I don't understand something this trivial. Tennis is not the only thing that Federer is a master of. By now, it is accepted that Federer's English (apart from his Swiss, German and French) is fluent enough. Yet, there seemed to be a misunderstanding through the media and Roddick was lead to believe that Federer had wrongly claimed the match to be a piece of cake for him.
I watched the whole thing live and it was more than clear that Federer was simply repeating the interviewer's words only with a hint of sarcasm in his voice. Roddick, on the other hand, who is normally the best and most gracious loser on the tour, didn't seem to happy and understandably so. One can't be cheerful (though compared to Serena he was), after playing brilliant tennis and losing in front of one's home crowd. Yet, there we have it. What does this straight sets defeat prove? A few things for sure:
1) Tie-breaks are cruel. While it's all very well to say that the better players play the bigger points better, any tennis player knows the element of luck, chance or whatever you wish to call it is undeniably ubiquitous during a tie break.
2) Federer reads Roddick's serve like a wizard and it is primarily this characteristic that always (more often than not) ensures him out-acing Roddick by the end of the match.
3) Roddick is always a threat on hard courts and he should have played Davydenko in the quarters instead of Federer. 4 playing 5 is realistic and expected. 1 playing 5 in the quarters is retarded beyond words.
4) Matches like these make you accept that it is near impossible to beat Federer in 3 sets on a hard court. 2 sets is far far easier than 3 is and apart from that thrilling loss to Safin almost 3 years ago, Federer has rarely been tested in 5 (Tommy Haas doesn't count in Aus '06 nor does nalbandian in shanghai)
5) At the end of it all, how scary does it seem when; a high quality tour professional has his day out and plays his best tennis in front of a 23,000 home crowd (14 aces, 40 odd winners and a teenage unforced error count?), and loses IN STRAIGHT SETS!!
So feel a bit for Roddick and continue to wonder why Federer doesn't command the same nigh-iconic status that he does globally as compared to Madison Avenue. It just goes to prove that A-Rod (the other one), Peyton and their band of over hyped merry men continue to make one particular world go round.
Friday, 7 September 2007
Tuesday, 4 September 2007
Burn-anke?
So how about that?
Apparently, the Asian stock markets are reacting favorably and indirectly to Bush's informal pledge to ensure that home-owners in America would not have to default on their mortgage payments for much longer.
Crudely speaking, will this lead to a better tomorrow for all the mortgage institutions, private equity firms and investment banks who find themselves in a whole lot of shit?
At Wyoming, where Bernanke did his best to assuage the current market situation, not many seem impressed. I can see why there is a general consensus and calling for a cut in the federal funds rate but even that eventually comes down to a (sometimes personal) choice between the lesser of the two evils. Vote for Kerry or Bush (okay, maybe there's no comparison now)? Bail out the credit-dependent family members or control inflation?
Amongst numerous American economists, Martin Feldstein and Susan Wachter seem the most concerned about the oncoming downturn in the US (read: global) economy. And it's common knowledge that today, when Bernanke repeatedly claims that the Fed will "act as needed", it boils down to whether enough people have faith in him and his band of merry men. Yet Otmar Issing, a former chief economist at the European Central Bank, continues to feel that the "The world economy is still very robust and growth is much more evenly spread than it was a few years ago." So should we believe him and think that this is only a minor blip of periodic fluctuations and decreasing steadiness? One of these days when i have nothing to do, i intend on gathering data and compiling a correlation and regression study on the trends of a few major Asian indices and the Dow. Even now, it's obvious what the trend would be.
The statistics have never looked promising in the US. Commercial paper, a short-term financing tool, declined by $244.1 billion, or 11 percent, in the three weeks to Aug. 29, the most in at least seven years, Fed data show. Three-month Treasury bill yields had their biggest drop since 2001 in August as investors sought safety in government debt. Most feel that the simplest way of putting it is that consumer spending will decline significantly because consumers won't be able to borrow as much against the value of their homes which would also be experiencing a periodic decline in their values.
To borrow an intriguing idea by an anonymous person on the Internet, perhaps it is getting clearer that the US economy is completely addicted to "cheap" money and must have virtually unlimited access to it in order to function.The fact that the Federal Reserve would be ready and willing to cut interest rates with unemployment at 4.6% and the economy growing at more than 4.0% in the latest quarter speaks volumes about the nature of this addiction.
Apparently, the Asian stock markets are reacting favorably and indirectly to Bush's informal pledge to ensure that home-owners in America would not have to default on their mortgage payments for much longer.
Crudely speaking, will this lead to a better tomorrow for all the mortgage institutions, private equity firms and investment banks who find themselves in a whole lot of shit?
At Wyoming, where Bernanke did his best to assuage the current market situation, not many seem impressed. I can see why there is a general consensus and calling for a cut in the federal funds rate but even that eventually comes down to a (sometimes personal) choice between the lesser of the two evils. Vote for Kerry or Bush (okay, maybe there's no comparison now)? Bail out the credit-dependent family members or control inflation?
Amongst numerous American economists, Martin Feldstein and Susan Wachter seem the most concerned about the oncoming downturn in the US (read: global) economy. And it's common knowledge that today, when Bernanke repeatedly claims that the Fed will "act as needed", it boils down to whether enough people have faith in him and his band of merry men. Yet Otmar Issing, a former chief economist at the European Central Bank, continues to feel that the "The world economy is still very robust and growth is much more evenly spread than it was a few years ago." So should we believe him and think that this is only a minor blip of periodic fluctuations and decreasing steadiness? One of these days when i have nothing to do, i intend on gathering data and compiling a correlation and regression study on the trends of a few major Asian indices and the Dow. Even now, it's obvious what the trend would be.
The statistics have never looked promising in the US. Commercial paper, a short-term financing tool, declined by $244.1 billion, or 11 percent, in the three weeks to Aug. 29, the most in at least seven years, Fed data show. Three-month Treasury bill yields had their biggest drop since 2001 in August as investors sought safety in government debt. Most feel that the simplest way of putting it is that consumer spending will decline significantly because consumers won't be able to borrow as much against the value of their homes which would also be experiencing a periodic decline in their values.
To borrow an intriguing idea by an anonymous person on the Internet, perhaps it is getting clearer that the US economy is completely addicted to "cheap" money and must have virtually unlimited access to it in order to function.The fact that the Federal Reserve would be ready and willing to cut interest rates with unemployment at 4.6% and the economy growing at more than 4.0% in the latest quarter speaks volumes about the nature of this addiction.
Saturday, 1 September 2007
Isner In, Isner Out
By the end of the day then, either we witness the biggest upset in grand slam history or we witness another ruthless display of what i term as 'professional "clinicalism" '. Perhaps this is not entirely fair because to be honest, i haven't really witnessed a Federer win where there haven't been those few shots that always succeed in amazing the viewer. Hence, it is an injustice to claim that Federer won primarily because he always got the job done. That's what Hewitt was famous for in his heydays back when he routed Sampras in 2001 only to get worse than a taste of his own medicine in 2004.
Do i personally think that Isner can cause an upset here? OF COURSE NOT! If being 6'9" meant that it was so easy then perhaps Karlovic would have been in the top 10 by now. Since this comes from an opinion that hasn't even seen Isner in action, I'm going to vehemently claim that if Federer plays badly (which i believe he usually plays), he loses ONE set in a tiebreak or maybe even 5-7 or 4-6; nothing more than that.
Perhaps some may consider that a moral victory for Isner - to take a set of the World's best.
They can have that cake.
Do i personally think that Isner can cause an upset here? OF COURSE NOT! If being 6'9" meant that it was so easy then perhaps Karlovic would have been in the top 10 by now. Since this comes from an opinion that hasn't even seen Isner in action, I'm going to vehemently claim that if Federer plays badly (which i believe he usually plays), he loses ONE set in a tiebreak or maybe even 5-7 or 4-6; nothing more than that.
Perhaps some may consider that a moral victory for Isner - to take a set of the World's best.
They can have that cake.
Tuesday, 7 August 2007
Cramer v/s Cramer
Atleast we know that the blame game is well and truly on. Having recently finished (in the span of under 2 days might i add) John Perkins 'confessions of an EHM' and its sequel, i can't admit to actually wanting to write this. In fact, had it not been for my noticing Jim Cramer's fabulous outburst courtesy youtube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wtjkWJzxdQU), i might as well have been fast asleep by now.
So the fed's statement will be out by the time i wake up and it's safe to claim that ever since i understood how the interest rate made a difference, it has not changed from its 5.25%.
I have more respect for Mr. Bernanke than i do for the remaining American economists but i was aghast to know that when he was nominated 2 years ago, he had vehemently stated, "If I am confirmed to this position, my first priority will be to maintain consistency and continuity with the policies established during the Greenspan years." Needless to say, tomorrow's decision will go a long way in defining Bernanke's legacy at the fed and showcase his real intent.
While most conservatives argue that Greenspan would have never allowed the weakness to spread in the Dow, i can claim with absolute conviction that not many would be willing to bet on the fed's decision tomorrow. Either which way, it cane be attacked and either which way, it can defend itself. Not changing it will simply mean that oblivion to the current status of market would still be thought of as the best form of defense while a change would mean a drop in the fed's now-famous anti-inflationary zeal.
So how do you tackle an ever weakening housing market, a consumer spending slowdown and and highly shaken hedge funds (read:bear stearns) tied to subprime loans? How do you account for the amusingly 'vaccillatory' nature of the dow?
It's simple. You don't. Not unless you're a blue chip junkie whose uselessly placed his faith in the american stock bubble. And if you aren't, then i'll always maintain that it's best to sit back and watch events unfold.
So the fed's statement will be out by the time i wake up and it's safe to claim that ever since i understood how the interest rate made a difference, it has not changed from its 5.25%.
I have more respect for Mr. Bernanke than i do for the remaining American economists but i was aghast to know that when he was nominated 2 years ago, he had vehemently stated, "If I am confirmed to this position, my first priority will be to maintain consistency and continuity with the policies established during the Greenspan years." Needless to say, tomorrow's decision will go a long way in defining Bernanke's legacy at the fed and showcase his real intent.
While most conservatives argue that Greenspan would have never allowed the weakness to spread in the Dow, i can claim with absolute conviction that not many would be willing to bet on the fed's decision tomorrow. Either which way, it cane be attacked and either which way, it can defend itself. Not changing it will simply mean that oblivion to the current status of market would still be thought of as the best form of defense while a change would mean a drop in the fed's now-famous anti-inflationary zeal.
So how do you tackle an ever weakening housing market, a consumer spending slowdown and and highly shaken hedge funds (read:bear stearns) tied to subprime loans? How do you account for the amusingly 'vaccillatory' nature of the dow?
It's simple. You don't. Not unless you're a blue chip junkie whose uselessly placed his faith in the american stock bubble. And if you aren't, then i'll always maintain that it's best to sit back and watch events unfold.
Sunday, 5 August 2007
wrt: NYT Aug 5th Andrew Sorkin
So what's the big deal about investment banking anyway. Do they deserve the astronomical fees that they command? Last year, Wall Street took in $8.5 billion in fees. The average bonus for a Goldman Sachs employee was $650,000!
So, in theory, companies hire investment banks for their insight, superior business acumen and what they hope will be a profit-maximizing strategy. How much of this happens in practice?
Perhaps the critic would choose to focus on the fact that a good $20-$30 million in a multi-billion dollar deal can hardly be considered significant enough but then, that's just really not the point is it?
Before you ask yourself the inane question of determining a quantitative method to judge advice, ask yourself this.How can you justify that amount of money for advice, when there remains every chance that the bank's strategy might not even be heeded in the long run. Never mind that, when AOL and Time Warner merge (or was that supposed to be about one acquiring the other?), is the deal based on what the hired investment bank wants? Apparently not.
Both the companies' chairmen, Steve Case and Gerald Levin had already agreed on the basic principles of the deal. So that relegates the bank's role to simply figuring out the execution (quite literally). The $164 billion deal had the country's top investment brains working behind it. When the strategy was already decided upon, does that justify the small percentage but astronomical amount that they receive as fees?
So the bottom line is to figure out what the primary role of the investment bank is, i.e: to strategize or to execute. It is only fair that accordingly then, the fees should be determined.
Needlessly running up the numbers, deal sizes and various commissions should not be the priority of a bank.
So, in theory, companies hire investment banks for their insight, superior business acumen and what they hope will be a profit-maximizing strategy. How much of this happens in practice?
Perhaps the critic would choose to focus on the fact that a good $20-$30 million in a multi-billion dollar deal can hardly be considered significant enough but then, that's just really not the point is it?
Before you ask yourself the inane question of determining a quantitative method to judge advice, ask yourself this.How can you justify that amount of money for advice, when there remains every chance that the bank's strategy might not even be heeded in the long run. Never mind that, when AOL and Time Warner merge (or was that supposed to be about one acquiring the other?), is the deal based on what the hired investment bank wants? Apparently not.
Both the companies' chairmen, Steve Case and Gerald Levin had already agreed on the basic principles of the deal. So that relegates the bank's role to simply figuring out the execution (quite literally). The $164 billion deal had the country's top investment brains working behind it. When the strategy was already decided upon, does that justify the small percentage but astronomical amount that they receive as fees?
So the bottom line is to figure out what the primary role of the investment bank is, i.e: to strategize or to execute. It is only fair that accordingly then, the fees should be determined.
Needlessly running up the numbers, deal sizes and various commissions should not be the priority of a bank.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)