View Post
. said: So wrong. Those maths were not developed by academics.
The concepts were. Further refined in the field by large financial institutions.
5/10/2012 4:50 am
View Thread
View Post
KM.as.a.dot said: Meh, every transaction has a seller and a buyer. If you dont want to participate then dont play.
If there is no middle class there is no market for the rich to sell to. Henry Ford always wanted to pay his workers enough to buy one of his cars, but then again he was an insane anti semite so what did he know.
What does participating or not in the market have to do with anything? I said that the professors who cause your nose to wrinkle produced the research that allowed these technical trading apps to be built in the first place.
The market the rich will sell to will be emerging middle classes in enclaves in Asia. With the American middle class shrinking they have less purchasing power and are more of a hazard rather than a benefit to the rich.
5/10/2012 4:43 am
View Thread
View Post
KM.as.a.dot said: So true. We have academics in finance, too, and I wish I was one. It sucks to have a job where you need to show tangible results.
I wish I had a job where my contemporaries and I could just give each other awards all day for spouting theoreticals that will never be the scrutinized by application in reality.
A lot of what is produced winds up in the hands of a technical trader such as yourself.
5/10/2012 4:29 am
View Thread
View Post
. said: You mean they can get into horrible amounts of DEBT when trying to buy a house and car.
Take EASY DEBT out of the equation, and you start to see how pathetically few people in the USA can buy durable assets.
It's easy to get money for assets that quickly depreciate in value. But to buy assets with capital where you can get a return on invested capital (ROIC) is far more difficult.
5/10/2012 4:28 am
View Thread
View Post
. said: Good god, moron! Chomsky is in the ranks of the most-quoted learned PHILOSOPHERS. Period.
And then you pulled out fucking Yogi Berra.
SO CHOMSKY IS IN THE RANKS OF SOCRATES AND FREUD. SO WHAT? SO IS YOGI BERRA AND MURPHY, YOU KNOW, THE GUY BEHIND ALL THOSE "MURPHY'S LAWS"!
\
Chances are that most of these Chomsky-bashers haven't read the article posted. It makes perfect sense. Further, Chomsky shows that he is no fan of Obama in that very same article.
From my perspective, Chomsky has a very REALIST take. Certainly he might charge tons of money for speaking engagements but so what? Supply and demand. The work he did with linguistics alone....stuff like semantics....is leading to breakthroughs in artificial intelligence and machine learning. He is one of the forefathers of the approaching technological singularity.
5/10/2012 4:21 am
View Thread
View Post
. said: Not so, my lib-tard friend. Romney was a high producer right outta school whilst working at BCG, where several then-senior guys started their own management consulting co. called Bain Capital Mgmnt (prime founder's name). Although young, he was tapped for the new firm.
Bain's ideal was blasphemy at the time: buy into the companies consulting with and run them better, then sell.
Smarts + Money = Mo Money = knows how to budget. Romney made millions because he earned it. Granted he had a good start, just like you did, but you wasted your talents.
Obama = knows how to spend other people's money.
Exactly. He started on second base. Perhaps third. He was well-connected. Those connections weren't earned. They were given. He grew up wealthy. All he had to focus on were 'accomplishments'. He didn't have to worry about his parents paying the bills or having to work twenty hours a week as a teenager. All he had to do is do what he was told. And he did.
And he will, if elected.
5/10/2012 4:18 am
View Thread
View Post
. said: I don't. You can raise the private income tax if you like.
I do see a correlation between money being controlled by the private sector (rather than the government) and an efficient, growing economy. Provided there is a degree of oversight and transparency, which was sold out during the Clinton/ Bush / Obama years.
We now have a stagnant economy. Corporations are growing but are off-shoring cost/cost centers to Asia and elsewhere. The number of jobs available is shrinking. It takes a job (at first) to have a prayer of having access to enough capital so you can bootstrap your biz (most people don't want to start their own biz, as it is high risk).
Continuing further with the subject of risk, well-monied folk can afford to absorb losses. They can make investments and lose and not have their life terribly affected. An average middle class worker usually gets one shot.
5/10/2012 4:10 am
View Thread
View Post
. said: of course, he is a repuke who belives that all societal problems will be solved by more wars, hate ghey, and tax cuts for the rich.
Republicans seem to believe that there is a high correlation between the wealthy getting wealthier and job creation.
That statement might have had some substance before 1970 but by the 70s, globalization was already organic and evolving.
5/10/2012 4:06 am
View Thread
View Post
. said: Not really a casino. More like stepping up to bat.
In any given day, an A-Rod can strike out, while a minor leaguer can hit one over the wall. Josh Hamilton may bat .ooo in one game, and hit 4 homers in the next.
Luck plays a part. There is no way to assure success. But there is a way to assure failure: Never step up to the plate.
Good metaphor.
5/10/2012 3:59 am
View Thread
View Post
. said: Then create some.
Your view of the world is very simple. That's your problem.
5/10/2012 3:59 am
View Thread
View Post
. said: well, if the ideal repuke economy is a casino. then obviously those who bet randomly but WIN made the great decisiions; while those who bet randomly but LOST made shitty decisions.
In the mind of a repuke, it is all black and white, except they forget that the 1 percent play the house and skim off all winning.
It is a casino. Much of success is random. It is a statistical aberration in many cases. In some cases the young farmer becomes king of the world but those events are 'black swans'.
5/10/2012 3:55 am
View Thread
View Post
. said: "JOBS AREN'T COMING BACK."
Wow. How profound.
70% of jobs do not come back. They disappear -- not to China, but into the past.
Blacksmith, Horse & buggy manufacturer, door to door salesman, elevator operator... jobs are always going away. And most of them do not return. And, strangely, economies continue to grow, and people continue to work, and new products continue to be invented.
So what is Chomsky's point? To say something obvious, but to do it in a convoluted way so that it sounds profound?
The difference is that jobs were created. Now, they aren't.
Make sense?
5/10/2012 3:54 am
View Thread
View Post
. said: Hey, sandman, yes all your poor decisions have put you at a tremendous disadvantage to all those 1%ers. It's too late to achieve that level of success. But if you work hard you might be able to retire on something better than kibbles and bits.
Rich: make great decisions
Poor: make horrible decisions
Simple assumption for the simple mind.
5/10/2012 3:52 am
View Thread
View Post
. said: because anything after the bible is liberal. A good repuke needs no education beyond the teaching of Jebus and no need to waste money on books and liberal educations. Just buy a bible and reread it over and over agian. This is how you become a self-made millionaire by "hard work" and praying to Lord Jebus.
w3rd
5/10/2012 3:23 am
View Thread
View Post
. said: Among other things. But you have to own your own business, and not just be a worker bee.
You have never done the former, and I doubt that you've had much luck as the latter, either.
A million dollars is pre-rich. You don't have nearly enough to retire. You think you are elite but you aren't.
I imagine these nicotine-stained fingers pounding the tron-lit keyboard with F2 in one window and tranny porn in the other.
BUT IM A MEEEEELIONAIRE : I MADE ONE MEEEEEELION DOLL HAIRS!
5/10/2012 3:16 am
View Thread
View Post
. said: I don't. I was born into a blue collar family that I love, but made a million dollars.
You could do it, too, if you'd stop trolling and actually do something productive.
Because all people who made a million dollars are productive.
The rich are productive.
The richer you are the more productive you are.
The more productive you are, the richer you will become.
It's all based on how HARD YOU WORK!