Hedge fund manager profited from death arbitrage.
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-08-16/hedge-fund-manager-profit... "A vital function of the financial system is to shift risk, but that is mostly a euphemism. Finance can't make risks go away, or even really move them all that much. When the financial system shifts the risk of X happening from Y to Z, all that means is that Z gives Y money if X happens. If X was going to happen to Y, it's still going to happen to Y. But now Y gets money. Death is a central fact of human existence, the fundamental datum that gives meaning to life, but it is also a risk -- you never know when it will happen! -- and so the financial industry has figured out ways to shift it. Not in any supernatural sense, I mean, but in the regular financial-industry sense: by giving people money when death happens to them. One cannot know for certain how much of a consolation that is.""Another vital function of the financial system is to brutally punish the mispricing of risk through arbitrage. Actually I don't really know how vital that one is, but people are pretty into it. If someone under- or overestimates a risk, someone else will find a way to make them pay for it. That's how markets, even the market for death, stay efficient.""The normal way to shift the risk of death is life insurance -- you die, the insurance company gives you money -- but there are other, more esoteric versions, and they are more susceptible to arbitrage.One version involves "medium and long-term bonds and certificates of deposit ('CDs') that contain 'survivor options' or 'death puts.'" Schematically, the idea is that a financial institution issues a bond that pays back $100 when it matures in 2040 or whatever. But if the buyer of the bond dies, he gets his $100 back immediately, instead of having to wait until 2040. He's still dead, though."[end of partial quote] AP ('Assassination Politics'; https://cryptome.org/ap.htm ) can be considered to be 'death arbitrage' with a few key differences: The person who will die isn't part of the agreement, and doesn't profit when the initial deal is struck, nor later. Jim Bell
On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 06:09:23PM +0000, jim bell wrote:
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-08-16/hedge-fund-manager-profit...
SEE that email quoting symbol above - the ">"?!! Yes I thought you could - ther'es a dang space after it!!!!! That's just, terrible. This is gotta stop!
"A vital function of the financial system is to shift risk, but that is mostly a euphemism. Finance can't make risks go away, or even really move them all that much. When the financial system shifts the risk of X happening from Y to Z, all that means is that Z gives Y money if X happens. If X was going to happen to Y, it's still going to happen to Y. But now Y gets money. Death is a central fact of human existence, the fundamental datum that gives meaning to life, but it is also a risk -- you never know when it will happen! -- and so the financial industry has figured out ways to shift it.
You know, it might be really funny if in fact all the IMF's SDRs (special drawing rights - i.e. sanctioned right to print money, even without any loan-promise-to-repay backing those fiats) were really backed by birth certificates, and some portion closed off each month with corresponding death certificates. Could explain why demoncratic governments are so hell bent on ever more intense cotton-wool-society statutes? (a few years back, we had someone in Victoria, Australia, booked for speeding at 61km/hr in a 60km/hr zone - don't recall if they won their court case or not - it IS an absolute offense after all). Naaaaah! They would never arbitrage all human lives explicitly against fiat dollar printing rights - that would be like, like, like a conspiracy or something.
On 08/16/2016 12:09 PM, jim bell wrote: <SNIP>
AP ('Assassination Politics'; https://cryptome.org/ap.htm ) can be considered to be 'death arbitrage' with a few key differences: The person who will die isn't part of the agreement, and doesn't profit when the initial deal is struck, nor later.
Ah, but someone with a huge bet on their death could commit suicide, and so their estate would profit. Or is that against AP rules?
On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 09:07:59PM -0600, Mirimir wrote:
On 08/16/2016 12:09 PM, jim bell wrote:
<SNIP>
AP ('Assassination Politics'; https://cryptome.org/ap.htm ) can be considered to be 'death arbitrage' with a few key differences: The person who will die isn't part of the agreement, and doesn't profit when the initial deal is struck, nor later.
Ah, but someone with a huge bet on their death could commit suicide, and so their estate would profit. Or is that against AP rules?
"The rules" are the rules formed in the respective contracts, presumably - how could it be any other way? Therefore unsuccessful or "gamed" contracts would be the fodder of lessons learnt for future contracts in the competitive market for assassination contracts, which is that which AP presupposes...
Dnia środa, 17 sierpnia 2016 14:01:02 CEST Zenaan Harkness pisze:
On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 09:07:59PM -0600, Mirimir wrote:
On 08/16/2016 12:09 PM, jim bell wrote:
<SNIP>
AP ('Assassination Politics'; https://cryptome.org/ap.htm ) can be considered to be 'death arbitrage' with a few key differences: The person who will die isn't part of the agreement, and doesn't profit when the initial deal is struck, nor later.
Ah, but someone with a huge bet on their death could commit suicide, and so their estate would profit. Or is that against AP rules?
"The rules" are the rules formed in the respective contracts, presumably - how could it be any other way?
Therefore unsuccessful or "gamed" contracts would be the fodder of lessons learnt for future contracts in the competitive market for assassination contracts, which is that which AP presupposes...
Yeah, because that approach worked so well for The DAO. :) -- Pozdrawiam, Michał "rysiek" Woźniak Zmieniam klucz GPG :: http://rys.io/pl/147 GPG Key Transition :: http://rys.io/en/147
On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 09:42:15AM +0200, rysiek wrote:
Dnia środa, 17 sierpnia 2016 14:01:02 CEST Zenaan Harkness pisze:
On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 09:07:59PM -0600, Mirimir wrote:
On 08/16/2016 12:09 PM, jim bell wrote:
<SNIP>
AP ('Assassination Politics'; https://cryptome.org/ap.htm ) can be considered to be 'death arbitrage' with a few key differences: The person who will die isn't part of the agreement, and doesn't profit when the initial deal is struck, nor later.
Ah, but someone with a huge bet on their death could commit suicide, and so their estate would profit. Or is that against AP rules?
"The rules" are the rules formed in the respective contracts, presumably - how could it be any other way?
Therefore unsuccessful or "gamed" contracts would be the fodder of lessons learnt for future contracts in the competitive market for assassination contracts, which is that which AP presupposes...
Yeah, because that approach worked so well for The DAO. :)
I like comedy as much as you, but a joke does not take away from the principle of a competitive market for systems, over the long term. The DAO was not a single contract, nor a series of contracts. It was "a contract in a competitive market for contracts" in the sense that it was "a decentralised investment fund/ market maker" in the market for "decentralized investment funds/ market makers". But I assume you knew that..
participants (4)
-
jim bell -
Mirimir -
rysiek -
Zenaan Harkness