My afternoon train reading :

• ETFs Poised to Exceed Trade in S&P 500 as Spiders Beat Apple (Bloomberg)
Kass: Revenge of the (quant) Nerds (The Street)
• Emails Give Glimpse Into Deals That Fueled Financial Meltdown (Pro Publica)
• Berkshire Cash Hoard Swells as Buffett Pares Consumer Stocks (Bloomberg)
Study: Many Americans die with ‘virtually no financial assets’ (MIT News)
• Tim Geithner’s principal hypocrisy (Reuters)
• Bank Loans at Post-Recession Peak Support U.S. Growth (Bloomberg)
• Hey America! We’re Ranked #16 in Broadband! (HuffPo)
• Climate change is here — and worse than we thought (Washington Post)
Hilarious! What if every Olympic sport was photographed like beach volleyball? (Metro)

What are you reading?


‘Macro’ Funds See Micro Returns

Source: WSJ

Category: Financial Press

Please use the comments to demonstrate your own ignorance, unfamiliarity with empirical data and lack of respect for scientific knowledge. Be sure to create straw men and argue against things I have neither said nor implied. If you could repeat previously discredited memes or steer the conversation into irrelevant, off topic discussions, it would be appreciated. Lastly, kindly forgo all civility in your discourse . . . you are, after all, anonymous.

20 Responses to “10 Monday PM Reads”

  1. whskyjack says:

    Hanson has went off the the deep end. He is making it too easy for the deniers. It is nothing to pick that article apart. If climate scientist rally around and try to protect him they will ruin their own credibility.

  2. thomas hudson says:

    whskyjack is right, i have already seen a number of issues with the nasa release, namely that they only went back to the 50′s – and as such left out the 30′s, which had a considerable warming trend – and that there was very little data from the southern hemisphere, although there were certainly temp data available from those areas during that time frame.

    this is the same team that predicted that all of the arctic sea ice would be gone by the end of this summer.

    real climate scientists need to stay away from this guy if they want to win their argument to the general public. scare tactics don’t work well when you have a very poor track history of predictions.

  3. (Much) more should be Known — about the Susas G. Komen ‘Foundation’..

    (NaturalNews) It is time for the truth to be told about Susan G. Komen for the Cure. The organization is, flatly stated, engaged in fraud. Funded by drug companies and mammogram manufacturers, the organization preys upon women in order to grow its own financial power while feeding female victims into the conventional cancer industry grinder.

    All across America, men and women participate in “run for the cure” events, raising tens of millions of dollars each year that go into the hands of Komen for the Cure. What these people don’t know is that much of that money is spent on “free” mammograms. Those mammograms, in turn, actually cause breast cancer because they subject women to high doses of ionizing radiation.

    The Susan G. Komen scam, in essence, is to raise money that’s used to give women cancer and create a financial windfall for the very same companies that financially support Komen in the first place. “The Komen Foundation owns stock in General Electric, one of the largest makers of mammogram machines in the world. It also owns stock in several pharmaceutical companies, including AstraZeneca,” reports Tony Isaacs at NaturalNews (

    “DuPont, another huge chemical company and major polluter, supplies much of the film used in mammography machines. Both DuPont and GE aggressively promote mammography screening of women in their 40s, despite the risk of its contributing to breast cancer in that age group. And while biotech giant Monsanto sponsors Breast Cancer Awareness Month’s high profile event, the Race for the Cure, it continues to profit from the production of many known carcinogens.” (

    Komen’s corporate partners include General Mills, Zumba Fitness, Walgreens, The Republic of Tea, REMAX, New Balance, American Airlines, Bank of America, Ford Motor Company, Dell and many more (

    The bottom line? Komen deceives women while powerful corporations rake in the profits. This isn’t merely my own opinion. Two prominent doctors, in an article published in the British Medical Journal, have sharply condemned Komen for the Cure for lying about the “benefits” of mammograms.

    Komen ads are false, say scientists….

    Learn more:

  4. Arequipa01 says:

    My hero…

    (Hey all you NSA knob gobblers…imma jes kiddin’)

  5. Julia Chestnut says:

    Actually, heat is 100% the fuel of extreme weather variations, and we’ve seen shocking conditions in the past few years. Are you faulting the guy for saying that the additional few degrees heat is causing extreme events at a rate that is far outside the norm? When was the last time you remember multiple killer tornadoes in February? That’s not normal. Three feet of hail fell in extreme South Texas this April – in one 45 minute period. Driven by 75 mph winds, it took the stucco off of whole sides of buildings. According to Dr. Masters, this is ridiculously early in the hurricane season to be looking at the sixth named storm.

    What exactly is your explanation? Why is Hanson’s so nutty? Would it sound better coming from an insurance actuary telling you that this year is completely off the charts so far for damage from “natural events?”

  6. M says:

    SCB steps up to the plate for banking probity:

  7. rd says:

    It is interesting to see that extreme weather appears to be hitting hardest in the areas that don’t believe climate change (and certainly not man-made climate change) is occuring. Many of the areas that actually believe in man-made climate change may actually benefit from it in the long-run (increased length of growing season, reduced heating requriements, etc.).

    Personally, I don’t see mankind being able to reduce CO2 outputs through internation treaties etc. After all, we can barely get Congress to pass a budget. however, it is clear that regions need to make some real plans to have smart development to be able to absorb the hits that climate change may bring. Unfortunately, a lot of areas continue to do non-robust development like building expensive homes on beaches and relying on irrigation in areas that are running short of water.

  8. kernelpanic says:

    On getting hacked…

    I love the comment about the ‘clever social engineering’ used to get around ‘security questions’ in update 3. Yeah, those are tough to get past – “What is your date of birth?” “What is your full address?” (Or, better yet, “Do you still live at 123 Main St.?” Companies, just like the TSA, only appear to provide security for the unwitting….

  9. vachon says:

    Hiya Barry,

    I’m reading the technical answer to the “how’d it happen” question re: Knight at zerohedge Nanex. Very cool.

    On the day Knight blew up, and its stock tumbled initially to the $7 range, when the market speculated the loss may be “only” as large as $150-$250MM, we calculated courtesy of a Nanex analysis which suggested the modus operandi of the “berserk” algo, that the finaly loss would be far greater. This was confirmed a day later when it was made public that the final loss KCG experienced in just 45 minutes of trading was at least $440 million, and will be far greater when the losses associated with all the external trading reroutes are calculated. Nonetheless, with the SEC still completely mum on the whole issue (for one simple reason: it has no idea what happened, and is quiet not out of malice, but sheer incompetence), there is still an open question of just what happened. Here, once again from Nanex, is the complete post-mortem of a firm that was almost fully mortem, explaining everything that happened…


    BR: yes, we posted the Nanex article last week — they do great work: Speed Kills

  10. whskyjack says:

    Weather is not climate

    This current drought is not in any way abnormal. It is a rare occurrence but it has happened at least 3 times in the last century. If you look at the drought record of the last 100 years you will not see an increase in drought in the US in fact drought and heat waves have mellowed in the last 50 years. with the droughts being more local , this has changed in the last 2 years. Again it is not abnormal it happened in the 1930′s and the 1950′s. An interesting fact that runs counter to Hansens” scary scary”the plains states where the current drought is centered has seen a phase that has cooler summers , warmer winters and more moisture. 3 years ago iirc Kansas grew more corn , a wet weather crop, than wheat a dry weather crop.
    This is not about the reality of global warming, there are enough proxies out there that demonstrate that we are in a warming period. Science tells us that CO2 contributes to warming and an examination of the facts show there are no other forcers that have changed enough to explain it. This more about what we will have to deal with in the future.

    Hansens piece was demostratively false in my corner of the world and he was talking about my corner of the world too.
    btw as to your hail storm story, I’ve lived all my life on the edge of the great plains, I’ve heard those stories before. Just listen to the oldtimers talk. That may be the worlds problem they are easily fooled because they have no connection to the past beyond their own limited memories.

  11. VennData says:

    Google Googles for Yield, Finds Auto Bonds

    “…Google, the fourth-most cash-rich company in the S&P 100 after General Electric Co., Goldman Sachs Group Inc. and Microsoft Corp., according to FactSet…”


  12. algernon says:

    EVERY climate change article always says ‘It’s worse than we thought.’

  13. PeterR says:

    Quite an indictment of HSBC and NYC banking!

    “The financial industry in 2012 New York City offers itself as almost a Medellín cartel of shady and unscrupulous dealings.’

    The article ends with:

    “Easier to say guilty, you know?”

    Not for the men and women in the city’s executive suites.

  14. Julia Chestnut says:

    Jack, I’m well aware that weather is not climate, nor did I suggest that the two are the same. We’re talking about a man-made increase in background temperature, which feeds extreme weather events. You can’t have a tornado – weather – without enough ambient heat to feed quite a gradient on the two sides of the storm event. That’s why they typically happen in the hot seasons of the year. If the climate becomes such that there’s enough heat to build/support these kinds of storms 11 or 12 months a year in the central U.S.? How is that not climate change driving extreme weather events? They are different, but interrelated.

    What, exactly, was demonstrably false? I still don’t get what you are saying was false about his statement. Drought happens – in the region I’m from, which is desert – we have drought cycles historically in 7 and 20 year cycles. All the time. Completely normal. But the DEPTH, breadth, or duration can be different and frankly it has been. One extreme event does not make a trend – but what I’m looking at in the data is a trend of more extreme events.

    Also, I think you are misunderstanding how the effects of climate change are supposed to work (not that I think we really know enough to map this effectively, mind you). Just because one area isn’t getting worse drought than usual doesn’t refute climate change. The heat is supposed to essentially drive more extreme weather of the type you normally have in much of the U.S. There will be other effects elsewhere. We’re essentially talking in the short run about a destabilization of normal so that events skew one direction. Yes, extreme hail events happen. 100 year events happen on average that often – that doesn’t mean you can’t have two in one year if conditions are right, even within the average. April? Late March? That’s insane. We’re normally at risk of that magnitude of storm in July. You also aren’t supposed to get all of your rain for the year in the form of blocks of ice – in arid subtropical regions.

    I think Hanson is kind of an idiot, at least he seems to lack social skills. And I realize that this whole climate change question is close to religion for both sides of the debate. But I really do fail to see what is demonstrably false about a statement that a very small amount of added heat is already destabilizing weather events demonstrably. I also think his loaded dice analogy is spot on.

  15. whskyjack says:

    The demostratively false statements were those where Hansen claimed that the current US drought was so outside what one might consciders normal variation that it could only be explained by global warming, when it is not unusual at all. I’m , also irritiated with Hansens deliberate misuse of the technical term ” extreme weather event”. Not to be confused with what we would all believe to be extreme weather. A sunny pleasant day can be an “extreme weather event” but that doesn’t fit Hansens ‘scary scary’ meme.
    One other thing Hansen took a thirty year period 1950 to 1980 and declared that to be normal, if someone did that in regard to the stock market and based their future prognostications on that assumption would you expect a lot of wft from other people? Yet you wouldn’t jump to the conclusion that the questioners were denying the existence of capitalism.

  16. whskyjack says:

    oops posted the previous post before editing and spell checking, sorry. I will get some more coffee.

  17. Julia,

    you go with..”…You can’t have a tornado – weather – without enough ambient heat to feed quite a gradient on the two sides of the storm event…” (as a ‘snip’)

    what’s your take on…—brinicle-ice-tornado

    granted, it’s from the “BBC”, though, it would seem to be an example (of many) of ‘one more thing’ “We” don’t understand about our ‘biosphere’, let alone its “Climate”..

  18. formerlawyer says:

    @Mark E Hoffer

    The “brinicle” is the first time (for most of us) we have seen the formation of an underwater tornado, especially in the artic/antarctic waters. The physics behind this are relatively well understood see – “ocean boundary layer” and marine physics.

  19. Julia Chestnut says:

    Thanks for clarifying, Jack. He definitely was sloppy in writing his opinion piece, no argument there. I used to translate for scientists into people speak for a living – it’s possible that I still too readily translate.

    I still think that the effects that we’ve seen from just a marginal increase in temperature are pretty frightening – and I saw that as the bottom line of what he was saying. Mathman, I hope that guy is some kind of paranoid fatalist. Otherwise, I’m raising kids for no particular reason . . . .