1/x As we’ve been calling for since Nov, today we finally got our 2 ‘Georgia Peaches’🍑 precisely on schedule, as we’ve called for since Aug, & the underlying rotation has confirmed now for months, this matters. This is a historic turning point. It matters not only https://t.co/BFxKGrI1Oo

2/x for this year, but for the economic trajectory of America & likely the macroeconomic regime of the developed world for the coming decade. That said, contrary to popular belief, the market does not move based on news in the short term if the positioning doesn’t allow it to.
3/x & our old friend Gary the 🦍 & his sidekick Vanna are positioned to have this market pinned through 1/11. So, as explained ad nauseam, the election news, though fundamentally important, won’t matter to the index itself in the ST. As predicted, the largest moves from the GA
4/x runoff INITIALLY have come from factor rotation. This should continue to be the case, as the street is oversupplied IVol & the index is pinned. This not only allows for idiosyncratic risk moves in constituents, but it actually FORCES extreme noncorrelation & rotation, as we
5/x have witnessed now for the past 2 days. This Vol compression will be increasingly difficult to break free from until 1/11-1/15, but the window of weakness is coming...soon the final hedges from the ‘election hump’ in Nov will expire with the Jan monthly options. Once the
6/x vanna support is gone there will be little protection left behind. This should loosen Gary’s stranglehold & provide a window for the technical break we have been waiting for. Next week will likely be the time to opportunistically buy IVol & take a shot on the downside. That
7/x said, the time for caution is quickly approaching. This week, ride the strong vanna flows every day from long side from 1am-9am. But then be cautious, scalping from the short side b/w 9am-1pm, looking for an opportunity to swing short on a close below the 1 std dev of the 20
8/x day. as mentioned, The real opportunity for a secular move should appear as we get into next week, when there are no longer supportive vanna flows, and seasonality, & we are more likely to see a technical break below the 1 stddev of the 20 day, allowing the market to get the
9/9 additional help it needs from momentum driven, systematic strategies in order to spring loose from Gary the 🦍 & realize the correction it wants to make, given massively overextended sentiment & positioning. Good Luck! 🍀

More from Cem Karsan 🥐

1/x Vanna joined the wheel of fortune on this day in 1982,& 38 years later she’s stronger than ever...Friday’s into the Mon of qrtrly OpEx in particular aren’t a time to trifle w/her...As called for, the market continues to try & shake out weak hands from overextended positioning


2/x by both HF & Retail, but ultimately these moves are no match for our fair lady’s charming flows during this window, & should continue to support this market through 12/16 w/ qrtrly Vixperation & the Fed upon us....As I highlighted Fri, the minor correction in price/time that

3/x we got down to the 20 day, w/precise technical support at that level, paired w/ increasingly positive Dark Pool (DIX) demand was a textbook buy signal, given the timing...Despite all of this, the real story is not these positive flows nearly as much as the continued reflexive

4/x IVol compression...This is the holiday gift that keeps on giving. Along w/ continued targeted short Vol, massive calendar expansion & dispersion opportunities continue to print $ with VRP >94th % of occurrences & post 1/8 Vol still at a floor... This $ train doesn’t show any

5/x sign of stopping yet, as I expect Ivol oversupply should continue to be the dominant force through at least 12/16 & once we get through 12/21 without incident, likely beyond...W/ lots of imbedded potential energy still in the VRP to fuel more vanna/charm flows in the month to

More from For later read

1. The death of Silicon Valley, a thread

How did Silicon Valley die? It was killed by the internet. I will explain.

Yesterday, my friend IRL asked me "Where are good old days when techies were


2. In the "good old days" Silicon Valley was about understanding technology. Silicon, to be precise. These were people who had to understand quantum mechanics, who had to build the near-miraculous devices that we now take for granted, and they had to work

3. Now, I love libertarians, and I share much of their political philosophy. But you have to be socially naive to believe that it has a chance in a real society. In those days, Silicon Valley was not a real society. It was populated by people who understood quantum mechanics

4. Then came the microcomputer revolution. It was created by people who understood how to build computers. One borderline case was Steve Jobs. People claimed that Jobs was surrounded by a "reality distortion field" - that's how good he was at understanding people, not things

5. Still, the heroes of Silicon Valley were the engineers. The people who knew how to build things. Steve Jobs, for all his understanding of people, also had quite a good understanding of technology. He had a libertarian vibe, and so did Silicon Valley
This response to my tweet is a common objection to targeted advertising.

@KevinCoates correct me if I'm wrong, but basic point seems to be that banning targeted ads will lower platform profits, but will mostly be beneficial for consumers.

Some counterpoints 👇


1) This assumes that consumers prefer contextual ads to targeted ones.

This does not seem self-evident to me


Research also finds that firms choose between ad. targeting vs. obtrusiveness 👇

If true, the right question is not whether consumers prefer contextual ads to targeted ones. But whether they prefer *more* contextual ads vs *fewer* targeted

2) True, many inframarginal platforms might simply shift to contextual ads.

But some might already be almost indifferent between direct & indirect monetization.

Hard to imagine that *none* of them will respond to reduced ad revenue with actual fees.

3) Policy debate seems to be moving from:

"Consumers are insufficiently informed to decide how they share their data."

To

"No one in their right mind would agree to highly targeted ads (e.g., those that mix data from multiple sources)."

IMO the latter statement is incorrect.

You May Also Like