financial manoeuvring is. Not too long ago the average a share was
held was 7 years - that's down to 7 months and 60% of trades are the
algorithm-linked high frequency type.. If this was market-making I'd
be OK with it, as I would with cash flow wheezes to smooth out weak
parts of the year. This stuff is more parasitic and a very
significant cost on the productive economy. I favour regulation - but
through making the system too simple to cheat.
When I teach the underlying maths classes turn off more or less en
masse. The principle is little more than borrowing from Peter to pay
Paul and some spread betting, plus an eye on how to pull off fraud.
Maybe, thinking of Dr. Pell, my students just aren't rich enough!
Spontaneity seems to have deserted the young and they have no idea how
dull I find them or that my head might be full of the idea of you
dancing in the Gap to the 'horror' of offspring as I chalk up another
frequency distribution.
On Mar 7, 1:48 pm, rigsy03 <rigs...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Isn't this just a variant of supply and demand? You could state
> something similar for the diamond industry. Plus royalty owners must
> face the depreciation of their investment- i.e., the dwindling supply.
> There may be freshwater traders already or soon.
>
> I know just what I would wear to attract your attention...My tangos
> tend to be break-out moves around the house that I can't resist. I
> succumbed once shopping with my daughter at the Gap- yes, she gasped
> "Mother!'.
>
> On Mar 6, 8:29 pm, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > I should add this is one of the ways the rich tax the rest of us with
> > no democratic mandate.
>
> > On Mar 7, 2:13 am, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Surprisingly, perhaps, this isn't me and rigsy doing the Latin
> > > American at some embassy party of the past. It's about trading oil
> > > and other commodities and the very strange efficiencies of such. Not
> > > that I would have declined with someone on hand to hold my service
> > > issue revolver, of course.
>
> > > Producers of (say) oil enter into contracts with investment banks and
> > > transfer ownership of the production on a short-term basis. They get
> > > dollars for cash flow interest free, but also agree to buy back the
> > > oil on a given date (after all, investment bankers drink champagne).
> > > The producers now need to sell less oil to refiners, which gives them
> > > chance to broker the price up - which we pay for at the pumps. Just
> > > another way to rip off the jolly old consumer.
>
> > > Another effect in this is that the demand for forward contracts for
> > > the producer to buy the oil back again drove the forward price higher,
> > > and this created what is defined as a 'contango' market. In fact, it
> > > was so pronounced it was called a 'super-contango'. What happened as
> > > a result was that traders began to buy oil, and to sell it forward,
> > > since the contango difference in price enabled them to pay to insure
> > > and finance the oil; to lease tank storage, and even to charter the
> > > fleets of tankers which sat as floating storage off the UK coast
> > > through spring and summer 2009. Passive investors, for their part,
> > > lose money in such a contango market, because the oil lease contracts
> > > are rolled over from month to month at a loss to them, since they
> > > would (say) sell June delivery oil contracts which they are in no
> > > position to perform, and have to buy July delivery oil contracts at a
> > > higher price.
>
> > > When no one wants to buy into the financial instruments created in the
> > > above (which is about cash flow before the quick buck initiatives
> > > start), the producers have to buy back oil that has never left their
> > > wells. This has a knock on effect called backwardisation, unless a
> > > wad of characters turn up with more dollars to buy oil futures
> > > believing the price will go up.
>
> > > The 'secrets' of much of the financial services industry are all
> > > rather like this - and the trick is to do something obviously highly
> > > inefficient and parasitic, claiming to 'make markets'. The role of
> > > the rest of us is to pay up at the gas pump. Have you been cotangoed?- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
0 comentários:
Postar um comentário