Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Originally posted by: CycloWizard
So yeah, you don't have any idea about Sturm-Liouville theory, do you? Didn't think so. I suppose that means I have a little better understanding than you about conserved quantities. Therefore, I'd recommend not talking out of your ass and bad-mouthing engineers. "Burden of proof" refers to a logical fallacy which you are obviously fond of committing, as I already pointed out. If you want to make a claim about something, particularly one that goes against fundamentals, it is up to you to demonstrate why your claim is correct. I have made no claims, therefore there is no burden of proof on me. Sorry if pure logic goes against your argument, but that generally indicates that your argument is wrong.
Please, it's pretty blatantly obvious I wasn't referring to your specific mentioning of your theory. I don't give a rats ass about "sturm-liouville". My life is spent analyzing default curves, interest rate forwards curves, prepayment probabilities, economic inputs, correlation matrixes, and distribution models. I guess that's too low for you though.
As far as "badmouthing engineers". Finance is partially formulaic and partially behavioral in analysis. Trends can be caused by fundamentals, but also because of behavioral movements. This is why chartists (technical analysis) has never proven to be true, because it's a random walk. You can never come up with something that'll predict how the market will move.
This applies also to the movement of oil. A 50% runup, followed by a 30% drop, isn't due to fundamentals, especially when the whole thing occurs in a span of 8 months. That's the classical definition of a cyclical bubble. But I guess that's not good enough for you.
Nor is the evidence of massively increased trading volumes. Nor sentiment moving into the market and then swiftly out.
But we should depend on your plethora of formulas to predict how the 'Street will move from one investment to the next? Right?
Because you know exactly how $400BN of capital flew out of the ABCP market, blowing out overnight spreads and causing funding spreads to still increase? Why did it leave? Because nobody wanted to invest in debt anymore.
Instead, you know, from your formulas, that massive wealth funds went into commodities, which are always publicly announced movements (right?).
Yup, you knew that because you work on Wall Street, at one of the biggest banks in the world, doing finance work.
I've given my proof of increased volume. Too bad there aren't official figures, since mostly the commodities markets are "dark pools" with little/no officially released numbers, but you knew that too.
So really, fuck off engineer boy. You're a two-bit quant-head with know real experience in investments or finance. You pretend everything is a quantitative model and data should be plucked from trees.
Where is your evidence, you assert that it is a correlation. So please, you made your assertion, back it up with your uber-analysis.