Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : 2026 TeoTwawKi ... 2032 Darkest Interregnum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: THE ANT who wrote (118111)	4/18/2016 9:41:03 AM
From: elmatador	Respond to of 220191

EM are in the way up. The USD raise from 2013 tanked. Yellen is not going to raise the rates. Strategist David Zervos Is Recommending Emerging Markets for the First Time Thanks to 'Currency War Truce'Central bankers rescued the asset class. April 4, 2016 — 8:54 PM SA You can count Jefferies Chief Market Strategist David Zervos among the investors who thinks this emerging market rally has legs. A cautious Fed, a rebound in oil prices, strong inflows, and country-specific factors like Brazil's seeming move to stamp out corruption, helped the MSCI Emerging Markets Index outperform its all-world counterpart and the S&P 500 in the first quarter of 2016. Source: Bloomberg In a note to clients, Zervos announced that he was taking profits in his "Spoos and Blues" trade (long U.S. equity futures and Eurodollars) and deploying some of those proceeds in call options for the exchange-traded fund that tracks the MSCI Emerging Markets Index. This marks a shift for the strategist, who has not recommended emerging market assets while at Jefferies, suggesting that the reflationary monetary policies pursued by the Federal Reserve, Bank of Japan, and European Central Bank would hamper growth in developing countries. What changed his mind? A show of supposed coordination by these same central bankers in the first quarter—the BoJ and ECB seemingly prioritizing credit creation over currency depreciation, and the Fed's concern over the lofty greenback—that prompted some analysts, including Zervos, to conclude that some form of Plaza Accord 2.0 had been reached at the Group of 20 meeting in Shanghai. "If the concept of a truce in the developed market currency war is for real (as I have been arguing since 19-Feb-2016), then the biggest beneficiary will be emerging markets," he explained. "The worst thing for emerging markets would be USDJPY at 140, EURUSD at 90 and the DXY at 120. The Europeans and Japanese would be stealing EM growth, and the US would be forcing all the USD liabilities in EM capital markets to rise in value — a toxic combination." Instead, G3 central banks have brought returned stability to emerging markets and equity markets more broadly. In the process, implied equity volatility has also collapsed, which makes buying call options for the emerging markets and S&P 500 exchange-traded funds particularly attractive, according to Zervos. "Both EEM and Spoos should be the largest direct beneficiaries of the currency war truce, while the Europeans and Japanese will need to get quite creative with central bank balance sheets in order for their capital markets to thrive in this brave new world," he concluded.

To: THE ANT who wrote (118111)	4/30/2016 7:29:27 PM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 220191

Feedback warning: Brainspazz: <>their height, there weight, there's speed, their attractiveness, Etc> Looks as though your brain got the i's and e's entangled. The first one was good, the second one must have seemed like too many i's [with weight having an i, so the there was selected, then 'speed' has no i but begins with s, so "there's" was used with no i but a free-ranging apostrophe was added as is so common in plurals or just with possessive's. Or did you do that for fun? Or a test? I don't buy the 101 intelligence being a disadvantage. It's a cost-free [almost] advantage. There is a teeny bigger brain needed for supersonic brainpower but it's not much biological impediment. Some genetic engineering and selection will soon eliminate the sphingolipid problems as unlike sickle cell anaemia, they are not essential to make a supersonic Ashkenazi brain. [I am making that up because I guess it isn't so but maybe it is just like sickle cell anaemia - nah, no way can that be right]. Also, there's proof that the 101 intelligence being a problem is false. Go back and back and back to when humans were like chimps. Now, run evolution forwards. The 101 DNA obviously did survive time after time after time for 300,000 years because we are now about at about 10,000 with some of us nearing 100,000 [while others still struggle around nearer chimp cognitive power]. Neanderthals and the original Africans are long gone [a bit of Neanderthal DNA still lurks but none of their Y chromosome exists]. All non-Africans from before 100,000 years for women and 30,000 years for men have been totally eliminated [I think that includes Australian aborigines and some Melanesians but possibly not]. 101 intelligence is constantly selected. Being highly impulsive can be a problem, but being highly intelligent is not. It's always good to apply intelligence. Sometimes it's easier/cheaper/quicker to just flip a coin but an intelligent person is better able to quickly determine whether to go for flippism or not. I have never come across somebody wishing to have less brainpower. Sometimes it's good to hide brainpower, but that's different from not having it to hide. Mqurice