Friday, May 30, 2014

Perspective on EM Rally

Emerging markets have been on quite a tear this year.  Just as pretty much everyone gave up on the asset class, the emerging markets ETF (EEM) made a low in December and has rallied by over 16% since.
The question now is whether or not the sector has reversed its multi-year downtrend relative to the United States.  The chart below shows the relative strength of emerging market equities compared to the S&P 500 using the ratio of ETFs EEM (emerging market ETF) and SPY (S&P 500 ETF) as a proxy.  When the line is rising, it indicates that emerging markets are outperforming the S&P 500 and vice versa when the line is falling.  In spite of the big run in emerging markets over the last four months, it barely registers when looking at a two-year chart of the sector's relative strength versus the S&P 500.  Additionally, the recent high in the ratio still has yet to clear the low in the ratio from 2013.  That being said, the downtrend from the late 2012 peak has indeed been broken.  While you should probably wait until the prior low in the ratio from late 2012 is cleared, if the turn for emerging markets is truly here, there is a lot of room for additional upside just to erase the relative weakness from 2013.

Thursday, May 29, 2014

Arden: The real reason hedge funds have been underperforming

Hedge funds have long been accused of clustering, or crowding into too many of the same trades -- whether their herding behavior is better or worse than that of other institutional investors is a matter of much debate. Another recent—and frequent—­­­­complaint has been that hedge funds underperform the broader market, with an average return one third that of the S&P 500 Index for 2013.
As the monthly numbers for May begin to come in, we will surely be hearing more about struggling hedge funds, but this misreads both how hedge funds work and recent events in the market.
First of all, when people talk about "hedge funds" in this case they are actually referring to long/short equity funds such as the one founded in 1949 by Alfred Winslow Jones, the sociologist and journalist (he wrote for Fortune) who popularized the term (and that particular strategy; there are now many different strategies that fall under the umbrella term "hedge fund" that perform differently from each other). The reason Jones—and a great many subsequent managers—embraced the long/short strategy is that it enables you to make money in good markets on your longs and in bad markets on your shorts. This is not to say that in all markets you will make money on both your longs and your shorts, rather that the combination of profits on longs in rising markets and shorts in falling markets will create an attractive, diversifying return over time.
Very rarely, however, the longs and the shorts both underperform the markets during the same month. According to our analysis based on data from Goldman Sachs, this dual underperformance has happened only 10 times—or 6.5% of the time—since Goldman began tracking hedge fund holdings and monthly performance in 2001. Yet it happened in March, and then it happened again in April, making two consecutive months of losses on both the long and short side for the first time ever. So while the S&P 500 has posted a 2% rise so far this year, equity long/short funds have declined by about the same amount.
You might think from looking at the S&P 500 that not much has happened during this two month period, but underneath that broad index there has been a substantial shift out of growth and momentum stocks—including many of the most popular and significant longs in hedge funds such as Google (GOOG) and Apple (AAPL) —and into the more defensive value stocks, which are currently under-owned by hedge funds. The reversal was fairly severe, with the technology and healthcare sectors hit hardest, in addition to some internet stocks that recently went public, which, prior to the sell-off, had unrealistic and aggressive forward growth estimates priced into the stock prices. The crowding into, and out of, those trades isn't a cause but a symptom of the narrowing of the market in general, where small changes in the supply/demand imbalance can have a dramatic impact on market prices (in this case, the catalyst for the sell-off was comments by the Fed's Janet Yellen in February that were perceived as hawkish).
This situation is unusual, but it can happen in the latter stages of a bull market (the industry's euphemism for it is "a period of consolidation"). Typically during this stage of the cycle, the weakest hands enter the market and chase what had worked for the preceding periods, in this case growth and momentum versus value. Then when the trades do not work out as planned, as has been the case in the last two months, the weak hands are first to unwind their positions, creating selling pressure on both sides of the portfolio, long and short.
There have been similar periods where large themes and crowded positions have moved against hedge fund managers, but historically, these periods have been short-lived. In the past, those managers who stayed the course usually discovered that these conditions are transitory and don't last.
The takeaway is not that hedge funds are laggards, or trades are too crowded, but more simply this: There are times when being long/short doesn't always work, but they are usually short-term. In the last few years, the long-only strategies have outperformed the more diversified, long/short strategies. Over the long term, however, the theory still holds true that diversification is the only free lunch in finance. That's the long and short of it.
Ian McDonald is chief investment officer of Arden Asset Management and Darren Wolf is director of research. This article represents the authors' viewpoint of the subject matter contained and is not intended as investment advice or recommendation for a specific subject. 

The Liquid Hedge Fund that Never Goes Up

Today we’re going to talk about the boom in hedge fund-like mutual funds .
I once looked at a “liquid alternative fund” from Natixis – liquid alts are products that purport to offer hedge fund strategies in a ’40 Act mutual fund wrapper – and I couldn’t understand a word of what the wholesaler was talking about.
It was early 2011 and they were pushing this Dr. Andrew Lo vehicle called ASG Diversifying Strategies Fund. The idea what that Dr. Lo, perhaps one of the most brilliant quantitative scientists and academicians in finance (MIT, Harvard, all kinds of awards, PhDs out the ass, etc), would be incorporating a variety of approaches to manage the fund using all asset classes, derivatives and trading methodologies that he and his team saw fit to apply. As the strategies were explained to me, I nodded as though I understood – but it was Greek, locked in a black box, dumped into a river, in the middle of the night, as far as I was concerned.
Regretfully, I declined to get myself involved. But I promised the nice man from the mutual fund company to watch it and perhaps feel foolish in hindsight.
But that’s not what ended up happening.
What actually did happen was this: Andy Lo, maybe one of the smartest men in the history of finance, managed to invent a product that literally cannot make money in any environment. It’s an extraordinarily rare accomplishment; I don’t think you could go out and invent something that always loses money if you were actually attempting to.
Since its inception in August of 2009 – weeks after the generational bottom – the ASG Div Strat Fund lost money during almost every quarter. It’s compounding at something like negative 7% a year since 2010. It managed to lose money in a bad market (2011, negative 2.75%), a good market (2012, return was negative 7.69%) and a raging bull market (2013, in which it lost another 8%, inexplicably). It’s hard to say that it’s meant as a bear market vehicle or a short fund, because it actually earned 8% in 2010 with the S&P up 15. So if you ask “What is the ideal environment for this strategy?” the answer is that there isn’t one.
By the way, it’s actually somehow down another .73% year-to-date – with stocks, commodities and bonds all higher so far in 2014. I have no idea what the hell is in this thing. I don’t think I’ve ever seen anything like it.
In the meantime, this fund – and other alternative funds like it – takes a net internal expense ratio of close to 2% of assets while the brokers who sold their clients the A shares have been paid 5.75% upon purchase.
In other words, if this is the “alternative”, the real thing probably ain’t all that bad in comparison. Actually, just for the hell of it, let’s look at the alternatives to the alternative since this fund’s start date:
We won’t even get into the turnover and tax consequences here…
And yes, this is an extreme example – but again, coming from an extremely well-pedigreed management team, perhaps the best you could find. You would write Dr. Lo a check ten seconds after seeing him speak somewhere, trust me.
So this is why you rarely see fiduciary advisors getting excited about black boxes and unorthodox strategies – even when wrapped inside a friendly mutual fund casing.
But brokers on the other hand…
Wall Street Journal:
In 2013, liquid-alternative funds made up half of the net sales at firms like Bank of America Corp.’s Merrill Lynch and Morgan Stanley that sell mutual funds to investors, up from 38% in 2011, according to a report from Dover Financial Research, a Boston-based consulting firm, on behalf of the Money Management Institute, a trade association.
But despite that growth, investor portfolios have less than 5% of assets in liquid-alternatives funds, compared with as much as 20% recommended by banks.
One of the reasons money managers like the funds is the same reason financial advisers don’t: high fees. Because they use more complicated trades, the average expense ratio for a liquid-alternative fund is 1.9%, compared with 1.3% for a typical mutual fund and 0.8% for an index fund, according to Morningstar. An investor would pay $190 for every $10,000 invested in a liquid-alternative fund, versus $80 for every $10,000 in an index fund.


Tuesday, May 27, 2014

Here Is The Mystery, And Completely Indiscriminate, Buyer Of Stocks In The First Quarter

With the Fed having tapered its liquidity injections into the stock market from $85 billion to "only" $45 billion per month, retail investors getting burned by the recent high beta and momentum stock flame out and "greatly unrotating" into the renewed safety of bonds, not to mention a churning market that until last week was unchanged for the year, and hedge funds ever shorter into this latest ramp, many are asking themselves: who is buying?
Here is the answer.
According to the most recent CapitalIQ data, the single biggest buyer of stocks in the first quarter were none other than the companies of the S&P500 itself,which cumulatively repurchased a whopping $160 billion of their own stock in the first quarter!
Should the Q1 pace of buybacks persist into Q2 which has just one month left before it too enters the history books, the LTM period as of June 30, 2014 will be the greatest annual buyback tally in market history.
And now for the twist.
Unlike traditional investors who at least pretend to try to buy low and sell high, companies, who are simply buying back their own stock to reduce their outstanding stock float, have virtually zero cost considerations: if the corner office knows sales and Net Income (not EPS) will be weak in the quarter, they will tell their favorite broker to purchase $X billion of their shares with no regard for price: the only prerogative is to reduce the amount of shares outstanding and make the S in EPS lower, thus boosting the overall fraction in order to beat estimates for one more quarter.
Compounding this indiscriminate buying frenzy is that ever more companies (coughaaplecough... and IBM of course) are forced to issue debt in order to fund their repurchases. So since the cash flow statement merely acts as a pass-through vehicle and under ZIRP companies with Crap balance sheets are in fact rewarded (as even Bloomberg noted earlier) the actual risk of the company mispricing its stock buyback entry point is borne by the bond buyer who in chasing yield (with other people's money) serves as the funding source for these buybacks.
In short, corporate CEOs and CFOs couldn't care less if your friendly Wall Street broker uses the repurchase allocation to buyback the stock at all time highs.
In fact, since a vast majority of executive compensation agreements are tied to company stock "performance" C-suites are perversely happy if their own corporate cash is used to buy the stock near or at all time highs: after all management year end bonus will simply benefit that much more, while keeping activist investors delighted (and away from the embarrassing public spotlight).
So the next time someone asks who keeps on buying stock despite all the negative newsflow, despite the bond yield sliding ever lower despite relentless broken-record pleas that a "recovery is just around the corner", and with vol near all time lows confirming peak complacency... now you know.
* * *
Want more data? Here is buyback activity by year. While the 2007 S&P500 buyback record of just over $560 billion is safe for a few more weeks, should companies buyback as much stock in Q2 as they did in Q1 2014, then the Q2 2014 LTM buyback total will rise an all time high:

Don't forget: there is no such thing as a free lunch, bought with stock buybacks or otherwise. Contrary to all the lies you may have heard, corporate debt - both total and net - is now at an all time high!

Finally, these are the companies that are the most aggressive repurchasers of their own stock, or said otherwise, the companies that have no organic use for the cash and have zero ideas how to grow their top and bottom line or what capital projects to invest their excess capital, they only have stock buybacks as an option to give the impression of "growth."
Source: CapIQ
Your rating: None Average: 5 (51 votes)
Tue, 05/27/2014 - 14:23 | 4799049DoChenRollingBearing
DoChenRollingBearing's picture
Well, that explains that, I guess.  I'm just hanging on for the ride, waiting for the time to bail...
Tue, 05/27/2014 - 14:26 | 4799055TheRideNeverEnds
TheRideNeverEnds's picture
[spoiler] It never ends [spoiler]
Tue, 05/27/2014 - 14:29 | 4799068NoDebt
NoDebt's picture
Must be working.  10 more S&P points today.  Only 40 off of Goldman's NEW 1-year-from-now target number.  If we hit 1950 by next week who wants to be me they won't raise the target again?
Tue, 05/27/2014 - 14:34 | 4799078eclectic syncretist
eclectic syncretist's picture
It worked in Japan in the late 1980's and in the US in the late 1990's too, all they way up until it didn't work any more.
Tue, 05/27/2014 - 14:51 | 4799122nope-1004
nope-1004's picture
So.... is the "money on the sidelines" meme a thing of the past now?  Like "green chutes"?  That didn't take long.

Tue, 05/27/2014 - 14:51 |4799126Pladizow
Pladizow's picture
Soon....very soon....Skynet will own all.
Tue, 05/27/2014 - 14:57 |4799151dontgoforit
dontgoforit's picture
Isn't this like Green Giant buying it's own corn?
Tue, 05/27/2014 - 16:24 |4799405Ham-bone
Ham-bone's picture
Ok - crazy stuff...since '09, the the difference between the budget and trade deficits has very closely correlated w/ the "foreign Treasury demand"...which is to say as their was less excess dollars to be recycled by Foreigners into Treasury's, "foreigners" somehow increased their buying to soak up the excess debt  and @ progressively lower rates.  See (in bold) Foreign Treasury yoy increase in demand on left and  (in bold) Treasury debt yoy in excess of trade deficit on right...
This is in stark contrast w/ pre-crisis...
Is this the most blatant evidence the Fed is truly running a shadow QE through "foreign" locations???  If not, please explain...
Data Below....
Yr. - Foreign - Fed (y o y) = total /   Bud  /   Trade  / GDP / (Fed action)
        T buy       T buy                    Deficit / Deficit
     $6.1 T      $2.4 T (total holdings as of '13)
14. $250 B   $300 B   = $550 B / $-150  (-550) (-400) (-0.5%) est.
13.  $219 B    $542 B   = $760 B /$-205  (-680) (-475)  (1.9%) + tax hike (QE3)
12. $619       $21   = $640 / $-565  (-1100) (-535) (2.8%) (Twist)
11. $733      642   = $1375 / $-742  (-1299) (-557) (1.8%) (QE2)
10. $631      $245   = $876 / $-795  (-1294) (-499) (2.5%)
09. $672      $301   = $973 / $-1029  (-1413) (-384) (-2.8%) + tax reduction (QE1)
Post Crisis
08. $1147 $(-265)  = $880 / $243 B (-459) (-702)   (-0.3%) (FFR 0%) + TARP
07. $279    $(-39)   = $240 / $539 B (-161) (-700)   (1.8%)
06. $75         $35    = $105 / $504 B (-248)  (-752)  (2.7%)  (FFR 6.75%) 
Tue, 05/27/2014 - 16:26 | 4799483dontgoforit
dontgoforit's picture
Ahso!  They are actually increasing QE while lying about it?  Hang the bastards!  They are taking the world to the precipice of destruction.
Tue, 05/27/2014 - 16:35 | 4799519Bay of Pigs
Bay of Pigs's picture
You know the William Dudley is getting this all done via the BIS. All Central Banks are involved.
Tue, 05/27/2014 - 18:41 |4799896El Oregonian
El Oregonian's picture
This must be the prelude to the guy who held his breath going through a tunnel but failed to reach the otherside before he passed out and caused a 3-car accident in the tunnel.
The banksters are holding their collective breath.
Tue, 05/27/2014 - 16:37 | 4799526SafelyGraze
SafelyGraze's picture
buying back your stock is like drinking your pee
sure, it may seem creepy to other people
but in the desert you gotta do what you gotta do
don't forget your stillsuit 
Tue, 05/27/2014 - 16:44 |4799564ATM
ATM's picture
No it isn't. If a company can borrow money for nothing why wouldn't it buy back almost all it's stock? Hell, they should all be going private! 
That's not creepy. That plain old good sense in the world of insane centralized planning.
Tue, 05/27/2014 - 17:46 |4799748nope-1004
nope-1004's picture

"why wouldn't it buy back almost all it's stock?"
Because buying inflated phantom assets is risky, especially since the only evaluator (elevator) is (has been since 2000) the Fed.
If you rob Peter to pay Paul, who does Paul sell to?

Tue, 05/27/2014 - 18:18 |4799839Budd aka Sidewinder
Budd aka Sidewinder's picture
Tue, 05/27/2014 - 19:50 |4800090free_lunch
free_lunch's picture
But.. but.. "I can't eat an iPad".
Tue, 05/27/2014 - 16:58 | 4799539Ham-bone
Ham-bone's picture
in '13 - the US generated $205 B more in debt than trade deficit to be recycled to buy it...but magically the "foreign" demand increased by $219 B to buy up that debt
in '12 - $565 B more in debt than trade deficit...and magically "foreign" demand increased $619 B
in '11 - $742 B more in debt than trade deficit vs. $733 new "foreign" demand
'10 - $795 B vs. $631
quite a coincidence that "foreigners" would want to recycle more net dollars than the US is creating via it's trade deficit...and funny they'd want to do it at ever lower yields...and despite global trade being done progressively lless in dollars...
Tue, 05/27/2014 - 17:06 |4799636buyingsterling
buyingsterling's picture
I'd love to bookmark the original source if you can post it.
Tue, 05/27/2014 - 16:54 | 4799596SAT 800
SAT 800's picture
Look behind you, the precipice is that end of the road there hanging out in space about fifty yards back.
Tue, 05/27/2014 - 18:10 |4799810OldPhart
Tue, 05/27/2014 - 18:01 | 4799790free_lunch
free_lunch's picture
Not destructing, more like buying the world.. Keep the profits in the family kind-a-thing?
Tue, 05/27/2014 - 16:34 | 4799513gdpetti
gdpetti's picture
That's what the currency swaps were for and continue so today... said to be over 30 trillion years ago, who knows about today... James Rickards was talking about this the other day. It seems the EU is fronting for the Fed these days, thus the whole Belgium scenario.
Tue, 05/27/2014 - 17:19 | 4799621Ham-bone
Ham-bone's picture
you mean this...
GLOBAL BANKING CENTERS (treasury holdings)
  • ————- Jan ’00—> ’07 ——> Mar ’14
  • “Carribean banking centers”
  • —————$35 B —> $68 B -—> $312 B
  • UK — ——-$50 B —> $100 B —> $176 B
  • Switzerland $18 B —> $34 B —-> $176 B
  • HK ———– $39 B —> $52 B —> $156 B
  • Singapore —$30 B —> $30 B —–> $91 B
  • Ireland ———$5 B -—> $19 B —> $113 B
  • Belgium ——$28 B ––> $13 B —> $381 B
  • Luxemburg —-$5 B ––> $60 B —> $145 B
  • TOTAL —– $210 B –> $376 B —> $1,550 T (410% increase from ’07)
In the same period ('07-'14), Japan and China (combined) increased their Treasury holdings by net $1.4 T on a trade surplus w/ the US of $3 T over the period...Amazingly these banking nations similarly had a $1.2 T increase w/ relatively no trade surplus w/ the US???  Hello Treasury demand well in excess of trade deficits!!!
Tue, 05/27/2014 - 17:25 |4799703Tinky
Tinky's picture
Keep hammering this home, Ham! It won't be too long before sober economic pundits point it out after doing forensic accounting in the wake of the impending crash.
Tue, 05/27/2014 - 19:44 |4800071free_lunch
free_lunch's picture
Seems half the west has it's eggs in the US basket..

"And we would all go down together":
Tue, 05/27/2014 - 14:56 | 4799147Headbanger
Headbanger's picture
This means there is virtually no market participation of buyers but only a few CFOs propping up the """market""" now.
Me thinks their primary motivation is to reduce the number of shares outstanding to boost EPS maybe in seeing the economy falling fast.

Tue, 05/27/2014 - 15:31 |4799302TheReplacement
TheReplacement's picture
Dear So-n-So CEO person,
The NSA informs us that you have been looking at naughty pictures of little kids.  Well, even if you haven't been, the pictures are on your computer now.  Let's just keep this between us.  Nobody, not you, me, your company, nor our country needs this scandal now. 
So if you know what is good for you, you will take the the money we are offering to loan you and buy back your company's stock.  Just think, if you do a good enough job your EPS will look great and you'll get a big fat bonus.
PS - Don't leave town.
Tue, 05/27/2014 - 15:00 | 4799160t0mmyBerg
t0mmyBerg's picture
This meme has been building for awhile.  I wrote to my guys a few months ago about buybacks as the ultimate reason stocks are at all time highs.  And why not?  If your borrowing costs are close to 0, then you can keep the bonuses flowing by borrowing and reducing the float.  You get rich for essentially doing nothing of any value at all.  Thanks Fed!  So when does it end?  When there is actually a cost to borrowing money (you mean money has a time value? What?).  When will that happen?  If you believe the talking heads, any day now.  Realistically, it may be quite a while.  Although Kyle Bass seems to think that the Fed will THINK their econ forecasts are spot on (they aren't) and raise rates just as the nex recession starts.  Nice work if you can get it.  What a fucking bunch of brass asshats.
Tue, 05/27/2014 - 15:26 |4799270Jstanley011
Jstanley011's picture
So, you're saying that artificially holding down interest rates wasn't such a good idea after all? Whooda thunk?...
Tue, 05/27/2014 - 16:14 |4799449SAT 800
SAT 800's picture
just think of it as a new wonder medication; that has a few "side effects".
Tue, 05/27/2014 - 14:37 | 4799083ArkansasAngie
ArkansasAngie's picture
I'm guessing they don't mind being front run either?  
Tue, 05/27/2014 - 14:27 | 4799060Badabing
Badabing's picture
i just pulled $100 out of my left pocket and put it into my right!
easy money
Tue, 05/27/2014 - 14:28 | 4799066LawsofPhysics
LawsofPhysics's picture
What's your fee?
Tue, 05/27/2014 - 14:58 | 4799130nope-1004
nope-1004's picture
New accounting rules stipulate he can mark to mystery, so really he took out $100 and gave the right hand $50, losing $50.  The Fed will cover the loss of $50, PLUS he gets a bonus at year end for "having 100% return on his capital".  lmfao...  and prolly zero days of trading losses.

Tue, 05/27/2014 - 14:29 | 4799069Dr. Richard Head
Dr. Richard Head's picture
You are now qualified to be a Professor at an Ivy League School!!!  Congratulations are in order.
Tue, 05/27/2014 - 14:36 | 4799082Pool Shark
Pool Shark's picture

Ivy League Professor???!!!
Hell, Krugman got a Nobel Prize utilizing that same logic...

Tue, 05/27/2014 - 14:42 | 4799102machineh
machineh's picture
Logic? He found it enclosed as a bonus, in an order of shrimp tacos.
Tue, 05/27/2014 - 14:58 |4799157dontgoforit
dontgoforit's picture
Obama got a Nobel prize for...being born?
Tue, 05/27/2014 - 15:24 |4799264RealityCheque
RealityCheque's picture
No he got it for killing brown people in other countries.
Tue, 05/27/2014 - 17:01 |4799613SameAsItEverWas
SameAsItEverWas's picture
Obama got a Nobel prize for...being born?
Born in Kenya like his father was, per his Harvard Law Review bio?
We need a Canuck in the WH.  Ted Cruz in 2016!
Tue, 05/27/2014 - 14:55 | 4799124Chupacabra-322
Chupacabra-322's picture
Bilderburg attendee:
USA Feldstein, Martin S. Professor of Economics, Harvard University;
USA Summers, Lawrence H. Charles W. Eliot University Professor, Harvard University
Tue, 05/27/2014 - 16:13 | 4799445SAT 800
SAT 800's picture
But do they go to the same Synagogue?
Tue, 05/27/2014 - 16:36 | 4799521Kirk2NCC1701
Kirk2NCC1701's picture
Moral:  You many not be able to pick your parents, but youcan choose where to study or worship, if getting to the Top matters to you.
Tue, 05/27/2014 - 15:19 | 4799241valley chick
valley chick's picture
Even this valley chick gets it.  Who needs a stinking degree nowadays!:-) 
Tue, 05/27/2014 - 15:44 | 4799349Miffed Microbio...
Miffed Microbiologist's picture
Even a microbiologist does too. Unfortunately, getting it in this case doesn't mean you can do any damn thing about it which frustrates the hell out of me at times. How long this scenario can be propelled by fumes is a never ending source of personal contemplation. Sometimes I feel like Bill Murray in Groundhog Day.
Tue, 05/27/2014 - 16:12 | 4799442SAT 800
SAT 800's picture
NO; as you were transferring the money, members of the public saw you doing it, and decided you must be a successful business man, so they offered to invest their money with you; and after you gave them little pieces of paper saying they had invested with you, you put $127, in your right hand pocket. The suckers provide Beta on t he actual.
Tue, 05/27/2014 - 14:27 | 4799064LawsofPhysics
LawsofPhysics's picture
Leverage is "free", so why not?  I wonder what happens should they decide to sell?  If these stocks go "bidless" what happens?
Tue, 05/27/2014 - 14:32 | 4799077NotApplicable
NotApplicable's picture
Wake up Kevin Henry?
Tue, 05/27/2014 - 15:33 | 4799310ForWhomTheTollBuilds
ForWhomTheTollBuilds's picture
OH!  OH!!!  I KNOW!

They change the rules?

Lunch is for wimps

Lunch is for wimps
It's not a question of enough, pal. It's a zero sum game, somebody wins, somebody loses. Money itself isn't lost or made, it's simply transferred from one perception to another.