mathjax

Friday, February 9, 2018

Investment Rules to avoid your Retirement Apocalypse.

I predicted the #StockMarket would crash in 2016 when President Clinton would have been elected to a third #Obama term. Instead there was so much sidelined money it came rushing back in on hope in the #TrumpBump. When the #US Federal government agreed to add hundreds of billions onto a debt they will never repay and the prospect of higher interest rates. The fundamentals are now worse. It's 1929 all over again.


Whatever that hopefulness was, it wasn't on firm footing and it was going to take one small disturbance to crash the market because the fundamentals are all wrong now: stocks are too over-valued and companies packed on debt to give dividends or buyback shares, that debt locked in at low interest rates they won't be able to sustain in the future when interest rates rise.  The entire #market was operating on cracking ice and it's now burst open.

I never wavered from the assessment. It was a matter of if not when.

As we gaze upon the carnage of the #DowJones -1032 and the halcyon of a fresh bear market, here are my rules for investing:

  1. Everyone is lying to you: once you accept that the economic data is not like physical data, it is skewed and biased to the advantage of the presenter, accept that you must rationalize how likely the promises are of coming true are.
  2.  All business reporters are lazy; you can't trust them to hold corporate sociopaths accountable. At the worst times like now, they can't bring themselves to admit they were wrong and instead rationalize why they didn't ask hard questions earlier. They are no different than political reporters, they get in bed with powerful interests whether they realize it or not. They become cheerleaders over time whether they realize it or not.
  3. Financial analysts fear being sued for recommending a sell, so they will advise a hold when they really mean sell. You can't trust them either. Look at all these so-called experts that were raving about investments the day before -1032 daily losses. Why didn't they predict it and become the lone disruptive hero? They can't see their own biases.
  4. If your investment makes a profit, don't be shy about taking it. A win is a win. Later, if that equity goes higher don't detract from why you sold at the time. You are always safer making a little than risking it for nothing.
  5. The underlying value of any equity is a fraction of the market value. It is a fantasy that stocks outstanding times by price is a fair estimate. It has never borne out in reality, ever. Instead, the real value is how much it would be worth if you had to liquidate 15% of the total immediately. If one had to sell at a loss, that value times the outstanding shares is more realistic, or in other words a fraction of the stated value. 
  6. All equities are gambling. You are giving your money to others who are often no smarter or dedicated than you are that "hope" to return a profit. Don't delude yourself they are superhuman.
  7. All equities are risky. You can't let current market sentiment persuade you that a price drop of 50% is inconceivable. It's never inconceivable.
  8. Bankers take their profit first. They walk away from the asset and you own it. All risk is yours. Their job is to get you to give them your money- what happens next is on you. Don't expect anything otherwise.
  9. Stock market workers can liquidate their assets faster than you can so plan downside conditional trades when you can't focus on the markets. 
  10. Understand both what the market fundamental are and the current investor sentiment before you invest in an equity. You can trade on either.
  11. Traders are motivated by greed and fear. Exploit both.
  12. Predict where the average, normal person will be in the future and get ahead of that. Keeping ahead of the swings is how you avoid disaster.
  13. If you can't babysit a risky investment, why would you invest?
  14. Take your time. Believe in yourself. Be patient when you invest.

Saturday, January 27, 2018

#NFL In Due Keeping

I agree with @nflcommish;

@SuperBowl is perfect time to recognize #WWII veteran #MedalofHonor  Hershel Williams.

After 73 years, the @nfl didn't have a better time and wouldn't want the fame, $$$, and celebrity to go to his ego.

#PleaseStand

http://tinyurl.com/y98x5bly

Monday, December 25, 2017

Badiou and the supernumerary name

For Badiou's Being and Event, given this text is old, traditional in the wake of Logics of Worlds, it staggers from inconsistencies like the one I describe here.

His use of the term supernumerary throughout the book brings with it confusion as to the many inferred meanings, the Fregean senses, one can extract. It strikes me often when reading philosophy did the author use a word slyly, being duplicitous in meaning by design, or was he or she unaware of the translation that specific word can result in.

I suspect that philosophers, given the searing attacks anyone can make on any knowledge beneath transcendentals, play a dangerous game of courting many suspicious groups by picking and choosing cognitive synonyms at will.

When a mathematician specifies a word, at least the courtesy is given to the reader to make the meaning singular. Otherwise, and by convention, other mathematicians will attack the double entendre as a weakness applied to the entire argument. And therewith destroy it.

Philosophers are masters of self confusion. Herein is a habit that discredits an otherwise plausible argument. Here was von Wittgenstein's complaint and why they, his peers but not equals, tend to savage his honest work without merit. Wittgenstein doubted from knowledge, they impugned from emotions.

For Badiou's logic; he uses supernumerary for:

Supernumerary axioms
Supernumerary names
Supernumerary elements
Supernumerary being
Supernumerary multiple
Supernumerary symbol
Supernumerary situation
Supernumerary nomination

He uses it 53 times.

In his mind they might be all the same. In his comprehensive understanding he can elucidate the context to each. To the outside world, they cannot be equal. Or they have not been made exclusively the same.

Philosophy will never advance, no matter how dedicated, how intelligent, nor how driven it's mendicants are until and unless they decide to humble their horizons to smaller fundamental expositions that construct unassailable arguments.