Aug
23
Redistribution, from Victor Niederhoffer
August 23, 2011 |
I have not seen a model yet that shows how all this redistribution causes weakness in economic activity. Certainly the incentives are hurt. But I think a model similar to what Friedman uses to show how money should grow with 2 or 3 people on a desert island would show how hurtful this is.
Tyler Cowen writes:
Moral hazard escalates.
Keep in mind that since bank failure is deflationary, the Fed can address bank failure by printing up a lot of money without a net inflationary effect. On the inflation front we are simply holding even, more or less.
But we are substituting interest-bearing reserves for M2, or public sector assets for private sector dealings, a very bad long-term trend.
Plus higher moral hazard and now European banks are Too Big To Save and don't have a real central bank behind them.
Did you see that JP Morgan is now forecasting 9.5 unemployment for 2012?
Comments
2 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
I reprint here a conversation on exotic Fx derivatives at…
http://quant.stackexchange.com/questions/1572/why-are-exotic-options-most-popular-in-fx
I get the points on liquidity and “razor-thing spreads” for the demand of these options. However…
What is the “omplex (exotic) payoff on top” as referenced at #1 of the final post?
Is it if the currency exchange rate swings in favor of the option holder?
Also, this poster asks…
Why don’t we see more S&P 500 or US 10Y Treasury exotics?
What is the answer?
Thanks…
dr
Ps. The Quant Fin thread…
3 Answersactiveoldestvotes
up vote
2
down vote
accepted
As I understand it, the currency derivatives are meant for customers to hedge actual exposure. A foreign distributor obviously has exchange-rate risk, but it’s hard to say who actually has risk exposure to the S&P 500. (There’s the effect of beta, of course, but it’s pretty rare for someone to have tangible—not just CAPM—exposure to the S&P. Someone who holds the S&P does so intentionally.)
Fear not, though. There are a few OTC derivatives that are used in levered ETFs. Consider 3X Russell 2000 or Ultra NASDAQ 100, both of which list index swaps among their holdings.
link|improve this answer
answered Aug 12 at 16:11
chrisaycock♦
2,6131325
feedback
up vote
3
down vote
Liquidity
Since this is an asset class which is so tightly coupled with interest rates - it makes good products for clients inherently complex.
It also makes good sense to make wider markets for more exotic products than the plain vanilla ones - in which razor-thin spreads rule (and trading huge notionals is not everyone’s cup of tea)
link|improve this answer
answered Aug 3 at 22:04
Akshay
1042
feedback
up vote
1
down vote
Posting this question to a LinkedIn discussion group solicited the following additional answers:
The underlying is relatively well understood and simple in a pricing sense. This allows you to put a complex (exotic) payoff on top.
The vast majority of FX spot volumes are spread among a small group of G-7 currencies, unlike equities or other markets where you have a myriad of different tickers.
No major barriers to the market / inside information / absence of manipulators (except for Central Banks who do not have speculative missions).
Pension and insurance firms are taking deposits in one currency which they invest in a different currency for carry/performance. They only partially hedge their currency exposure using options, and sometimes exotic OTC options are designed in order to best fit their particular mix of assets and liabilities.
I do have my own question on point #2, though. Aren’t there relatively few highly liquid equity indices and fixed income futures? Why don’t we see more S&P 500 or US 10Y Treasury exotics?
Update: I actually like #4, which just came in from LinkedIn, best so far. Basically, the real-world exposure of unsophisticated firms is complicated, and so they offload the complex hedging to a sophisticated counterparty. This, combined with @chrisaycock’s answer, completely answers the question to my satisfaction.
today was a switch