Author: Petros

Petrobank spinoff II: What happens to an option contract?

Posted by

0

In a previous post, I wondered what happens to an options contract after a spinoff. Petrobank spun off Petrominerales–its Columbian holdings.  I figured, based on the rules, that if my puts were assigned I would receive 100 shares of Petrobank and 61.5 shares of Petrominerales, and then learned that the Montreal Stock Exchange confirmed my analysis.

Saturday the January contract expired.  PBG closed at $23.38 and PMG at $37.27; thus the closing price for the underlying  = 23.38 +37.27*0.615=$46.30.  Well, a newbie in the backroom of the options desk at my brokerage decided my January $42 was in the money and exercised my contracts, charging me the $42 per share of Petrobank plus a $43 commission.   Obviously, Petrobank at $23.38 was deep in the money, right?  $23.38 is a lot less than $42.00.   This is the note in my activity (with amounts whited out):

Apparently, not everyone in the backroom knows what she’s doing and somebody a little smarter decided that this assignment better be canceled.  I never did get my 61.5 shares of Petrominerales (per contract). But hey, guys, if you want to assign me 100 shares of PBG and 61.5 shares of PMG, I’d happily receive them for the price of 100 shares at $42.  That would be a net gain of $4.30 per share.  I’ve heard that once in a blue moon a novice options buyer will exercise an out of the money option–for the seller, this is a gift.

My final thoughts on this is that after a bit of experience, it is very possible that the DIY trader will know more about options than some of the people working the options desk at the brokerage.  When I first started out, I asked about the commission rates upon assignment/exercise–not just once but several times.  Each representative gave me a different answer: one said standard commission, others said they didn’t have any idea, others said $43–but what about multiple contracts?  No idea.  etc. etc. etc.  I finally stopped trying to get a definitive answer and just waited.  My contracts that did expire in the money were charged $43 (the DIY rate) upon assignment and this was for multiple (5) contracts in the same order.  So the actual event helped me to formulate a better cost analysis.

Rush tries to repeat Hu Jintao [updated]

Posted by

2

Recent attempts by Rush Limbaugh to mimic Hu Jintao have offended some people, perhaps especially those in the Asian American community.

As a francophone, I’d like to add how offended I was by an episode of Friends where Joey fakes the French language:

Meanwhile, Catherine Tate insults the entire world community by mocking seven languages, one from every major continent:

This language mocking must stop now!

UPDATE:  Andrew suggested a couple of more really outrageous examples of language mimicry:

And how about this? Jacques Clouseau trying to speak English.  This is an outrage to all French people trying to learn English:

Theological Education Bubble II: Driving an SUV could make you a goat, but an atheist advocate of abortion might be a sheep

Posted by

0

Close to forty years ago Singer wrote a powerful paper in ethics on the culpability of rich people in allowing the poor of the world to die. And yet rather than read that paper and Singer’s other work on the plight of the world’s poor, self-righteous suburban evangelicals continue to drive their big fat SUVs, tithe 4% of their income (on average) and stand in judgment of his views on abortion. What damnable hypocrisy. Before you call Peter Singer evil try reading the parable of the sheep and goats half a dozen times whilst setting aside your self-righteous certainty that you’re a sheep and Singer is a goat.

Randal Rauser, Associate Professor of Historical Theology, Taylor Seminary, Edmonton

I live in literalville.  I suppose Prof. Randal Rauser could provide nuance for the above quote that is cited at Triablogue, or perhaps deny that he made it.  But I find it curious that he would prefer an atheist and an advocate of abortion–which is in my book the killing of youngest, poorest and most innocent human beings–over evangelicals who drive SUVs.  Given that  abortions in the last few decades number in the 100s of millions, it is a genocide of epic proportions.  Millions of Rauser’s own contemporaries have already been snuffed out  (as he was born circa 1975, after Roe vs. Wade).

I wonder also about the finances of Taylor Seminary.  I know that they recently went through a financial restructuring.  Hey, all you donors and friends of  Taylor Seminary and College. Do you live in a suburb?   Do you drive an SUV?  Perhaps you think that abortion is worse than driving a SUV.  Did you realize that your hard earned dollars were going to support a professor who thinks that your driving a SUV is damnable?  Perhaps it’s time you got on the phone with the president there.

I’ve written about this sort of thing before. As a donor to theological education, I don’t understand why I, a business man and an investor, have to donate to progressive education which is inimical to those who create wealth.  It’s a contradiction and an absurdity, when the livelihood of those who teach in theological education depends wholly on such people.  For if we let this sort of thing continue, we will end up with theological students like PoserorProphet, and it is a waste of our money to help him along his way so he can teach others to be anarcho-marxist-zealot Christians like himself.

Signed,

A suburban driver of a big fat SUV (but only when my wife lets me drive it), who “tithes” a mere 2.64% on average

Why I think QE will create inflation and why it is qualitatively different than credit expansion

Posted by

2

Meredith Whitney has come down hard on the municipal bonds and she is getting a lot of heat from others, including David Rosenberg.  But even if she is wrong, bonds of all sorts are bad investments because the US dollar is going to hell in a hand basket.  But what about shrinking credit which causes deflation?  I am no economist but here is why I think QE causes inflation while credit expansion is less inflationary:

Inflation is caused by too much money supply chasing too few goods.  Money supply can be created through credit expansion or through QE.  Credit expansion results in the creation of goods and services such as building of houses and manufactured goods, for every time a business borrows, its creates more real wealth in the form of its products.  Every time a home owner buys a house with a mortgage, the demand for new housing goes up and it results in larger supply of homes, i.e., more goods.  Thus, though credit expansion can obviously create bubbles, it also results in the increase of goods and services.

QE, quantitative easing, or the monetization of debt results in a disproportionate demand for goods and service without the creation thereof.  This is because the US federal debt is being monetized, and the US government in turn gives the money to government workers, pensioners, social security, welfare, food stamps, etc.  I.e. to people who increase demand without increasing the quantity of goods and services.  This increased demand, too many dollars chasing to few goods, devalues the dollar.

And this is why I think that QE leads to inflation and why it is much worse than credit expansion.

Minimum wage

Posted by

0

One of the factors in this last Great Recession that began in 2008 has been the Federal increase in the minimum wage implemented by US Congress.  Some believe that minimum wage laws actually increase unemployment, but it will be an uphill battle to convince most people that the current unemployment rate, especially of young people, is the direct result of the increase in minimum wage.  I would argue it is at very least a factor.

The builder of the library at the seminary in Africa where I taught told me a story.  He built these massive arches with concrete, all of it mixed by hand, and each arch in a single pour.  Each arch would thus keep dozens of unskilled laborers going several hours as they mixed with shovels and 5 gallon buckets.  One day, one of the workers said, “You know Ken, you should really buy a concrete mixer: just think how much concrete we could make with a mixer!”  So Ken said to them, “Ok.  I’ll buy a mixer but first you have to tell me which eight of you don’t want a job anymore.”

This is a general principle business:  if labor is cheaper than a machine, people will have jobs.  If machines are cheaper, then people get replaced by machines.  Fearsome Tycoon makes this same point: “Wal-Mart responds to a minimum wage hike by replacing more cashiers with machines … ”  At the same seminary, workmen cut grass with machetes.  Suppose the government decided that everyone deserved a raise and so they raised minimum wage.  Guess what?  The seminary would buy lawn mowers and lay off a bunch of people.  If they said you can’t lay off people?  They would just quit that country and go somewhere which didn’t have such onerous labor laws.  (Fearsome Tycoon makes this point too:  quitting is always an option).

In Ontario the minimum wage is about $10.  So as a consequence, there are self-serve check-outs in many of the stores here, including Home Depot.  They are not preferable to a human cashier, but one person making minimum wage can monitor four lines of customers.

Do you want high unemployment?  Increase the minimum wage and make sure that payroll taxes are high.  This increases the cost of labor and people will be replaced by machines or businesses will just simply quit.