Display:
That does not change the underlying point. If I don't know anything about producing ball bearings, I'm not going to invest in equity in a ball bearing factory, because I have no way to know whether I'm paying too much for my share of the value it produces. It does not matter whether that value is paid out in the form of capital gains, dividends, ball bearings or pink, fluffy bunnies. If I don't understand what goes on inside the factory, then I have no way to judge the fair value of a percentage of the output. "This stuff goes in at one end, that stuff goes out the other" simply isn't sufficiently detailed knowledge to make investments on.

Some dudes know what's going on "under the hood," and are thereby capable of judging what it's reasonable to pay for a certain fraction of the use value of an enterprise.

Other dudes haven't the first clue, nor the time, energy or inclination to get it. They need an instrument that pays out a fixed amount of value every month, and is collateralised by some real, tangible assets, with a reasonably easy to assess value.

And then you have all the possible configurations in-between.

- Jake

If you only spend 20 minutes of the rest of your life on economics, go spend them here.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Sun Mar 8th, 2009 at 05:55:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I'm pretty sure this is the exact opposite of how most trading works.

Most traders seem to be chartists and statisticians who try to pull value out of noise, completely detached from fundamentals. If you don't mind the odd pratfall, even a very simple strategy like momentum investing will put you ahead of the market average.

Knowing about widgets is largely unnecessary. And that's very much the problem - one corporation becomes much like another, and functionally interchangeable. Every so often there will be some noise about a market sector being unusually good or unusually bad, but in principle trading is based on the fact that not only are inputs and outputs irrelevant, but that a tiny collection of abstracted numbers defines the value and health of the company.

Social costs and social value don't figure. Future prospects don't figure unless analysts comment on them. Specifics figure even less.

There's a fundamental fracture line there between the real economy and investment/speculation.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Sun Mar 8th, 2009 at 06:52:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Heh. When I argued the point with Mig, he said that my attitude towards investing was "so 19th century" :-P

Seriously, though, they can play these games because they're gambling with other people's money - Joe Schmoe does not have enough money to reasonably diversify his holdings in order to pull profit from noise. In a reasonably run economy, that kind of wealth concentrations would be broken up, because they are hazardous to democracy. So in a reasonably run economy, you can't run hedge funds.

- Jake

If you only spend 20 minutes of the rest of your life on economics, go spend them here.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Mon Mar 9th, 2009 at 04:50:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]
depends what you mean by hedge fund :)

Free at last! Free at last! Thank God Almighty, we are free at last! (Martin Luther King)
by ValentinD (walentijn arobase free spot frança) on Fri Mar 20th, 2009 at 04:16:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]
JakeS:
And then you have all the possible configurations in-between.

Sure.

You can be inside the box, sharing revenues; outside the box on a fixed amount, or both.

It's entirely configurable, because in an "Open Corporate" LLP you start with a blank sheet of paper.

"Any economic unit can emit money. The serious problem is to get it accepted" Hyman Minsky

by ChrisCook (cojockathotmaildotcom) on Sun Mar 8th, 2009 at 07:12:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]
But debt is just non-voting preferred shares who are harder to give a haircut than ordinary non-voting preferred shares in the event of a contraction in asset values. If you allow preferred shares, you'll still have leverage (that's how the hedge funds leveraged in the 1920, and we know how that went...).

- Jake

If you only spend 20 minutes of the rest of your life on economics, go spend them here.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Mon Mar 9th, 2009 at 04:59:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]
According to Veblen's Theory of the Business Class (1904) both debt and equity in all their forms are "loan finance".

Most economists teach a theoretical framework that has been shown to be fundamentally useless. -- James K. Galbraith
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Mar 9th, 2009 at 05:03:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]
And also in

Creditary Economics

where the Gang8 analysis is pretty good in many ways.

"Any economic unit can emit money. The serious problem is to get it accepted" Hyman Minsky

by ChrisCook (cojockathotmaildotcom) on Mon Mar 9th, 2009 at 06:43:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:
Login
. Make a new account
. Reset password
Occasional Series