Feb
24
Briefly Speaking, from Victor Niederhoffer
February 24, 2008 |
We are all accustomed to the wisdom of "the threat is worse than the realization" which comes from the boardgame world, and Tom Wiswell and Nigel Davies have written about it. But one wonders if it's symmetric with "the hope is better than the realization," as an event like the 25 S&P point half-hour rally on the hope of a bailout, a shuffling of the risk from one to another, would be prone to a revulsion, or a 25 point down swing or some such in the near future when hope meets reality or as Galton said about Spencer, when the facts meet the hypothesis.
Nigel Davies suggests:
One way to look at this is to view weak emotional responses as being attached by elastic to the roller coaster of perceived reality. And this leads to two of the great problems in games and speculation, one's perception and the feelings this then engenders. It may also be that 'science' is no answer here except to add a layer of false confidence to already skewed beliefs. It seems very easy to prove whatever one sets out to prove, and to be too rigorous usually means saying nothing at all.
Comments
6 Comments so far
Archives
- June 2013
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
- August 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
- Older Archives
Resources & Links
- The Letters Prize
- Pre-2007 Victor Niederhoffer Posts
- Vic’s NYC Junto
- Reading List
- Programming in 60 Seconds
- The Objectivist Center
- Foundation for Economic Education
- Tigerchess
- Dick Sears' G.T. Index
- Pre-2007 Daily Speculations
- Laurel & Vics' Worldly Investor Articles
off topic but good read
“Results from a study at the University of Leeds show that it takes a minority of just five per cent to influence a crowd’s direction – and that the other 95 per cent follow without realising it.”
http://www.leeds.ac.uk/media/press_releases/current/flock.htm
http://www.citeulike.org/user/adriandefroment/article/1847820
Speaking from the reality of having strived mightily and of having failed many times, I. humbly, concur with Victor’s “one wonders . . .” It is desirable to hope that others will take up the weight, that others will “bail” one out. Such is so desirable a need, so easy a solution, that one is too easily drawn into complacency, into dependency. And this need, this simple solution, is akin to death.
“Wisdom,” what is this?
“. . . a shuffling of the risk from one to another, . . . ,” yes, the practice is revolting. I love the game of speculation simply because it demands of me integrity. Anything else, on my part, guarantees failure.
I wake each morning with the hope of success, and the very real potential for failure. I understand that any position I take demands a difference between my daily bread and hunger. I’ve never been so content to wake to a challenge. I’ve never so enjoyed life.
Dear Victor, years ago I was given a book you wrote about your life. It was handed to my by an genius alcoholic who drove a cab in Westport, CT. He had been your transportation one evening, and you had passed to him your words, with an inscription. He passed the same onto me. This simple act of courtesy altered my life.
It suggested that I begin to think, rather than react. I’m a bit slow; these so many years later I continue the struggle against my more base instincts. Little by little, I hope to prevail.
Thank you for the opportunity, this hope.
25 point up, 25 point down? Does it really matter? In the end, as far as I’m concerned, the endeavor far exceeds gross measures of success or failure.
lon
P.S. Given all Friday’s optimism, why is the Russell still suppressed beneath 700?
"The threat is worse than the realization" concept was pounded by my international checkers coaches, since I was five. I used it a lot in my quest for three Soviet Championships back in the 70s. At today's open, I added to Fri longs in Dow futures and $/Yen — sort of a Texas hedge. The idea is that a threat of tomorrow's headline "Dow over 12500!" will also enable $/Yen move toward major-major 108.35 break-out spot. Whether the break pans out is secondary to threat of getting there; thus putting shorts into immediate risk of 110 $/Yen!
I would say that "false hopes is worse than the realization" applies here. I sold into the late Friday rally. I think the market is headed lower regardless. We knew before, the government suggested they will step as a last resort to bail out the mortgage insurers. But the reason the S&P dropped almost 40 points from Thursday highs to Friday lows was due to the slumping outlook provided by the Federal Reserve Bank of Philidelphia Business Survey; the worst in six years. Those who think a cash infusion to save Ambac will lead to a major market rally are ignoring other factors.
Anatoly Veltman adds:
You can’t have more classic example of a threat, than the one playing out in the Gold market. The U.S. flipped this morning to favor one-time IMF sale of 12.9m oz, amount equal to quarter of Comex Open Interest! Most futures trading these days is black-boxed; and so intra-day reaction was tepid at best. Participants, apparently lacking market experience and simple logic, do not understand full implication of Treasury announcement. A couple of fallacies have been making rounds: that the Congress would not approve; and that even if the sale takes place - track-record of Official Sector has been miserable, having in the past bought Gold highs and sold Gold lows.
Firstly: yes, the U.S.’s 17% of votes do have veto power - as 85% is required for pass. But U.S. has indicated this morning that it won’t veto.
Secondly: above “track-record” has no statistical relevance to current price forecast. Even though previous Central Bank moves proved unprofitable in hindsight - they didn’t put CB’s out of business.
More relevant for immediate market outlook would be the following line of thought: what has moved Gold price up for 7 years straight, to the tune of 300%; and what has been keeping it near current unprecedented record price levels? Even if you haven’t heard the anecdotal evidence - then one look at CFTC’s Commitment of Traders break-down holds the answer: fund buying. So let me ask you: what fund manager will dare to keep bidding in the $940’s, following this mornings press-release? Fund’s clients might harshely question such manager later: couldn’t you wait to buy Gold at better prices, following Official sales, or at least a price drop (under the threat of IMF sale)? So, the bid right here is effectively embargoed!
Next, the way markets often chase each other and create self-fulfilling prophecy: $ trading has been lacking fundamental leads of late. So Gold’s newly-found weakness against the $ - may induce $-bullish sentiment. And as $ rises, Gold would weaken further.
So goes the story of the threat to sell - who cares when, in what tranches and to whom!!