Posted by guest , Nov 06, 2008 1:26PM

Nassim Taleb is a gaywad. He's sucking Obama's dick right now, while being rammed from behind by Rahm Emmanuel.

Posted by guest , Nov 06, 2008 1:29PM

well now that posts 1-5 have been deleted i mean to have said once-posters 1-5 are both retarded.

- now-poster 1...first!

Posted by guest , Nov 06, 2008 1:34PM

Palin did not know Africa was a continent?

http://www.abcnews.go.com/GMA/Politics/Story?id=6196407&page=1

Posted by guest , Nov 06, 2008 1:35PM

isn't that the dude from what not to wear?

Posted by guest , Nov 06, 2008 1:39PM

8

Posted by guest , Nov 06, 2008 1:42PM

So Obama is elected and in the first two days with him as pres-elect, the markets are really psyched

Posted by guest , Nov 06, 2008 1:44PM

@9 or maybe earnings season has begun and its a bloodbath, as well as several macro numbers coming out on the weak side

Posted by guest , Nov 06, 2008 1:46PM

9 Yeah must be because Obama won. After all, that outcome was a total surprise, came out of nowhere.

Posted by guest , Nov 06, 2008 1:51PM

Its interesting that all of this is coming, from ABC no less. Up till now the R party line was that McCain was running even up until mid September and the subsequent meltdown did him in. The timing of that meltdown however coincided with Palin's appearance on the scene, which I think was the deciding factor. I know that she pushed me, an independent, right into Obama's arms.

Posted by guest , Nov 06, 2008 1:59PM

can you imagine how pissed off those lawyers must be about having to trek to Alaska? Alaska, yeah fuck that, I ain't going.

Posted by guest , Nov 06, 2008 2:07PM

No, please don't lock them up. They're the perfect ATM's.

Posted by guest , Nov 06, 2008 2:15PM

Every time Obama wins, the stock markets fall. These are the facts:

*June 2nd, after he wrapped the Democratic nomination against HRC, Dow Jones -134 (back then, -134 was a lot).

*September 29, Monday after 1st Presidential debate; which was deemed a tie, Dow Jones -775

*October 3rd, Friday after 1st VP debate, in which R Sarah Palin was roundly scourned, Dow Jones -159.

*October 9th, Thursday after 2nd Presidential debate, McRage used "that one" phrase, Dow Jones -683

*October 16th, Thursday after 3rd and final Presidential debate, Obama was much cooler and won, Dow Jones -123

Yesterday, November 5th, after Presidential election was won by Obama, Dow Jones -478

NO MATTER HOW YOU CUT IT, THE FINANCIAL MARKETS HATE MORE REGULATION AND TAXES. TAX "THIS" LIBERALS!!!

Posted by guest , Nov 06, 2008 2:15PM

Every time Obama wins, the stock markets fall. SThese are the facts:

*June 2nd, after he wrapped the Democratic nomination against HRC, Dow Jones -134 (back then, -134 was a lot).

*September 29, Monday after 1st Presidential debate; which was deemed a tie, Dow Jones -775

*October 3rd, Friday after 1st VP debate, in which R Sarah Palin was roundly scourned, Dow Jones -159.

*October 9th, Thursday after 2nd Presidential debate, McRage used "that one" phrase, Dow Jones -683

*October 16th, Thursday after 3rd and final Presidential debate, Obama was much cooler and won, Dow Jones -123

Yesterday, November 5th, after Presidential election was won by Obama, Dow Jones -478

NO MATTER HOW YOU CUT IT, THE FINANCIAL MARKETS HATE MORE REGULATION AND TAXES. TAX "THIS" LIBERALS!!!

Posted by guest , Nov 06, 2008 2:15PM

Every time Obama wins, the stock markets fall. These are the facts:

*June 2nd, after he wrapped the Democratic nomination against HRC, Dow Jones -134 (back then, -134 was a lot).

*September 29, Monday after 1st Presidential debate; which was deemed a tie, Dow Jones -775

*October 3rd, Friday after 1st VP debate, in which R Sarah Palin was roundly scourned, Dow Jones -159.

*October 9th, Thursday after 2nd Presidential debate, McRage used "that one" phrase, Dow Jones -683

*October 16th, Thursday after 3rd and final Presidential debate, Obama was much cooler and won, Dow Jones -123

Yesterday, November 5th, after Presidential election was won by Obama, Dow Jones -478

NO MATTER HOW YOU CUT IT, THE FINANCIAL MARKETS HATE MORE REGULATION AND TAXES. TAX "THIS" LIBERALS!!!

Posted by guest , Nov 06, 2008 2:17PM

@13 Palin changed you from a capitalist to a socialist... you must be retarded

Posted by guest , Nov 06, 2008 2:18PM

TRIPLE CAPS!!

awesome job.

-retail

Posted by guest , Nov 06, 2008 2:20PM

Market down... are you listening to the crook Dodd .. hope we already dicounted Frank, Dodd, Pelosi and Obama!

Posted by guest , Nov 06, 2008 2:21PM

19 The biggest socialist of all is Palin. Her popularity is all based on her ability to take oil revenues and redistribute them to the citizens of Alaska.

Posted by guest , Nov 06, 2008 2:22PM

@19 so you are retarded.

Posted by guest , Nov 06, 2008 2:23PM

@19 so you realy are retarded

Posted by guest , Nov 06, 2008 2:24PM

@ 19 are all Obama voters retarded?

Posted by guest , Nov 06, 2008 2:26PM

22-

since when has returning excess government revenues to the taxpayers been socialist?

Posted by guest , Nov 06, 2008 2:26PM

@22 you must be retarded.

Posted by guest , Nov 06, 2008 2:29PM

At least 1/2 of Obama voters are retarded

Posted by guest , Nov 06, 2008 2:34PM

93% of Blacks voted for Obama
@50% of Whites voted for McCain
Either blacks are smarter than whites or ingnorant racist.

Posted by guest , Nov 06, 2008 2:38PM

29 went to a bushleague school and does not understand the difference between correlation and causation.

Posted by guest , Nov 06, 2008 2:42PM

@30 since the logic escapes you I must assume you voted for Obama

Posted by guest , Nov 06, 2008 2:45PM

@32 Fair enough!

Posted by guest , Nov 06, 2008 2:48PM

So now we vote not on ideals that are good for the whole country we vote for our own special interest and what we can extort from the rest... welcome to the third world. Vol Is King

Posted by guest , Nov 06, 2008 3:00PM

Speaking to the interview, as opposed to the election, this is a great example of what happens whe an intelligent, thoughtful man is interviewed by a couple of facile morons.

Posted by guest , Nov 06, 2008 3:05PM

I think Taleb is amazing genius and he has found out what most options traders know (it happens to be the same reason people trade options to start) you can make enormous winners trading options.

The problem for most options market makers is that they want to make money everyday. So they end up shorting options or at least shorting extreme OTM options.

The intelligent trader makes educated bets. And to get the best return those are often bets that would appear to be ridiculous to an average trader. ($80 puts when CL was at 120 or 140; Yen calls when the Yen was over 100)

I, and I think this is the foundation of Taleb's beliefs, think that vol. of vol. is: a: underestimated and poorly modeled (is at all) b: vol. of vol. is greatly affected by market sentiment (even a great model of vol. of vol. cant really capture the panic of panic). As such extreme events provide the best opportunity to make >400% winners.

Posted by guest , Nov 06, 2008 3:08PM

@35 maybe not your people..but my people understand that the idals that this country were built on were in the best interest of all.. so get your hand out of my pocket thief

Posted by guest , Nov 06, 2008 3:38PM

41 is an idiot. Markets do better under mixed balance of power because there are checks & balances against out of control power. Reagan had a Democratic congress in the 80s and the markets didn't really take off in the 90s until Clinton had the Republicans.

Posted by guest , Nov 06, 2008 3:45PM

Its easy to reduce everthing to "he's a socialist", but the reality is that Obama is a very bright and capable guy, surrounded by pragmatic advisors. That was not the case with Bush, nor would it have been with grandpa and sara snowpants.

Posted by guest , Nov 06, 2008 4:16PM

I'm @37

Vol is King I think that you're right about shorting ITM options. But I think that should be left to a real pro, which you may be. So I think having the hard fast rule of not shorting options period is an OK rule for most.

I think he didn't make a bigger return based on strategy. He only devoted 10% to the strategy; if that is your only strategy I think 20%-30% would have been appropriate. But they were making sure that they’d break-even if they were wrong. I think 10% in options is a minimum for almost any advanced fund strategy. I also think he should have doubled down as he started to hit. Always the hardest thing to do, double down on a lottery strategy when it looks like you're going to hit and you should double down when you first think you should get out. But this is just the trader in me.

Also imagine if he had used the strategy in other asset classes, currently only being done in equities (S&P 500). They could have hit 120 Calls on oil and then 80 puts on oil, on the way up and back down. The ags had 20 year moves. Same with currencies the past 2 years, running to highs and now all the way back down against the $. Not to mention CDS on big firms or subprime when all these were dirt cheap. Basically find anyone willing to take pennies and hope for a bulldozer and you've got yourself a black swan.

Or how about buying the LIBOR spread against anything US. The 3month spread could have been bought around 10 bps only risking 2 or 3 bps to make, ????? turns out 100 or 200 or even 300 bps. Again a big time black swan.

Posted by guest , Nov 06, 2008 4:47PM

VOL CAPS & 35.

appreciate the intelligent banter. VOL, i'm with you, if you are talking covered sales, but i believe Taleb would not be a proponent of any of the greeks/ black scholes components.

as with Mandelbrot, both were about finite risk/ asymmetric reward.

my options prof, after a full semester of gamma/ delta/ vega/ theta/ black scholes calculations gave us this parting advice:

"never fucking use any of this in the real world"

cheers.

-retail

Posted by guest , Nov 06, 2008 4:49PM

meant 45.

-retail

Posted by guest , Nov 06, 2008 5:16PM

Article: "The Black Swan Protection Protocol is designed to break even 90 to 95 percent of the time,'' Spitznagel said. "We happen to be in that other 5 to 10 percent environment.''

At one point, up over 100% but now closer to 50%. Let's call it 75% for the year.

Now let's be generous and assume no losing years, with breakeven 9 years out of 10 (instead of 95% or 19 out of 20 years). 1.75^(1/10) = 5.76% annualized over a decade. Booyah.

Nothing, of course, next to the money he'll make on his next book.

Posted by guest , Nov 06, 2008 7:51PM

@48,

Even if his average returns over a 10 year period may seem lower, positive returns are worth substantially more today (more utility) when every other manager is costing you the rest of your do.

Posted by guest , Nov 06, 2008 10:06PM

mangers = managers?

http://tinyurl.com/6osngs

Posted by guest , Nov 07, 2008 2:55AM

mostly cash + marginal vol seems the way to go, no? been doing so since Aug '07, though more on the short ETF side... how hard is it to have a short-bias in this environment?