Feb

19

Now Take This Liquidity… Please!, from GAP Cap

February 19, 2012 |

10 Comments so far

1. Ed on February 20, 2012 12:33 pm

   “Hi, My name is Rocky H. I like to use advice and wit as a pretext for being an assh*le.”

   Amazing. I knocked your 100+ word post down to 20.

   Perhaps you can use this pared down approach in your future posts. When you want to embellish, just add, “I used to be a scientist!” at some point.

2. jule on February 20, 2012 7:48 pm

   Hey this is interesting. Are there some academic studies and statistical tests that we can refer to for more info on this?

3. douglas roberts dimick on February 20, 2012 11:55 pm

    Two Words on Liquidity and Word-Count: The Same

   Be it editor or banker, both know that quantitative analysis is only one component of understanding and developing a strategy or plan as well as performing execution thereof.

   Saying, for instance, “I am long on the Nikkei.” Neither the why nor how is explained, which is central to understanding the systematics of any rules-based construct.

   Copy editors and Fed-types are not vested players on the fields of word writing and price action, are they? They are regulatory in nature, operating from the sidelines of play – critics are one more step removed, relegated to the status of spectator. It is the creative one, the principal actor of a given process that provides us with real-time determinations relative to both program input and output. He or she is the one who takes the risk, not the Monday morning, armchair critic.

   A well written 8 word sentence (or complete thought) may have been constructed from a 532 word composition. To examine the rationale and relevance of that coherent/comprehensive 8 word request, question, command, statement, or exclamation, we are likely to research that corresponding 532 word communication, so that we may understand intent, methods, means, and applications.

   I have been criticized before for loquaciousness and verbosity in writing and speech. What I find interesting is the assumption made by the critic… Oh, I am suppose to always tell it to you plain and simple with bean-counter-like efficiency… Give it up on a silver platter… Spoon feed the reader/listener.

   Often one may write not to clarify or inform but with a purpose to stimulate debate or promote interrogatory if not conceal or obfuscate for intellectual or proprietary purposes. The rest of it (or all the criticizing) then merely becomes matters of stylistics, which is synonymous with opinions in fashion and politics – like parts of our anatomy, we all got em.

   Just because one attended a certain school or worked a particular type of job does not make that person vetted as a critic of others in a like-kind field of endeavor. If one does not care for the style of another’s oral or written forensic style, then do not listen or read… simply (and graciously if possible) move on.

   Two asides:
   1. As with critics, any jackass can kick a barn down, while it takes a farmer to build one.
   2. My mother said, if you do not have anything nice to say about someone or something, then just don’t…

   My take on who should play copy editor? Who was it in what movie?… that said…

   “Critics!”

   NOTE: For purposes of disclosure, please note that this composition as submitted hereinabove consists of 458 words with 2,268 characters (no spaces) and 2,713 characters (with spaces).

   dr

   Ps. As to the challenged purpose or utility of said article in question, I did learn about liquidity. The author’s “bottom-up” framework is interesting, because my Theory of Quantitative Relativity (or QR) posits (analogous to General Relativity a la e=mc^2) that there is a gravitational force operating within the markets. See…

   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Present_value

   A related example of QR here is the notion of Present Value (or time value of money). What is the underlying law (or principle) of economic behavior that substantiates the notion of ceteris paribus?

   Time preference, as Anonymous states in his article – which was selected for publication by our fearless editor of daspec (Hm, wonder why?… Hm, tell ya what, we will get back to that in a moment.) – and by definition so correlates to evaluating risk of interest rates, is determinative when measuring velocity, yes?

   Therefore, when considering compound interest as a model for measuring the time value of money, QR states that constructing functions of convergence and divergence requires us to correlate the metacircularity (or parallel coefficient) of future value with negative time.

   Victor has referenced polarity in markets, such as “electronegativity” of stock prices…

   http://www.dailyspeculations.com/wordpress/?p=3830

   Aside: If one is to criticize the purpose or utility of posting an article such as the one in question, this particular case presents a troubling matter for our critic…

   Why did the editor of daspec so choose to publish said 532 words with the “Anonymous” attribution?

   Curious… Was the article really submitted anonymously or is our fearless editor protecting the identity of the author for some dramatic, celebratory, or collusionary interest (not likely financial but perhaps academic in nature)?

   Why publish the article at all as the author is not willing to stand by the veracity of the article with his or her own name so attached?

   Thus, the criticism of the utility of said article in question relates to the editorial intentions of daspec the publisher than it does the credibility of the unnamed author.

   If so, I have been a long-standing admirer of Victor’s openness and tolerance when it comes to content selection and editorial benchmarks. Why determine valuations based on some model of quantitative presumptiveness, such as word counts or grammatical piety?

   Let the marketplace of ideas decide what to do with the work in hand.

   Enough said… now consisting of 869 words in toto, being 4,501 spaces (without characters) and 5,343 characters (with spaces) – inclusive of this accounting and attribution hereafter…

   drd

   Caveat - As a matter of record, the alleged word count of the disputed text in question (as cited) would appear to be in dispute as an issue of fact. When copied and pasted into a new Word document, the Windows 7 operating system indicates a count of 248 words – not 532 words.

   If this discrepancy is confirmed, would not a question of purpose or utility become relevant here concerning the criticism, specifically an issue of veracity?

   Oh, the humanity of it all… Let us then return to the substantive concerns of our day – and “dis” further counting of words among such characters…

   dr

4. Rocky Humbert on February 21, 2012 11:28 am

   Ed: My post was 117 words. If you want to joust, feel free. But at least use some some precision when stating your facts!

   With respect to precision and facts, there appears to be NO statistically-significant relationship between pre-announced Fed open market operations and price changes in the S&P. If you have found otherwise, please feel free to correct me (and provide your data); I will acknowledge your contribution with appreciation, respect and humility.

5. Gary Phillips on February 21, 2012 7:40 pm

   The piece originally appeared on the “spec list” under my name, but was published here, pars pro toto, in what I assume was meant to be an asteistic gesture on behalf of the editor. No stranger to a formidable forehand, his backhand seems to working rather elegantly, also.

6. vic on February 22, 2012 12:12 am

   Gary. It was inadvertent. We’ll correct it and attribute it in all its scintillation and focus to you shortly. vic

7. douglas roberts dimick on February 22, 2012 4:19 pm

   V,

   Gary deserves a Connor’s (two-hand) style backhand a la a cheap-seats registerable “ahh” with your subsequent attribution of his original post…

   “Larry Schwartz on ESPN.com said about Connors, “His biggest weapons were an indomitable spirit, a two-handed backhand and the best service return in the game. It is difficult to say which was more instrumental in Connors becoming a champion… In an era where serve and volley was the norm, Björn Borg excepted, Connors was one of the few players to hit the ball flat, low, and predominantly from the baseline.”

   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Connors

   During my brief tennis team stint, I adapted his backhand and on-court antics during matches. Unfortunately, I did not acquire his consistency.

   It appears that Gary (like JC) came in flat and low with this article on liquidity…

   Well done.

   dr

8. vic on February 23, 2012 7:48 pm

   One would hope that none of our readers would model their game or persona on Connors as in my opinion he was the worst sport to ever play tennis. His erasing of the marks of a shot his opponent hit near the line as the referee went to check was typical. Almost as bad as him was Agassiz with his quick in your face demeanor and fake admiration of the crowd as well as his sullen primadonna nature apparently learned from his early start and memorialized in our column with his false accusation that his opponent cheated him in a crucial match he lost. Fortunatly the opponent wrote in to inform us it was a referreed match. I have always thought that Connors sullen ways and bad calls and complaints were far more unpleasnt and unsportsman like than Mcanroe but many have disagreed with me on that point. vic

9. douglas roberts dimick on February 24, 2012 2:12 pm

   V,

   I am sure you are right in your characterization of Connors. Funny, though, in the eyes of a 14 year old, his raw power exerted in his strokes and sharpness of cross-court angles (and, yes, persona) seemed impressive.

   He did win.

   Is that not the same as in trading a la all the bid/ask/spread and other trader-firm games (or technically crimes) committed on a daily basis. Is it not all about who made the money — not being “a loser.”

   How is it not the same?

   I did not know (not until now) about his erasing marks. To me, his combativeness appeared honest… fighting tooth and claw, as in war… To me then, he was committed as in a to-the-death struggle for the right to bear the standard.

   Gentlemen? Ethics? The niceties of war?

   These words are synonymous with why we wear white on the tennis court and black pin-stripe suits on the floor?

   Whitehat versus blackhat?

   Really?

   dr

10. Gary Phillips on February 26, 2012 9:04 pm

    Perhaps, Colonel Saito said it best in “The Bridge on the River Kwai”, “Do not speak to me of rules. This is war! This is not a game of cricket!”