What is KJ's problem?

[aurvandil]

What a quaint view...

Like I said, you never worked in the business
Back in the late 1980s, when Quants were creeping onto the trading floor, they were treated like shit
then, the craze started over quantitative modelling and they were treated like shit you can take advantage of
Post 2007, Quants are treated as DANGEROUS shit that need close supervison

If that is what you are really thinking, it probably means that you are not really very good.

Why would I want to do that???
Now, I get to risk other peoples' money
In my own shop, I would have to deal with irritating things like customers (sales people do that) and PR to raise funding etc. and actually have to do stuff real managers do like HR crap etc

 

[Goh Meng Seng]

Dear JW5,

You are just trying too hard but seriously, this is beyond your capacity and ability. Your arrogance doesn't fit your brain. Personally, I can live with arrogant people with that bit of intelligence but sorry, I can hardly fit this to you.

You may not notice but even if you want to berate others, people like me, you will need quite a bit of intelligence to start with. Else, you will find yourself in a situation quite taxing and no matter how hard you try, you only make yourself look silly.

So far, there is absolutely nothing you have contributed to this discussion except your feeble attempt in taking potshots at me. That is quite a pathetic attempt, I would say.

It seems that some WP members and supporters like you are just trying too hard here. The kinds of intolerance and arrogance you have demonstrated really put PAP members and supporters to shame. I really cannot imagine the day if, a BIG IF, one day WP has successfully become the ruling party, would people like you become more PAP than PAP?

Best thing for you is to realize, even if you want to be arrogant or egoistic, you must first have that little bit of intelligence to start with.

Goh Meng Seng

GMS has proven that a degree cert is worth nothing when you are dealing with an egoistic moron.

 

[londontrader]

What a quaint view...

Not at all
Been there, lived it
Still living it post 2007
Pure Quants never really did fit in on a trading floor
They were too obssessed with algos and data
That's why so many left for hedge funds where they could create their own little quant heaven
and wonder why it all fell apart when the model was so perfect
The most successful quants were those that became traders & real bankers

 

[jw5]

Dear JW5,

You are just trying too hard but seriously, this is beyond your capacity and ability. Your arrogance doesn't fit your brain. Personally, I can live with arrogant people with that bit of intelligence but sorry, I can hardly fit this to you.

GMS, you self serving egoistic moron, you are the one who first talked shit about reserves, assets and liabilities and tried to back up your ridiculous statements with an irrelevant example of a prc buying a condo and selling it at a profit.

Don't talk rubbish about who is more intelligent, the only way to determine that is an IQ test.
Go back to your first post where I engaged you in debate and then decide whether you want to continue making yourself look stupid.
You might want to get advice from someone who has basic knowledge of finance, accounting and business.

If you are prepared to continue this bickering which shows how ignorant you are, I'm happy to continue all the way to the next GE.

 

[Goh Meng Seng]

If you just take OFR as a figure to start with, people would view that an increase of the OFR as a great thing... would presume the BOP is in good standing.

It depends on the time frame you are looking at. There is not much of confusion if you look from the perspective of "gain". Developing countries like China and even VN understood it quite well. That is why in the initial years, they only allowed FDIs which are export oriented to set up in their countries. Although China has relaxed such restrictions on FDIs and allowed these MNCs to sell local, but its restricted Forex remittance system still reflects its conservative stand, in spite of the fact that it is already holding a huge pile of OFR.

Eg. Recently, a HK based developer who made tons of monies in China was fined hundreds of millions for "illegal remittance" of profits from its Beijing subsidiary. Why would China, with the largest foreign currency reserves in the world, be restricting forex flows? You have mentioned the key word, self-preservation and they understood the enormous implications if the large number of foreign companies are allowed to transfer funds, including profits earned locally, out of China.

Goh Meng Seng

Ok I think you're confused about the data that goes into the OFR and what belongs in the country's BOP (Balance of Payments)



Well the chinese already have the world's largest foreign currency reserves, so maybe need to look at other things

 

[jw5]

GMS read again posts 77, 78 and 81.
Tell me where my mistakes or arrogance stem from and whether the statements you made were correct.
Then we can continue if necessary.

 

[aurvandil]

Actually the most successful quants are those who recognize that they cannot beat the markets because the EMH is unfortunately true. What you can do however is use your quant skills to create ever more complex instruments which get around the rules and restrictions regulators put up to try and control the markets. You earn a shitload of money but in the process cause an economic collapse.

The most successful quants were those that became traders & real bankers

 

[Cruxx]

Hey Cruxx,

Are you trying to be funny or just plain dumb?

Here's what I was responding to :

You wrote:

"Yes, steffychun is right. Governments are different from households and individuals. They can borrow any amount they like. After all, they can just print $ to repay their creditors. What can go wrong with printing money?"

Here what's Steffy wrote (which you reference):

"you people are confusing individual-to-individual loans and global economic governance and IOs."

The topic under discussion is the IMF, which should be clear any simpleton
Hence, my reply that the IMF can't print money precisely for the reason you now state

got that? Duh!

He said global economic governance, didn't he? Who governs? Governments, of course. It's not my fault that he, through the inaccurate and ambiguous terms that he employed, went off on a tangent. I was merely responding to that off-topic comment of his that has nothing to do with IMF, an international organisation that can't possibly govern for governance requires the legitimate authority to dictate economic and social matters in sovereign states.

 

[londontrader]

He said global economic governance, didn't he? Who governs? Governments, of course. It's not my fault that he, through the inaccurate and ambiguous terms that he employed, went off on a tangent. I was merely responding to that off-topic comment of his that has nothing to do with IMF, an international organisation that can't possibly govern for governance requires the legitimate authority to dictate economic and social matters in sovereign states.

Okay all cleared up
no worries

 

[londontrader]

Actually the most successful quants are those who recognize that they cannot beat the markets because the EMH is unfortunately true.

Actually EMH is only conditionally true ie. conditional on the information set, search technologies available etc...
Therefore, one can produce a profit making model and enjoy a period of successful prop trading until the rest of the trading world catches on and by their actions, make the EMH true. There is a short lived 1st mover advantage. That's why banks value quants who troll the data and try to invent new ways to exploit mkt anomalies.

What you can do however is use your quant skills to create ever more complex instruments which get around the rules and restrictions regulators put up to try and control the markets. You earn a shitload of money but in the process cause an economic collapse.

That's the other way quants add value (or destroy value)
without quants, we won't have complex derivatives designed to confuse people enough that they think risk can disappear, when every quant knows that one can only transfer it to some one else (hopefully unsuspectingly)

That's why some banks went belly up in the crisis (those fools who took on the risk) and some made a killiing (those smart guys who passed on the risk)
Unfortunately, the rest of us had to suffer a financial crisis thru no fault of our own ie. a negative spillover

 

[Goh Meng Seng]

Well said, Londontrader!

But coming back to the IMF issue, that's the point. If IMF is to keep writing off bad debts, someone will have to foot the bill. That is why I suspect why G8 was involved in the process when they decide to discuss about the African's write off... G8 will be the ones who will foot the bill.


Goh Meng Seng

Actually EMH is only conditionally true ie. conditional on the information set, search technologies available etc...
Therefore, one can produce a profit making model and enjoy a period of successful prop trading until the rest of the trading world catches on and by their actions, make the EMH true. There is a short lived 1st mover advantage. That's why banks value quants who troll the data and try to invent new ways to exploit mkt anomalies.



That's the other way quants add value (or destroy value)
without quants, we won't have complex derivatives designed to confuse people enough that they think risk can disappear, when every quant knows that one can only transfer it to some one else (hopefully unsuspectingly)

That's why some banks went belly up in the crisis (those fools who took on the risk) and some made a killiing (those smart guys who passed on the risk)
Unfortunately, the rest of us had to suffer a financial crisis thru no fault of our own ie. a negative spillover

 

[lockeliberal]

Dear London,

Its a question of balance, I guess at the end of the day,perhaps an emergency session of parliament, some debate before the deed is done is necessary, engaging the opposition icing on the cake , political PR but the substance cannot change.

The substance is a need for coordinated action, a need to calm markets, a need for a stable global economy. A need for leadership and for politics to work united to provide that leadership. I hate to imagine what happened if politics had gotten in the way of the AIG rescue.

The IMF may be terrible and for that matter the World Bank, but it is the only thing we have and by god with globalization and how all the interconnectedness which can provide both disaster and growth, its best to have fast and firm action with some degree of debate but not debate which stifles action.



Locke





Locke

Prof Rogoff is as distinguished as they come with regards to International Monetary Economics. However, he was the Fund's Chief Economist for a long period, where he got into a rather public tiff with Joe Stiglitz (the real IMF critic).



That facility exists thru the Chiangmai agreement etc.. So no problems with that since some form of oversight actually took place
That sudden pledge to Suharto's govt (at the height of the Asian crisis) on the other hand went beyond what is acceptable
That's the point we're all trying to make here



Yes it's troublesome to seek approval now and then and govts deserve some discretion to operate smoothly
BUT when the sitting govt displays "dictator-like" tendencies, I would think most people would prefer less discretion than more!

 

[cass888]

I agree. Even CSJ is smarter than him. Maybe the only guy as siao as him is his fellow WP reject Chia Ti Lokk.

I agree that he will stand again (just cannot resist) and suspect that he may try to join RP. Hope KJ can resist.
You may hate CSJ, but you have to admit that a candidate like Vincent is much smarter and more sensible than him. Perhaps even CSJ is smarter and more sensible than him.
Bad news for you, he may even try to join PAP, but probably even PAP has MPs who are less self serving than this egoistic twit.

 

[Goh Meng Seng]

Locke,

I have to borrow a word from the old man, Highfalutin ideals but Singapore is just a tiny red dot. We are in no way going to have the ability as well as resources to provide that kind of international leadership required to save the world.

It is a dog eats dog world out there and the first principle applied is self-preservation for his own country. At the very best, we are just a tiny little side dish for such display of "superman action", not even an icing of the big cake.

If we are as big as US or China, yes, I would fully support of such actions and contributions because, at the end of the day, ironically, it still boils down to politics which you so detest in getting into the way. You got to face the harsh reality, whether to join the game or not, all boil down to politics, not some Highfalutin ideals of saviour, unity or world stability.

As a small country, we are always stingy in giving out aids to other countries... sometimes, just half a million for some disaster effort for our neighbours. Sometimes, even less than a couple of hundred thousands. I wish we could do more on that rather than making a loan commitment to IMF with exceptional high per capital impact on Singaporeans (about S$1500 to $1600 per Singaporean, alot of char kuey tiao to start with!) vs others (China works out to be just less than S$40 per PRCs!). If we are going to be just a small icing on this big show, I guess even $1B is too much for us to bear.

Saving the world is one thing but it will create another problem: Moral Hazards. Just like AIG and banks, after being saved, they just give their own management a big bonus for the job well done in getting monies from the govt.

Goh Meng Seng

Dear London,

Its a question of balance, I guess at the end of the day,perhaps an emergency session of parliament, some debate before the deed is done is necessary, engaging the opposition icing on the cake , political PR but the substance cannot change.

The substance is a need for coordinated action, a need to calm markets, a need for a stable global economy. A need for leadership and for politics to work united to provide that leadership. I hate to imagine what happened if politics had gotten in the way of the AIG rescue.

The IMF may be terrible and for that matter the World Bank, but it is the only thing we have and by god with globalization and how all the interconnectedness which can provide both disaster and growth, its best to have fast and firm action with some degree of debate but not debate which stifles action.



Locke





Locke

 

[scroobal]

Enjoyed following this thread. Welcome back to LT whose occasional visits as always interesting. Quick summary
1. Quants went out the door after LTCM (Black-Scholes / Merton / Nobel ) spectacular collapse
2. Door was locked on Quants after discovery that AIG entire risk coverage on swaps was based on a a single quant from academia. The bail-out went past $100B.
3. The description "Sovereign" moved back to the political space from the economic space where it went for frolick and the Russian undressed it.
4. KJ is not interested about where the amount lands and if it is a pledge, loan or investment. He is also not interested in default rate, the risk or the appropriateness. He is questioning if the check and balance mechanism is functioning as it should.
5. We all have a role to play as a Global Citizen. There is an expectation to provide such pledges. The issue again is control mechanism.
6. Mini-bond is as relevant to this discussion as much as a curling iron is to a bald man.
7. IMF has one single purpose and only one - bailing out nations. It is there not to make money or provide a return to those who contribute.
8. Besides being a Global citizen, countries contribute to avoid adverse impact to their own economy - the contagion effect in the worst case scenario and slower growth at the best of times.

 

[Goh Meng Seng]

I do not think it is fair to say KJ is not interested about where the amount lands and if it is a pledge, loan or investment.

KJ has specifically raise the flag because he feels that any loans by govt to anyone should go through parliamentary approval cum Presidential endorsement because that's how PAP has amended the Constitution. Basically, PAP is going against its own sets of rules.

It was MAS and PM Lee who raise the "risk" factor.... that IMF is super safe. Whether the institution is safe bet or not, is basically irrelevant here because the Constitution that PAP amended didn't specify that safe loans are exempted. But even so, we dispute MAS and PM Lee's claims that IMF is "BoaChiak", sure safe bet. Contrary to what you believe, Lehman Brothers and the Ponzi Scam are as relevant as ever in this case in determining what is safe and what is not.

The presumption made about IMF is that it will always have big money to burn because there will always be countries putting monies into it. It is not based on how risky IMF's portfolios are but people are just putting blind faith in IMF just because it "has always repaid" its debts which we dispute as well. This is just like Lehman Bro or Ponzi Scam whereby before the whole thing collapse, people just place blind faith because nobody was defaulted but everyone was given relatively big return. On hindsight, now we know how risky is the Minibond or how flawed is the Ponzi Scam but to those people there and then, they didn't care and place blind faith on them. There are write off of IMF loans in the billions and someone would have to take the beating. Suggestions were made to sell IMF's gold to finance that write off of bad debts but was turned down...thus, someone must have taken the beating in the end.

IMF did try to make money else it would not be sustainable in the long run. That is why it behaves like a international loan sharks with all those harsh terms and conditions. Else, it would not be able to repay interests to countries which contributed. IMF isn't that saint at all and it has its dark past. There are tons of literature and critiques on IMF which you could read about.

If you think IMF is all there to be saviour to distressed nations, then you must be mentally prepared to lose all those $4B contributions as Santa Claus. All the more, KJ's concerns will apply.

Goh Meng Seng

4. KJ is not interested about where the amount lands and if it is a pledge, loan or investment. He is also not interested in default rate, the risk or the appropriateness. He is questioning if the check and balance mechanism is functioning as it should.
5. We all have a role to play as a Global Citizen. There is an expectation to provide such pledges. The issue again is control mechanism.
6. Mini-bond is as relevant to this discussion as much as a curling iron is to a bald man.
7. IMF has one single purpose and only one - bailing out nations. It is there not to make money or provide a return to those who contribute.
8. Besides being a Global citizen, countries contribute to avoid adverse impact to their own economy - the contagion effect in the worst case scenario and slower growth at the best of times.

 

[cass888]

You're now KJ's spokesman? He's got double first from Cambridge. You want to wave your second upper at him?

2 1s and 2-1 a lot of difference you know.

I do not think it is fair to say KJ is not interested about where the amount lands and if it is a pledge, loan or investment.

 

[aurvandil]

For mini bonds, they were mis-sold to naive Singaporeans as "safe" investments by those slimy sales people that grow in banks.

For the IMF loan pledge, they are being mis-sold to naive Singaporeans as a "safe" loan by an equally slimy salesman with a shining forehead.

If things go bad, I expect an old man who refuses to die to lecture us about how we went in with our "eyes wide open".

6. Mini-bond is as relevant to this discussion as much as a curling iron is to a bald man.

 

[aurvandil]

So far, everyone has run screaming from the idea of a referendum like a vampire running from a crucifix. The most commonly cited concern is the cost of conducting a referendum. Given that it is US$4 billion that is being pledge, the cost would seem to be small. Why is everyone so scared know the opinion of Singaporeans on whether we should proceed with the pledge?

5. We all have a role to play as a Global Citizen. There is an expectation to provide such pledges. The issue again is control mechanism.

 

[cass888]

Referendum, referendum, referendum. You think you live in Ancient Greece, is it?

So far, everyone has run screaming from the idea of a referendum like a vampire running from a crucifix. The most commonly cited concern is the cost of conducting a referendum. Given that it is US$4 billion that is being pledge, the cost would seem to be small. Why is everyone so scared know the opinion of Singaporeans on whether we should proceed with the pledge?