My morning reads:

• Hedge funds lag traditional asset classes (MoneyWatch)
• What Do You Mean By ‘Tactical’? That’s Actually a Good Question (WSJ)
• The billionaires next door (Reuters)
• As sanctions crush rial’s value, Iranians point fingers at Ahmadinejad (Christian Science Monitor)
• Has a segment of China’s shadow banking system been curtailed? (FT Alphaville)
• The Housing Bottom and the Unemployment Rate (Calculated Risk) see also Welcome to Hell: The joys of refinancing (Reuters)
• In the High-Tech Patent Wars, an Inventor’s Lament (Bits)
• Gas Market Stung by Rapid Traders (WSJ)
• There Is No Nobel Prize in Economics (Alternet)
• At, the neverending search for truth in an election year (WP) see also Romney’s Tax Plan and Economic Growth (Economix)

What are you reading?

BlackRock Hits Back in ETF War

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.

12 Responses to “10 Tuesday AM Reads”

  1. postman says:

    Re the Nobel Economics prize: very few of the recipients had anything to do with hedge funds, let alone are”stock market speculators.” Most are highly skilled econometricians or mathematical theorists. he real joke is the Nobel Peace Prize, and second, although not quite as bad, the Nobel Prize for Literature. Review the winners of these and consider their superior contemporaries who did not win. On the other hand, the Nobel Prizes in Chemistry, Physics, and Medicine are quite meritocratic and non-political.

  2. formerlawyer says:

    Nobel prizes even in Chemistry, Physics and Medecine are political and occasionally non-meritorious.
    For examples see:

  3. thomas hudson says:

    had a guy in our office from one of the firms quoted in the ‘tactical’ article just last friday. they launched their tactical fund in 2010 and have since underperformed the benchmark (60/40 equity/bond portfolio). their spin was that the strategy doesnt work in a volatile market like we have had since then, but it will perform better in a period of ‘persistent cycles influenced by measurable factors’ (their words, not mine). not designed for ‘markets that lack a persistent trend and want up market capture’.

    having trouble putting any new dollars with them.

    i agree that the tactical description is bandied about a bit much lately.

  4. VennData says:

    U.S. Stocks Rise on Earnings

    Looks like the Chicago guys got to the CEOs. There’s nothing these CEOs would rather do than tell the truth about earnings, This is something i know a lot about and proves that the CEOs have been bought off.

    – Jack Welch

  5. ilsm says:

    von Klauswitz said there are: strategy, tacitcs and logistics.

    Strategy is what you want to get done.

    Tactics is how you are going to get things done, tactics techiques and procedures in some thinking.

    Logistics is all the extra stuff not necessarily controllable in short term and things outside the directly applied techniques and procedures.

    “Tactical” investing won’t play to a military person or a system engineer.

  6. The Retired CNBC Sucks says:

    VennData ftw. That’s funny!

    And now, an article on literal money printing by the Fed:

  7. willid3 says:

    if those who want a market based health care system, they must fix this first or it doesn’t exist and never will

  8. thomas hudson says:

    new book on hopper, hayek, friedman, von mises, et al.

    Masters of the Universe: Hayek, Friedman, and the Birth of Neoliberal Politics.

  9. CharlesII says:

    Sadly, is fatally flawed with Bothsidesdoit Syndrome.

    In Brooks Jackson’s “Obama’s Numbers” piece, for example, he basically agrees with what the Administration has been saying, and labels that misusing or fabricating statistics. Why should a president be blamed for jobs lost in the first few months of his Administration, for example? Or for a deficit incurred in the last budget of a previous president? Any reasonable yardstick would assign deficits to presidents by fiscal year (excluding additional spending authorized specifically by a new president) and would not measure unemployment changes until spending by the new president actually kicks in. For that matter, any fair measure of unemployment would point out that state governors have been directly responsible for a lot of the jobs lost after January 2009. Jackson’s piece manages to obscure all of this.

    I do not give Obama high marks for performance in any area. Compared to Bush, he’s a genius. Compared to Romney, he’s honest. Neither comparison says he’s great. But the kind of smarmy, mealymouthed both-sides-do-it crap Brooks Jackson is engaged in is as clever as Bush and as honest as Romney.

    I can’t believe public dollars get spent on FactCheck.

  10. vachon says:

    Interesting link about Chinese banks and their use of discount bills. (More like this, please!) I’ve been following reports on their shadow banking mechanisms and local government loans for about a year now. Fascinating stuff.