@CrisisStudent@atalaveraEcon both can be true... rise in core is limited vs 2022 (demand supply imbalance not as egregious) - but has still shown a gradual climb away from 2%
@RickRieder … a long way of saying interest rates are blunt tool. But we know that - the target is headline inflation. Not necessarily in favour of hikes, but for me the argument has to focus on why headline / core will fall from here not why particular prices might be policy insensitive
@ZavCorin@NGurushina That’s why a lot of valuation models on the econometrics side use fixed effects - I think it is impossible to remove all the country level / country specific factors that will affect spreads - there will be many unobservables / features that are impossible to measure /get data on
@ZavCorin@NGurushina One of your only views I’ve found myself disagreeing with @NGurushina! My personal view seems closer to @ZavCorin - structural factors like institutional strength but also a host of other things are super super difficult (impossible?) to measure - eg quality of policymaking
This is an outrageously bad take. City didn't shrewdly find a gap like one might argue Chelsea did. They more flagrantly flouted the rules and didn't cooperate w/ authorities for yrs-in a deliberate attempt to gaslight. That's not in the spirit of pushing the competitive frontier
I watched the F1 film with Brad Pitt the other day, and there’s a moment where his character asks to add something to the car that isn’t really in the rules. The FIA punishes it, but the team can still race with the earlier car. It made me think.
In F1, the best teams live at the edge of the regulations. Sometimes the FIA allows what they’ve found, and sometimes it says that goes too far. Occasionally the rules are rewritten afterwards.
Now, City. I’m not defending them. A commission found they entered into sham agreements and broke the spending limits. A sham is an arrangement that isn’t what it claims to be, so that’s a different thing from using a gap nobody had spotted.
City deny it and will appeal. But I find it useful to ask/reflect on how people inside the club see it.
From their point of view, PERHAPS they believe they were doing what elite competitors do: looking at the rules, finding the limits, challenging interpretations and moving faster than the regulatory system.
From the outside, you might look at that and say, “That’s cheating.” From inside the organisation, they might say, “We found something nobody had thought of.”
If you believe you’ve found a way to bring money in, more or less within the rules (and the commission said it was not in the rules and it was cheating), you might tell yourself you’re just being a sharp competitor.
We are all asking “did City cheat?”. But I find this question interesting too: “how did City come to believe they weren’t?”
And understanding a mindset, or trying to, isn’t excusing it.
@CreditEm think a lot of the notes are sanitised these days - banks / brokers then I suspect have some kind of tiered system for facetime / 1v1 interactions where they give the proper juicy stuff / more colour