A trader asked a question:

I have been searching far and wide for a trader who can define a trend. None have lived up to the task…I have read piles of books and none have been able to answer my question either.

Ed Seykota on his FAQ answered:

Part of the problem you may be having in defining a trend is that trends do not exist. Like the past and the future, a trend is merely an idea. There is no such thing in nature. Trend is an idea about the overall average historical direction of prices; trend is a convenient way to view history; trends do not indicate the direction of prices in the moment of now, or even exist in the moment of now. Furthermore, The methods you use to define trend (to view history) are entirely up to you, so you get to define trend any way you wish; everyone may have a different idea of “the” trend. Let’s say you make a graph the volume of air in your lungs. If you define trend by the one-second average, your air volume trend may change several times per minute. If you define trend by a 90-day average, then your air volume trend may gradually increase for several decades and then decrease.

Reason Bran is good for you.

Feedback in:

About the feedback you received on auctions from Marc, I think it’s fascinating that he starts out with “tremendous controversy about the ‘true’ value of these paintings” with the word true in quotes, a quotation mark usage I agree with, but then goes on to say “everything from obscure low-value art, up to Picasso works” without acknowledging that the worth of a Picasso is just as much a “true” value, arbitrary and determined solely by how much a buyer is willing to pay, as that of so-called “low-value art,” yet he places no quotation marks around the phrase low-value art. It’s fascinating because he probably did this unconsciously, not aware of the glaring contradiction.

Good day,
Neil

Is there a way to get above-market returns on the cheap? John Cassidy writes. The New York Times adds to this with Building a Hedge Fund, With No Manager Required.

Forget liberal or conservative, the idea of a “fairness doctrine” is subjective !@#$. This excerpt should scare thinking people to their core:

WASHINGTON, June 24 (UPI) — U.S. Sen. Diane Feinstein, D-Calif., said Sunday she is “looking at” the possibility of reviving the fairness doctrine for U.S. broadcasters. Feinstein, speaking on “Fox News Sunday” with Sen. Trent Lott, R-Miss., said talk radio in particular has presented a one-sided view of immigration reform legislation being considered by the Senate. U.S. talk radio is dominated by conservative voices. “This is a very complicated bill,” said Feinstein. “Most people don’t know what’s in this bill. Therefore, to just have one or two things dramatized and taken out of context, such as the word amnesty — we have a silent amnesty right now, but nobody goes into that. Nobody goes into the flaws of our broken system.” Feinstein said the measure before the Senate “fixes those flaws” but that doesn’t get presented on talk radio, which she said “pushes people to … extreme views without a lot of information.” Asked if she would revive the fairness doctrine, which used to require broadcasters to present competing sides of controversial issues, Feinstein said she was “looking at it.” “I remember when there was a fairness doctrine,” she said, “and I think there was much more serious correct reporting to people.”

Put aside this particular issue, what happens when it is another issue? What happens when it is the issue of money and markets? Where do these lines get drawn and by whom?

The guys over at the Freakonomics blog have a nice comment on a new book that tackles our continuing odd decision-making habits.

A nice little article on channeling your inner millionaire.