Well, what do we know? Really nothing. Its all rumors, news reporting. The number is out there. What contributed to this loss? A single trader, a group. Did the manager know? Traders are sometimes wrong on a bet. As long as it lies within the risk limits, it can happen. If the limits are violated action needs to be taken. Its the same with poker. You can be a very restrictive player, but you wont ever make it. Sometimes with a good hand (even you know there might be one better hand that beats you) you need to plunk down a stash because the probabilities are in your favor. And on an occasion here or there you will indeed be beaten. So? As long as you did not bet the house its fine. This is the name of the game. Otherwise join a mutual fund and clock in from 9 to 6 and do your end-quarter adjustments. Top traders are not paid so well for generating low returns. They are paid because they can stomach risk. By the way, what is 300 million loss or so. Are you equally accusing the desks who lost a few billion in each bank betting on mortgage arm repacks or CMO blowups? Is that fine just because all banks lost some? If this loss was because someone violated limits or traded unauthorized that is an entirely different story but dont blame some computer programs or statistics for that. That, imho, is ironic.
Its easy to accuse someone out of your anonymity, isnt it? No I am not. And I dont care what you think. What did that other person do to you that you dislike him/her so much? Got your ego hurt? So, who are you? Whats your name?
There is a small but important condition to make the solution in the 3 cup case stand: we assume that the dealer knows where the coin is and he always removes the cup that doesn't contain the coin. If the dealer doesn't know or doesn't care, then switching doesn't improve your chances, but it doesn't reduce them either.
But the story gives you the fact that a cup without the coin is turned over. Whether the dealer knows where the coin is or not makes no difference. The cup has already been flipped over and there was no coin in that cup.
Kind of a useless comment don't you think? A implies B, but B does not necessarily imply A. MS having Quant PhDs don't mean these guys can trade (read: GTF out of these positions like NOW you mofos, 'cause the models ain't working - oh phuck, everyone else has just concluded the same!!! Kaboom.). Since we don't know sheah about what really happened, like who was trading, were the models followed, WTF was risk doing (they exceeded VaR on numerous days). Sounds like a typical IB phuck up. Profit is king and they were probably waiting for things to turn, 'cause their bonuses depend on it.
The point is that the deal knows BEFORE he choses a cup where there is no coin. So there is an absolute certainty that the dealer will turn over a cup with no coin. Yes, knowlede of where the coin is by the dealer is essential to yield the same result (at least knowledge of at least one cup with no coin that he then turns over).
investors didn't lose anything in july and august when they book profits. the broker lost money but made millions previously. so who is the idiot.
there total position must be over a billion dollars are more to lose 400 million trading the market to lose that much but they made a lot of money before..so one loss etc...these quants strategies have losses and wins....even if they lose $400 million in august they made billions before..
Hum....can any of the bright guys overe here extrapolate the conditional probability and expectation FED is going to ease another 25 BP ? Or do I have only to take a look at FED FUND FUTURES ???? Maybe someone able to switch Monty Hall problem to FED FUND problem ??? Sorry, I am not a QUANT and not a statistician...