Comments on: Quotes Entirely Relevant to Investing 01-27-2008

By: Zeke

Zeke — Thu, 31 Jan 2008 18:17:59 +0000

That Grizz sure can be a disconcursive bastard sometimes.

By: chris

chris — Thu, 31 Jan 2008 14:26:25 +0000

Respect coop’s disauthoritaay!!

By: tima

tima — Thu, 31 Jan 2008 12:44:30 +0000

timmaaaaaaaAAY!

By: coop

coop — Thu, 31 Jan 2008 05:27:34 +0000

Mcdanger- due to the inefficiencies of a bankruptcy scenario, it is still worse than zero sum if you bankrupt your counterparty. that’s why lenders ammend credit agreements rather than push their debtors into defualt if they can help it. the net recovery for one counterparty is always going to be less than what the bankrupted counterparty loses. you are right, in my world, money does magically disappear… it goes to lawyers, and consultants, and banks, etc. I know i am beating this to death, but that was the point i was trying to get across… seriously, why can’t you just let me dominate this comment board in peace?

By: The Grizz

The Grizz — Wed, 30 Jan 2008 20:17:56 +0000

Charlie McDanger – I have taken to saying “disconcur” when I do not concur though I am pretty sure it’s not a word. However, that does make it any less fun to say.

By: Societe General

Societe General — Wed, 30 Jan 2008 18:27:52 +0000

Oui.

By: Ignatius

Ignatius — Wed, 30 Jan 2008 18:25:45 +0000

Kerviel: “You see what I did there?”

By: Cletus

Cletus — Wed, 30 Jan 2008 18:22:33 +0000

It’s a feat so stupendous only Aleksey Vayner could do it. Impossible is nothing.

By: Aspiring Mini-Baller

Aspiring Mini-Baller — Wed, 30 Jan 2008 18:11:58 +0000

We have to take into account that he lost billions on a 6-figure income. It’s clear he was either living beyond his means or playing in a game of mini-baller roulette that got quickly out of hand.

By: HAM'05

HAM'05 — Wed, 30 Jan 2008 17:49:21 +0000

homeboy lost ‘billions’ with a B – thats not even straight up baller – hes a megaballer. perhaps even a superballer.

you see what i did there

By: Aspiring Mini-Baller

Aspiring Mini-Baller — Wed, 30 Jan 2008 17:24:33 +0000

We need a new entry… how about something about Jérome Kerviel — mini-baller or non-mini-baller?

By: To The Hilt

To The Hilt — Wed, 30 Jan 2008 15:01:10 +0000

Now, do you see what ronnie did there?

That’s called a divide-by-zero-sum game, because it just doesn’t make any sense.

Johnnie Cochran would be proud.

By: Ronnie M. Honduras

Ronnie M. Honduras — Wed, 30 Jan 2008 14:51:13 +0000

All this talk of domination… I’m cutting out early for lunch so I can pwn a corn beef on rye w/swiss. Some spicy brown… A phat pickle. Booya!

By: Charlie McDanger

Charlie McDanger — Wed, 30 Jan 2008 08:07:11 +0000

See what you did there? That’s called misinterpretation.

It’s not the case that one guy goes bankrupt and the other gets nothing. A party may collect on trades up to the point that his counterparty goes bankrupt. Beyond that point, he can no longer gain, and the other guy can no longer lose. Any trades exceeding the loser’s ability to pay are nullified.

In your fantasy world, money magically disappears. In mine, it’s Margaret Brennan doing the domination.

By: coop

coop — Wed, 30 Jan 2008 05:39:26 +0000

I agree that what you wrote describes what the guy said, but that is not what defines a zero-sum game. The term literally means that the sum of the payouts in a situation equals zero; if one person puts on trades that bankrupt their counterparty, the game is no longer zero sum. One party goes bankrupt, and the other party also does not gain. The sum is negative, not zero. See what I did there? that’s called domination.

By: Charlie McDanger

Charlie McDanger — Mon, 28 Jan 2008 20:29:24 +0000

What’s the opposite of concur? Incur? Occur? Scurvy? Anyway, that’s what I do.

The dude accurately describes zero-sum; one guy can keep winning only so long as the other guy has something left to lose.

“Freedom’s just another word for the end of a zero-sum game.” -Janis Joplin

By: Coop

Coop — Mon, 28 Jan 2008 15:14:49 +0000

A zero-sum game usually refers to a situation in which one person has to lose for another to gain, in equal proportion. I think what this guy is describing is actually worse than a zero sum game… one guy loses, and then the other guy loses…