Comments on: He asks questions; you’ll provide answers. http://www.midasoracle.org/2008/05/29/he-asks-questions-youll-provide-answers/ Prediction Markets For All Wed, 07 Jan 2009 17:27:36 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.7 hourly 1 By: Medemi http://www.midasoracle.org/2008/05/29/he-asks-questions-youll-provide-answers/#comment-19011 Medemi Tue, 03 Jun 2008 19:31:41 +0000 http://www.midasoracle.org/?p=7097#comment-19011 The company I mentioned was a tip from someone who studied biotech companies for a living. He works for himself now. Don't know if he would be a buyer at the moment because I haven't seen or spoken him for quite a while. - I've been in and out of these stocks a couple of times over the years, I guess there's still a bit of a trader in me. That has changed recently though - no more trading. For my strategy to work I only need one winner, BUT I have to hold on to my stock. This is the hard part. - An entire book on bubbles ? That's too much for me to handle. :-) The company I mentioned was a tip from someone who studied biotech companies for a living. He works for himself now. Don’t know if he would be a buyer at the moment because I haven’t seen or spoken him for quite a while.
-
I’ve been in and out of these stocks a couple of times over the years, I guess there’s still a bit of a trader in me.
That has changed recently though - no more trading. For my strategy to work I only need one winner, BUT I have to hold on to my stock. This is the hard part.
-
An entire book on bubbles ? That’s too much for me to handle. :-)

]]> By: Jason Ruspini http://www.midasoracle.org/2008/05/29/he-asks-questions-youll-provide-answers/#comment-19001 Jason Ruspini Mon, 02 Jun 2008 23:04:50 +0000 http://www.midasoracle.org/?p=7097#comment-19001 Biotech takes time and at this point I find it too distracting to have in my portfolio in any size.  Whenever you're long an individual biotech name, you just have to expect a sudden FDA-related 15% gap-down.  Also the sector, relatively speaking,  never really benefited from the emerging market build-out.. depending on what index you look at, its just gone down or sideways for a number of years.  There are always good opportunities though. It just takes time.  It would be nice if there were a wiki with each company's pipeline, drug status, size-of-market, etc. . Here is a decent book on bubbles with good historical charts: http://www.amazon.com/Hidden-Collective-Factors-Speculative-Trading/dp/3540412948/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1212447758&sr=8-1 Biotech takes time and at this point I find it too distracting to have in my portfolio in any size.  Whenever you’re long an individual biotech name, you just have to expect a sudden FDA-related 15% gap-down.  Also the sector, relatively speaking,  never really benefited from the emerging market build-out.. depending on what index you look at, its just gone down or sideways for a number of years.  There are always good opportunities though. It just takes time.  It would be nice if there were a wiki with each company’s pipeline, drug status, size-of-market, etc.
.
Here is a decent book on bubbles with good historical charts:
http://www.amazon.com/Hidden-C.....amp;sr=8-1

]]> By: Medemi http://www.midasoracle.org/2008/05/29/he-asks-questions-youll-provide-answers/#comment-18990 Medemi Sun, 01 Jun 2008 19:23:36 +0000 http://www.midasoracle.org/?p=7097#comment-18990 Hi Jason, - I came across this graph recently - "lifecycle of a bubble". It's interesting to see that institutional investors are not causing the bubble, according to this chart. - <a href="http://www.housepricecrash.co.uk/graphs-bubble-lifecycle.php" rel="nofollow">http://www.housepricecrash.co.uk/graphs-bubble-lifecycle.php</a> - I'm invested in biotechnology, nanotechnology and internet (IT) companies. ok, I will name one - Medarex (MEDX) It's cheap now because there's not a lot "on the horizon" and they're burning cash pretty fast. Even faster now because I believe they've expanded their product-pipeline from 9 to 12 potential new drugs. They will come up with something a couple of years from now IMO and I like their agressive mode, because they have some brilliant people working there. I doubled up my investment on this one 2 months ago. Very high risk investing... - I've been an active trader on the Nasdaq between 2000-2003, and pretty good at it. But I want to make some money in a responsible way. And the challenge for me is to be ahead of the smart money. Very difficult.   Hi Jason,
-
I came across this graph recently - “lifecycle of a bubble”.
It’s interesting to see that institutional investors are not causing the bubble, according to this chart.
-
http://www.housepricecrash.co......ecycle.php
-
I’m invested in biotechnology, nanotechnology and internet (IT) companies.
ok, I will name one - Medarex (MEDX)
It’s cheap now because there’s not a lot “on the horizon” and they’re burning cash pretty fast.
Even faster now because I believe they’ve expanded their product-pipeline from 9 to 12 potential new drugs.
They will come up with something a couple of years from now IMO and I like their agressive mode, because they have some brilliant people working there. I doubled up my investment on this one 2 months ago. Very high risk investing…
-
I’ve been an active trader on the Nasdaq between 2000-2003, and pretty good at it. But I want to make some money in a responsible way. And the challenge for me is to be ahead of the smart money. Very difficult.  

]]> By: Ed Murray http://www.midasoracle.org/2008/05/29/he-asks-questions-youll-provide-answers/#comment-18989 Ed Murray Sun, 01 Jun 2008 19:13:52 +0000 http://www.midasoracle.org/?p=7097#comment-18989 <em>Election markets would have to be restricted to domestic non-proxy accounts, somewhat like what Hedgestreet used to do. It would take resources, but from what I’ve seen the CFTC and NFA have the infrastructure in place to sniff-out proxy accounts pretty well. They also have the authority to enforce large trader lists. The exchanges just don’t have a choice. Exchange employees are also prohibited from trading on inside information gathered in their exchange duties, so they would legally be unable to take a position and then decide on the settlement. (the rules for which would be well-determined in advance anyway). - </em>Cheers - that set of regulations sounds absolutely mouthwatering in comparison to what we have here on the sports markets.  - Hopefully we'll get something like that one day :-( Election markets would have to be restricted to domestic non-proxy accounts, somewhat like what Hedgestreet used to do. It would take resources, but from what I’ve seen the CFTC and NFA have the infrastructure in place to sniff-out proxy accounts pretty well. They also have the authority to enforce large trader lists. The exchanges just don’t have a choice. Exchange employees are also prohibited from trading on inside information gathered in their exchange duties, so they would legally be unable to take a position and then decide on the settlement. (the rules for which would be well-determined in advance anyway).
-
Cheers - that set of regulations sounds absolutely mouthwatering in comparison to what we have here on the sports markets. 
-
Hopefully we’ll get something like that one day :-(

]]> By: Jason Ruspini http://www.midasoracle.org/2008/05/29/he-asks-questions-youll-provide-answers/#comment-18988 Jason Ruspini Sun, 01 Jun 2008 18:10:22 +0000 http://www.midasoracle.org/?p=7097#comment-18988 Ed, In principle you're right of course. Something might always slip through the cracks, but in practice, the safeguards that I mentioned should be effective enough that election and policy markets are a net positive, and by a wide margin. Most of your examples are specific criticisms of the status quo among Betfair and online bookmakers, who seem to have no strong, careful regulator like the CFTC. . Election markets would have to be restricted to domestic non-proxy accounts, somewhat like what Hedgestreet used to do. It would take resources, but from what I've seen the CFTC and NFA have the infrastructure in place to sniff-out proxy accounts pretty well. They also have the authority to enforce large trader lists. The exchanges just don't have a choice. Exchange employees are also prohibited from trading on inside information gathered in their exchange duties, so they would legally be unable to take a position and then decide on the settlement. (the rules for which would be well-determined in advance anyway). . Even if an election or policy process developed very quickly and was structured like a tennis tournament (where individual matches can immediately and completely determine the outcome of tournament-level contracts), in your example, if you were short Seles at the tournament level and you thought that she settled too high, you could go out and bet on her main rival at the match-level while she was still down. It might be disruptive and sub-optimal, but doesn't mean the method is fundamentally flawed. . Again, there are already trillions of dollars riding on elections and that has not seemed to produce the moral hazard of the kind you mention. Please keep the criticisms coming though! . Medemi, Self-fulfilling prophesies are possible but difficult for speculators to cause even with a fundamental basis. No doubt there is some aspect of a pyramid scheme to the price of crude, but how do you say what its worth should be compared to paper-money assets paying paper-money dividends? That seductive meme of energy-as-currency is more dangerous to the price of gasoline than the $200/barrel call. (and you could possibly begin to quantify the effect of the latter by looking at option prices before and after the media recently picked up on the call.) I think governments are starting to care and these commodity markets have already become a political battle ground. . You can always find individual equities that put up huge returns. So.. what stocks do you currently like? Or would it be immoral to tout them? :) Ed, In principle you’re right of course. Something might always slip through the cracks, but in practice, the safeguards that I mentioned should be effective enough that election and policy markets are a net positive, and by a wide margin. Most of your examples are specific criticisms of the status quo among Betfair and online bookmakers, who seem to have no strong, careful regulator like the CFTC.
.
Election markets would have to be restricted to domestic non-proxy accounts, somewhat like what Hedgestreet used to do. It would take resources, but from what I’ve seen the CFTC and NFA have the infrastructure in place to sniff-out proxy accounts pretty well. They also have the authority to enforce large trader lists. The exchanges just don’t have a choice. Exchange employees are also prohibited from trading on inside information gathered in their exchange duties, so they would legally be unable to take a position and then decide on the settlement. (the rules for which would be well-determined in advance anyway).
.
Even if an election or policy process developed very quickly and was structured like a tennis tournament (where individual matches can immediately and completely determine the outcome of tournament-level contracts), in your example, if you were short Seles at the tournament level and you thought that she settled too high, you could go out and bet on her main rival at the match-level while she was still down. It might be disruptive and sub-optimal, but doesn’t mean the method is fundamentally flawed.
.
Again, there are already trillions of dollars riding on elections and that has not seemed to produce the moral hazard of the kind you mention. Please keep the criticisms coming though!
.
Medemi, Self-fulfilling prophesies are possible but difficult for speculators to cause even with a fundamental basis. No doubt there is some aspect of a pyramid scheme to the price of crude, but how do you say what its worth should be compared to paper-money assets paying paper-money dividends? That seductive meme of energy-as-currency is more dangerous to the price of gasoline than the $200/barrel call. (and you could possibly begin to quantify the effect of the latter by looking at option prices before and after the media recently picked up on the call.) I think governments are starting to care and these commodity markets have already become a political battle ground.
.
You can always find individual equities that put up huge returns. So.. what stocks do you currently like? Or would it be immoral to tout them? :)

]]> By: Is Big Brother being fixed in Great Britain? And are the alleged fixers using BetFair to make a fast buck (or “quid”, as they say in the U.K.)? | Midas Oracle .ORG http://www.midasoracle.org/2008/05/29/he-asks-questions-youll-provide-answers/#comment-18976 Is Big Brother being fixed in Great Britain? And are the alleged fixers using BetFair to make a fast buck (or “quid”, as they say in the U.K.)? | Midas Oracle .ORG Sat, 31 May 2008 16:04:39 +0000 http://www.midasoracle.org/?p=7097#comment-18976 [...] Via Ed, The Daily Mail: [...] [...] Via Ed, The Daily Mail: [...]

]]> By: Medemi http://www.midasoracle.org/2008/05/29/he-asks-questions-youll-provide-answers/#comment-18975 Medemi Sat, 31 May 2008 13:44:45 +0000 http://www.midasoracle.org/?p=7097#comment-18975 Oh, it will change Ed. Once betfair figure out that the damage being done is not only limited to the rest of the planet, but is hurting betfair as well. At which point we'll probably have to listen to more crap from them. - Amazing story in the dailymail btw.... Oh, it will change Ed. Once betfair figure out that the damage being done is not only limited to the rest of the planet, but is hurting betfair as well. At which point we’ll probably have to listen to more crap from them.
-
Amazing story in the dailymail btw….

]]> By: Ed Murray http://www.midasoracle.org/2008/05/29/he-asks-questions-youll-provide-answers/#comment-18973 Ed Murray Sat, 31 May 2008 13:03:40 +0000 http://www.midasoracle.org/?p=7097#comment-18973 Thanks for the reply Jason.  Can I try to pick at a few bones? - <em>1-2) These markets could have insider trading restrictions and forced settlement w/ new contract set. </em>- Most (,...?) prediction markets are internet-based, and legal protection or trading restrictions etcetera are normally reactive retrospective frameworks to prevent repeats of previous examples of chicanery or skulduggery.  There is always another loophole, and it is usually one that people haven't foreseen.  If Hillary Clinton 2012 was miles ahead of Obama 2012, and winning every primary, with a multi million pound gamble on the prediction markets that she wouldn't be the Democratic candidate, there are so many risks involved.  The prediction market itself could be influencing events - a candidate who was diagnosed with a terminal illness, but was in the lead might stay in the race, so that they would have more time to feed money into the market.  It would make for a huge inheritance to their children.  A candidate who was miles in the lead might realise they have a once in a lifetime opportunity to place a huge bet on themselves not being the Democratic nominee, and the multi-millions of pounds on offer for a relatively tiny outlay, might lead them to withdraw from the race, in order to alter the result of the prediction market.  Obama 2008 could make a fortune betting on himself not to be the Democratic candidate, and then withdraw, and spend the rest of his life on a beach somewhere.  Ok, the Democratic nomination is not a perfect case study, but there are countless prediction markets out there, some of which will have a morally hazardous corruption of the actual market result, by one (or more) of the participants involved.  - What if there are no insider trading restrictions in place?  What if accounts placing huge wagers on a seemingly near-certain candidate to not become the actual nominee, are located in territories where they cannot be extradited from?  I think over here, there are some sports which don't have governing bodies co-operating with the prediction market protagonists, I'm not sure there is a Memorandum of Understanding between the snooker authorities and any of the exchanges (there may be one in place, but I don't think there is at the mo,.....).  The Big Brother exchange market is a multi-million pound one each year here, but there is no co-operation with the producers of that show.  They have said to me they despise Betfair, because of the constant negative publicity every single year with allegations of betting scams related to the Betfair market, for example - <a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-399914/Big-Brothers-betting-fix.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-399914/Big-Brothers-betting-fix.html</a> - <em>Big Brother's betting fix</em><a href="http://www.midasoracle.org/tvshowbiz/article-399914/Big-Brothers-betting-fix.html" rel="nofollow"><em> </em></a> <em>Scam: Rumours of insider dealing surround Nikki Grahame's return to the house</em> <em>Accusations of rigging continue to plague Big Brother as it now emerges that thousands of pounds were staked on Nikki Grahame to win even after she was evicted from the show.</em> <em>Several mystery big cash bets were placed on Nikki at 1,000-1 after her eviction, sparking fears that insiders knew she was going back into the house and decided to cash in.</em> - - The thing is, there was zero protection in place for people wagering on that prediction market.  They allowed a 999 to 1 contestant who had been eliminated, back into the show, and to be eligible to win.  It didnt' matter that she subsequently didn't go on to win, the Betfair software allows you to match up bets where you have backed at a high price (999 to 1), and then lay off at the price she then traded at (I think she went down to about 5 to 1) - Is it acceptable if the prediction market itself is driving events?  I think the answer is no, and said that to Betfair face to face.  If a market cannot be run independently of real events, it should not be offered any more.  There is no perfect solution, as a "scam" like this could affect one market, but if an event, or participants in an event, aren't trustworthy, there is no need to offer either future versions of that event, or matches featuring those participants.   Both Arguello and Davydenko had both had a number of suspicious matches before their encounter with each other, and had BF "red-carded" the two of them, the Davdenko v Arguello <em>prediction market </em>carnage would never have happened, and that match would have been played out normally.   Its worth noting that since that match with the negative publicity, every Davydenko market since that has been run, has behaved in a normal fluid manner, with the prices reflecting the current scores/state of play. - - - 3-4) The CFTC/NFA could monitor a “large trader” list and have special reporting requirements for them.  If trading seemed unreasonable given the objective outlook for a candidate, they could begin an investigation. - There is no "large trader" list for sports prediction markets.  I think we need either a monitored large trader list (a brand new account from a high roller staking huge money is not a problem, as long as he/she is betting on a level playing field, independent of the result of the prediction market).  However, there is an intrinsic flaw in the logic of having one, as a prediction market provider has a financial incentive to decide to take a very soft line towards any big account, as is the case currently with the betting exchanges in the UK.  Its probably better to remove temptation and have a maximum initial stake on a new account, and then let that maximum bet on that account grow organically over time.  This isn't perfect either (a high-rolling account can be used by a match fixer, should the two subsets of high-rollers and match fixers come into contact with one another), but it would be a drastic and overwhelming improvement on the status quo. - - - <em>5) Don’t void or unwind the market, just settle the contracts at the price immediately before the event and then start a new set of contracts as soon as possible.</em> - People wager according to their own estimates of the probabilities.  The prices on the prediction market may not accurately reflect the real probabilities of an event happening or not happening, so it could be intrinsically unfair to settle the market at midpoint.  There is a problem here as well for sports prediction markets - many people have bets with both bookmakers and on the exchanges simultaneously, and there would be no uniform settlement.  This happened with a golf tournament in either 2006 or 2007, where the tournament was completed over a shortened number of holes, due to terrible weather, and caused a big rumpus over here.  I think it was a (fairly big) tournament on the US tour, but I cannot remember the name of it. - The goal is to remove a financial incentive/moral hazard from the runnings or final result of a prediction market.  Settling at midpoint in a tennis tournament could be a nightmare - what if Seles was stabbed, but her main rival was at that moment a set and matchpoints down against another competitor.  What if Seles's main rival then came back to win that match?  Betfair staff are allowed to and encouraged to bet on Betfair (which I agree with, it helps them to understand their own product when they are dealing with customers), but what if the person deciding the time of midpoint had a personal position themselves on the market?  In that case it would have been better for Betfair to not allow the arbiters/midpoint settlers, to bet into the BF market, which would be a change of current ethos. - The overall goal is independence of prediction markets from offering financial motives to the participants to alter the result or the intra-trades on the market.  The current non-proactive climate, where people can bet in super size freely, with positions that bookmakers would never accept on brand new accounts, is imo not the right one, and will hopefully change. Thanks for the reply Jason.  Can I try to pick at a few bones?
-
1-2) These markets could have insider trading restrictions and forced settlement w/ new contract set.
-
Most (,…?) prediction markets are internet-based, and legal protection or trading restrictions etcetera are normally reactive retrospective frameworks to prevent repeats of previous examples of chicanery or skulduggery.  There is always another loophole, and it is usually one that people haven’t foreseen.  If Hillary Clinton 2012 was miles ahead of Obama 2012, and winning every primary, with a multi million pound gamble on the prediction markets that she wouldn’t be the Democratic candidate, there are so many risks involved.  The prediction market itself could be influencing events - a candidate who was diagnosed with a terminal illness, but was in the lead might stay in the race, so that they would have more time to feed money into the market.  It would make for a huge inheritance to their children.  A candidate who was miles in the lead might realise they have a once in a lifetime opportunity to place a huge bet on themselves not being the Democratic nominee, and the multi-millions of pounds on offer for a relatively tiny outlay, might lead them to withdraw from the race, in order to alter the result of the prediction market.  Obama 2008 could make a fortune betting on himself not to be the Democratic candidate, and then withdraw, and spend the rest of his life on a beach somewhere.  Ok, the Democratic nomination is not a perfect case study, but there are countless prediction markets out there, some of which will have a morally hazardous corruption of the actual market result, by one (or more) of the participants involved. 
-
What if there are no insider trading restrictions in place?  What if accounts placing huge wagers on a seemingly near-certain candidate to not become the actual nominee, are located in territories where they cannot be extradited from?  I think over here, there are some sports which don’t have governing bodies co-operating with the prediction market protagonists, I’m not sure there is a Memorandum of Understanding between the snooker authorities and any of the exchanges (there may be one in place, but I don’t think there is at the mo,…..).  The Big Brother exchange market is a multi-million pound one each year here, but there is no co-operation with the producers of that show.  They have said to me they despise Betfair, because of the constant negative publicity every single year with allegations of betting scams related to the Betfair market, for example
-
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvs.....g-fix.html
-

Big Brother’s betting fix

Scam: Rumours of insider dealing surround Nikki Grahame’s return to the house

Accusations of rigging continue to plague Big Brother as it now emerges that thousands of pounds were staked on Nikki Grahame to win even after she was evicted from the show.
Several mystery big cash bets were placed on Nikki at 1,000-1 after her eviction, sparking fears that insiders knew she was going back into the house and decided to cash in.
-
-
The thing is, there was zero protection in place for people wagering on that prediction market.  They allowed a 999 to 1 contestant who had been eliminated, back into the show, and to be eligible to win.  It didnt’ matter that she subsequently didn’t go on to win, the Betfair software allows you to match up bets where you have backed at a high price (999 to 1), and then lay off at the price she then traded at (I think she went down to about 5 to 1)
-
Is it acceptable if the prediction market itself is driving events?  I think the answer is no, and said that to Betfair face to face.  If a market cannot be run independently of real events, it should not be offered any more.  There is no perfect solution, as a “scam” like this could affect one market, but if an event, or participants in an event, aren’t trustworthy, there is no need to offer either future versions of that event, or matches featuring those participants.   Both Arguello and Davydenko had both had a number of suspicious matches before their encounter with each other, and had BF “red-carded” the two of them, the Davdenko v Arguello prediction market carnage would never have happened, and that match would have been played out normally.   Its worth noting that since that match with the negative publicity, every Davydenko market since that has been run, has behaved in a normal fluid manner, with the prices reflecting the current scores/state of play.
-
-
-
3-4) The CFTC/NFA could monitor a “large trader” list and have special reporting requirements for them.  If trading seemed unreasonable given the objective outlook for a candidate, they could begin an investigation.
-
There is no “large trader” list for sports prediction markets.  I think we need either a monitored large trader list (a brand new account from a high roller staking huge money is not a problem, as long as he/she is betting on a level playing field, independent of the result of the prediction market).  However, there is an intrinsic flaw in the logic of having one, as a prediction market provider has a financial incentive to decide to take a very soft line towards any big account, as is the case currently with the betting exchanges in the UK.  Its probably better to remove temptation and have a maximum initial stake on a new account, and then let that maximum bet on that account grow organically over time.  This isn’t perfect either (a high-rolling account can be used by a match fixer, should the two subsets of high-rollers and match fixers come into contact with one another), but it would be a drastic and overwhelming improvement on the status quo.
-
-
-
5) Don’t void or unwind the market, just settle the contracts at the price immediately before the event and then start a new set of contracts as soon as possible.
-
People wager according to their own estimates of the probabilities.  The prices on the prediction market may not accurately reflect the real probabilities of an event happening or not happening, so it could be intrinsically unfair to settle the market at midpoint.  There is a problem here as well for sports prediction markets - many people have bets with both bookmakers and on the exchanges simultaneously, and there would be no uniform settlement.  This happened with a golf tournament in either 2006 or 2007, where the tournament was completed over a shortened number of holes, due to terrible weather, and caused a big rumpus over here.  I think it was a (fairly big) tournament on the US tour, but I cannot remember the name of it.
-
The goal is to remove a financial incentive/moral hazard from the runnings or final result of a prediction market.  Settling at midpoint in a tennis tournament could be a nightmare - what if Seles was stabbed, but her main rival was at that moment a set and matchpoints down against another competitor.  What if Seles’s main rival then came back to win that match?  Betfair staff are allowed to and encouraged to bet on Betfair (which I agree with, it helps them to understand their own product when they are dealing with customers), but what if the person deciding the time of midpoint had a personal position themselves on the market?  In that case it would have been better for Betfair to not allow the arbiters/midpoint settlers, to bet into the BF market, which would be a change of current ethos.
-
The overall goal is independence of prediction markets from offering financial motives to the participants to alter the result or the intra-trades on the market.  The current non-proactive climate, where people can bet in super size freely, with positions that bookmakers would never accept on brand new accounts, is imo not the right one, and will hopefully change.

]]> By: The CFTC launched an investigation into potential irregularities in the cotton-futures market. The probe concerns a dramatic spike in cotton prices, followed by a drop, in early March 2008. | Midas Oracle .ORG http://www.midasoracle.org/2008/05/29/he-asks-questions-youll-provide-answers/#comment-18970 The CFTC launched an investigation into potential irregularities in the cotton-futures market. The probe concerns a dramatic spike in cotton prices, followed by a drop, in early March 2008. | Midas Oracle .ORG Sat, 31 May 2008 09:04:49 +0000 http://www.midasoracle.org/?p=7097#comment-18970 [...] Of interest to Jason Ruspini, regarding his last comment on Midas Oracle. [...] [...] Of interest to Jason Ruspini, regarding his last comment on Midas Oracle. [...]

]]> By: Medemi http://www.midasoracle.org/2008/05/29/he-asks-questions-youll-provide-answers/#comment-18967 Medemi Fri, 30 May 2008 23:34:36 +0000 http://www.midasoracle.org/?p=7097#comment-18967 Pyramid schemes comes to mind. People have gone to jail for less. :-D I will have no part of it. In 2003 I decided to invest my money in companies based on fundamentals. The price of oil can go to $300 for all I care. Means less trafic jams for me. But some people are really hurting at current price levels. And the government doesn't care. Pyramid schemes comes to mind. People have gone to jail for less. :-D
I will have no part of it. In 2003 I decided to invest my money in companies based on fundamentals.
The price of oil can go to $300 for all I care. Means less trafic jams for me. But some people are really hurting at current price levels. And the government doesn’t care.

]]>