Well one way is to measure the flow of gas going into the engine, do some math with that and the size of the engine, further calculate it with the dimensions of the crank shaft, input the current gearing ratio...
of the car, apply the weight of the car and the diameter of the wheels, and then add in the slope of the road and wind speed.
With all that you could calculate how a cars speed and you would have a good understanding of why its at that level.
Or...
You could just measure the wheel RPM, and use it's diameter to figure out the car's speed.
Which one would you go with?
Now I read these current papers which attempt to use order flows to explain market behavior, and I wonder...
Maybe they can explain whats going on inside the market,
but is it all too much information and complexity that I'm still just better off focusing on the obvious variables the inner working produce rather than paying attention to the elaborate inner workings themselves?
Until someone says:
"if you know the flow of gas to the engine (and that we can measure it accurately), you can state the cars velocity faster and more precisely than simply measuring wheel speed"
I don't think I'm going to act on any of these order flow papers.
I'll keep..
reading them as there are some interesting tidbits in them. We all like to understand how things work.
But ultimately I'm really looking to understand why I should act differently and I'm not sure the "inner workings of order flow" are ever going to tell me that.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
With talk recently about improving a portfolio by adding new assets, I want to talk about the opposite.
Can removing assets improve your portfolio?
Let’s start off with a sports analogy from one of the greatest basketball teams ever.
The 2015 Golden State Warriors were a great basketball team. But in the championship they fell behind early.
Their coach then tried something different. He removed the “center” position from his lineup and replaced him with another forward.
This line up was small. It didn’t have a “big man” as all traditional lineups do.
But removing the biggest player on the court, and playing two small forwards instead, made the team unstoppable and they easily won the remaining games to win the championship.
Some of the takes lately on short sellers have been exaggerations of reality in my opinion.
Short sellers serve an important roll in the markets. They dampen out volatility because they often cover when prices fall rapidly to cover their positions, and sell on rapid...
.., unusual price increases on the way up. Usually this improves market stability.
Others have pointed out they also ferret out fraudulent companies like Enron and Worldcom. All true.
Lately, I have seen the following companies being short squeezed described as frauds:
I just re-read Bernoulli’s 1738 paper “Exposition of a New Theory on the Measurement of Risk” which is the foundational paper of Expected Utility Theory.
It’s Amazing
It’s so wildly different than EUT that its hard to believe this was its beginning.
Let’s see if you agree.
The paper isn't about utility. It’s about expected value.
Bernoulli used the utility concept to get the reader to abandon the traditional view of expected value(arithmetic average), and then used it to derive the equation for valuing risk.
The final equation doesn’t use utility
He starts out the paper identifying that tradition evaluation of risk come from expected values, which are calculated with the arithmetic average.
Notice the rule here in italics is about expected values.