As many of you have pointed out, the JP Morgan chart we posted earlier was entirely divorced from even a remote understanding of geometry. We have undertaken to correct the "off by one dimension" error, but owning to time constraints, we are only able to bring you the correction for Citigroup.
Also: FT Alphaville, suckered by the original, has issued a correction, but their's is much less fun.
Posted by guest , Jan 22, 2009 4:08PM
not sure i wanted to be first...
Posted by guest , Jan 22, 2009 4:09PM
Funny shit... I'm scared.
Posted by guest , Jan 22, 2009 4:12PM
Well done.
Posted by Clown Capital , Jan 22, 2009 4:13PM
Is there anyway you can put this picture of Slikram right smack in the center of that geometric illustration?
http://zarubezhom.com/Images/Vikram_Pandit_CEOofCitigroup.jpg
That would be f-in hilarious...(inside joke)
Posted by guest , Jan 22, 2009 4:29PM
I want to see this in 4-D. Please construct a hypercube representation.
Posted by guest , Jan 22, 2009 4:36PM
Was that done in MS Paint?
Posted by guest , Jan 22, 2009 4:36PM
this is still way, way off. you need to take the cube root of 255 and 19. that will give you dimensions for the length, height, and depth of the old mv and new mv, respectively, cubes.
Posted by guest , Jan 22, 2009 4:39PM
@7 Really?!
Posted by guest , Jan 22, 2009 4:39PM
Opacity of the blue should be increased to get a real feel for how emasculated the red is. Alternatively if you were feeling even more creative you could have used planets: three guesses for which would represent 1/20 C.
Additionally, instead of count vikula, you could use the goatse guy. Would be appropriate, albeit nsfw.
Posted by guest , Jan 22, 2009 4:42PM
@7 Really?!
Posted by guest , Jan 22, 2009 4:44PM
@7 is correct. These are off more than the circles.
The sides of the cubes should have a ratio of 2.66:6.34, or about .42.
Posted by Muffie Benson-Perella , Jan 22, 2009 4:44PM
@7: That's absurd.
Posted by Muffie Benson-Perella , Jan 22, 2009 4:45PM
@11: That is also absurd.
Posted by guest , Jan 22, 2009 4:47PM
pi, dude.
fucking pi.
Posted by guest , Jan 22, 2009 4:48PM
Muffie!
And we thought you were dead.
Posted by guest , Jan 22, 2009 4:51PM
I miss Muffie
Posted by guest , Jan 22, 2009 4:52PM
@7 and @11 - go back to the bubble chart and dreaming of testicles, fucknuts.
Posted by guest , Jan 22, 2009 4:53PM
@12 & 13 - I'm an excellent muff diver, honey :)
Posted by guest , Jan 22, 2009 4:55PM
this is still way off. 19 goes into 255 about 13 times, but that red cube doesn't look like 1/13 of the volume of the blue (it looks more like 1/1000). so there was a huge reduction in market value, but an even greater amount of fear-mongering to get the corrected graph.
Posted by guest , Jan 22, 2009 4:58PM
http://www.lehighvalleylive.com/newsflash/index.ssf?/base/news-70/1232647799250050.xml&storylist=penn
Posted by guest , Jan 22, 2009 5:04PM
ep, even though you may be mathematically handicapped, your improved use of the 'continue reading' function has been noted and appreciated.
thank you,
the hall monitor
Posted by guest , Jan 22, 2009 5:05PM
You go EP with that Excel/Powerpoint art. *snicker*
Posted by guest , Jan 22, 2009 5:16PM
@17 and Muffie: if you cannot understand math, just go sit quietly in the back of the room.
Mathematically-challenged or math-phobic people like you populated the mortgage companies and ratings agencies and got us into this mess in the first place.
"Sure we gave them triple-A. You should see how big their profit cubes are!"
Posted by guest , Jan 22, 2009 5:19PM
It looks like a cube in a cube, but really, it's like a big middle finger from EP to all the whiners.
Posted by CapitolCapital , Jan 22, 2009 5:21PM
nice tag, I bet that comes in handy again
Posted by guest , Jan 22, 2009 5:24PM
11 is right
you are all idiots
ratio is 1:2.376 in the case of C
for you total morons that means the larger box should be 2.376x larger than the small one on all sides, not 100x larger as in EP's chart
Posted by Novice , Jan 22, 2009 5:30PM
@19 The prize for making the same mistake the third time is... everyone else being too tired to insult you specifically.
Posted by guest , Jan 22, 2009 5:34PM
to make a cube with a volume of 255, the side should be 6.34.
to make a cube with a volume of 19, the side should be 2.66.
6.34 is about 2.5 times bigger than 2.66. Thus the diagram is wrong.
P.S. to make a circle with are of 255, you need to draw on with the radius of 9.01, which is sqrt(255/pi)
Posted by guest , Jan 22, 2009 5:34PM
What the
Posted by guest , Jan 22, 2009 5:44PM
RHOMBUS!
Posted by guest , Jan 22, 2009 5:56PM
the 255 and 19 volumes don't even matter - it's the ratios...as long as it's new volume equals ~7.5% the old volume. Who cares about 6.34 or 2.66?!?! Who even cares about any of this math anyway? POINT: BANKS = DISAPPEARING VALUE
Posted by guest , Jan 22, 2009 5:56PM
To emphasize the error, render the translucent box in perspective, with the 19-box way in the back corner.
Posted by guest , Jan 22, 2009 6:15PM
7, 11, etc.
It's a joke people.
Posted by guest , Jan 22, 2009 6:38PM
@23 "profit cubes" = I laughed out loud at my desk
Posted by guest , Jan 22, 2009 6:54PM
@23 - I was just trying to impress Muffie and get in her panties. No hard feelings.
Posted by guest , Jan 22, 2009 7:34PM
wrong 23. it was the backwards looking models that came from math nerds such as yourself that is primarily responsible for RMBS etc
Posted by guest , Jan 22, 2009 8:02PM
Two takeaways and a question.
1) The original chart originated at JPM. If said organization cannot do simple math, how could they possible value complex structured securities?
2) If this chart was widely circulated among the finance community and only 20% of people realized there was an erorr, how could their respective organizations possible value complex structured securities?
Is Muffie EP?
Posted by guest , Jan 22, 2009 10:22PM
@37 thank you--
This is how banks got levered 30:1... they were using pie charts.
Posted by guest , Jan 23, 2009 12:30AM
@37 I ate my pie chart the moment I got it. That way, my manager could not ask me any questions, as I had not read it.
Posted by guest , Jan 23, 2009 12:39AM
I kind of like it when EP slaps back. Is that wrong? EP, slap me again, mother.
Posted by guest , Jan 23, 2009 8:16AM
Ohhhh it's a joke. I get jokes.
Posted by guest , Jan 23, 2009 8:25AM
I think it would have more accurate to portray the current market cap as a single, lonely blue pixel in an endless sea of red, but that's just me.
TED
Posted by guest , Jan 23, 2009 11:49AM
mmmm pie(charts).
-HJS
Posted by guest , Jan 23, 2009 11:51AM
@7 & @ 11 are completely right. However, the point is being missed! Unbelievably, FT Alphaville got the charts wrong by a square factor. Now, dealbreaker makes a joke by purposely posting a 'revised' chart which is wrong by a cube factor!
Posted by guest , Jan 23, 2009 11:53AM
@7 & @ 11 are completely right. However, the point is being missed! Unbelievably, FT Alphaville got the charts wrong by a square factor. Now, dealbreaker makes a joke by purposely posting a 'revised' chart which is wrong by a cube factor!
Posted by guest , Jan 24, 2009 1:45AM
So you fail at math & English: theirs.
Posted by guest , Jan 24, 2009 2:31AM
@23
Muffie is EP. But you knew that as well as you knew this correction was a joke, right?
Posted by guest , Jan 24, 2009 2:39AM
@47, Yes "We" know that EP is Muffy. The issue is that we are surprised with the ratio of Muffy we are experiencing verses the ratio of EP we expect.
Is Muffy knocked up again?
Posted by guest , Jan 24, 2009 2:43AM
@47 oh and 48 is not 23...
sorry...
48
Posted by guest , Jan 27, 2009 9:21AM
Too dimentional, didn't read.
- JJM