© Copyright 2007-2024 iBankCoin All rights reserved under penalty of bodily harm. DISCLAIMER: This is a personal web site, reflecting the opinions of its author(s). It is not a production of my employer, and it is unaffiliated with any FINRA broker/dealer. Statements on this site do not represent the views or policies of anyone other than myself. The information on this site is provided for discussion purposes only, and are not investing recommendations. Under no circumstances does this information represent a recommendation to buy or sell securities. DATA INFORMATION IS PROVIDED TO THE USERS "AS IS." NEITHER iBankCoin, NOR ITS AFFILIATES, NOR ANY THIRD PARTY DATA PROVIDER MAKE ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND REGARDING THE DATA INFORMATION, INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE OR USE. Privacy Policy
Someone needs to bitch slap Joe and explain to him how statistics work. What kind of moron believes having a significant number of people LOWERING THEIR ESTIMATES in a sample could result in key statistics RAISING IN ESTIMATE. In this case, sure the mode shifts right, but the median and mean of the sample both shift lower, meaning before 2014.
When you have such a wide deviation in a distribution, that it’s almost basically uniform, the mode is not a useful measurement. Especially since Bernanke operates on concensus formed around actual data. Not bullshit expectations.
Lol, but, but the bar would look bigger Cain!
Let’s fail to mention 2016 rate hike would be taken off the table and lets assume we know that people wouldn’t look into this beyond “hey that’s a big bar” and lets also assume the natural reaction to “hey that’s a big bar” would be to totally freak out.
I rolled my eyes when he said “A trader just described to us how things could play out…”
I’m sure the trader is someone that tries to get ahead of the curve by attempting to fade the faders, fading the faders.