Disclaimer: I am not an investment advisor. When I describe my own trading activities, it is not intended as advice or solicitation of any kind.
Showing posts with label ruin. Show all posts
Showing posts with label ruin. Show all posts

16 September 2013

The Flood

Overnight Thursday, September 12, the height of the week-long rain storm washed out a large number of roads and driveways in the Rist Canyon area. Other areas of the Front Range were getting hit even harder. By now everyone knows the tragedies that happened in Boulder, Lyons, Estes Park, and the Big Thompson Canyon. Since I live in Rist Canyon, and I participated directly in the relief efforts as a volunteer with the Rist Canyon Volunteer Fire Department (RCVFD), I'm focusing on that area.

After the High Park Fire last year, rain gauges were installed around our area and connected to a real-time monitoring website. About 2 hours before the power failed on Thursday night, that website showed we had received over 7 inches of rain in 48 hours. By Monday morning, it read over 12 inches in 7 days.

I spent every day, Friday through Sunday, with the fire department. I spent Friday on Rist Canyon Road, which was the most passable road out, but wasn't able to capture any pictures or videos. Luckily, other residents have done so and posted them. Below are just a few of those pictures. Links to all the sources are at the end of this post. In the case of the facebook links, you'll need to satisfy the security requirements (be the album owner's friend, a friend of a friend, etc). The RCVFD facebook album is public.

In Rist Canyon, we lost about half the road in one spot where tiny usually-dry Rist Creek came screaming down a resident's driveway, undercutting the road severely. In other locations, driveway culverts and bridges were completely erased, trapping residents in their homes. In a couple of cases, we had to throw or ladder supplies across Rist Creek. Stratton Park is one of our biggest branched-off communities, and was cut off for a couple of days while its intrepid residents rebuilt the washed-out road.

Half the road gone in Rist Canyon.
Luke throws supplies to a trapped resident.

Luke and Ruben use a ladder bridge to deliver more supplies.
Stratton Park Road completely washed away.
Expanding to the greater RCVFD response area, things got worse. There are two other roads out of our area: north on Stove Prairie Road to Co-14 and then down the Poudre Canyon, and south on Stove Prairie Road to Masonville and then east to Loveland. Both those routes were washed out completely.

That's me walking away from the North Stove Prairie wash-out.
South-bound is a no-go, too.
The worst location was the Buckhorn Canyon. This is a very rural, nearly wild, canyon community that is only partially served by electricity and phones. Many of the residents rely on solar or wind to provide their power. Luckily, that means that they tend to be very self-sufficient. Their self-sufficiency was put to the test when Buckhorn road washed out completely in multiple locations, trapping them.

Washout in the middle Buckhorn.

It looks like a river, but it's actually the main road.

The washout closest to pavement, the only one we could reach by vehicle.
The first immediate need in the Buckhorn was a little old lady who was on her 12th week of chemo and needed to get to town for her final treatment. She lived just the other side of the closest washout, so we mobilized the forces and helped her across. She absolutely refused to ride in an extraction basket, insisting to go under her own power except for the worst spots. There, she got rides in a jeep and in the arms of a couple of firefighters. Based on the look on her face, I would say she enjoyed both rides tremendously.

Our chemo patient gets a walk across a bridge, after a carry across a stream.
Ruben rides the bumper, chemo patient rides shotgun high and dry.
The next immediate need was the upper Buckhorn, which needed food, drinking water, and medical supplies. We had originally planned to fly these in by helicopter, but it rained most of the day on Sunday, grounding any hope of air operations. Instead, Ruben, Martin, Luke, and I took a couple of Jeeps around to the back side of the Buckhorn and delivered the needed supplies.

Luke has no trouble with an 18" deep mud-hole.
Ruben leads a supply vehicle across a makeshift bridge.
We ultimately had to winch it across with one of the jeeps.
Residents came from everywhere to thank us and receive their supplies.
A firefighter who lives in the area told us of another resident that needed some oxygen bottles, but he was up on Crystal Mountain, which had been deemed totally inaccessible. Ruben took this as a challenge, and we transferred the oxygen bottles to the jeeps. We climbed some roads that most people wouldn't take a horse up, let alone a vehicle, and traversed across on a two-track through some properties that may not even be on the map. It's pretty wild up there, and when we stopped to ask residents how they were doing, we were sure to shout our presence and who we were as we approached. Shoot-first is the primary home security measure in some parts of this area, and we didn't want to be mistaken for intruders.

Ruben and Martin lead the way up a jeep-only road.
We stayed in the jeep.
Luke follows Ruben down the road-now-creek.
Ruben readies the winch to open a locked gate.
On the way back we rendezvoused with a couple of residents that wanted to evacuate. We escorted them across the mud bog to make sure they were safe, and then headed home ourselves. It was a long day, but a very good day.

Ruben leads the evacuees out over the makeshift bridge.
The jeep crew poses with one of the evacuees (her husband is behind the camera).

Links to more photos and videos:


02 August 2012

Lucky or Unlucky?

My wife and I recently bought a house halfway across the country, realizing a lifelong dream to live in the mountains. It was not without its scary moments, but the end result was amazing and fulfilling. Looking back, many of the facets of the transaction that looked like a deck stacked against us were, in fact, the best possible things that could have happened. Seldom do I treat directly with real Risk of Ruin, but today I will.

After a couple years of looking online and informally looking at neighborhoods and houses while vacationing in Colorado, D and I finally narrowed our search down to the foothills west of Fort Collins. My employer had agreed to let me work remotely, and after finishing up her PhD in Biology, D planned to look for either forestry or university work. Fort Collins is a good location for both of those things. For my part, I needed somewhere with a solid broadband connection so I could do my job, and D needed to be not-too-far from Fort Collins since she would probably be commuting. After our "drive-by stalking" adventures, we knew we wanted mountain property with lots of trees, but some open areas, too. And we wanted at least 10 acres of space that we could easily use without climbing gear -- too many houses in the mountains are perched on a cliff and crammed into a corner of their lot, leaving the residents unable to get to the rest of the property because of the terrain.

Broadband, short drive-time, trees, meadows, mountains, and lots of land. Not an easy combination of things to come by. We had several candidates favorited on real estate websites like Zillow and Redfin, but of course you can't buy real estate online. So in the early spring a high school friend of D's that had moved to Fort Collins recommended an agent, and home shopping began in earnest.

On our first trip to meet with the agent, he had about 10-15 properties for us to look at, and we visited them all (with one exception). Some of them were already on our favorites lists, and three in particular we recognized and were especially interested in. Of those three, we didn't get to see one because a tree fell on the current owner the day before the showing.

Another wasn't nearly as good in person as online -- there were a lot of things that looked like they could be maintenance nightmares lurking under the surface, especially the garage, which had excavated top-soil pressing against its back wall. That house will come up later as the Garage House. Almost none of the houses we looked at had high-speed internet.

The third house, though, was much better than the pictures. It was on a large square lot with both forests and meadows, it was right off a main road only about 20 minutes from town, and the owner had gone to the expense of a major internet upgrade that he put in for himself so that he and his wife could work effectively from home whenever they wished. We returned to Chicago, and after thinking about and talking about this property for a week or so, we ran out of reasons not to put an offer on it. And so we did.

A quick digression about regional weather patterns: there were record-low snowfalls in the Colorado Rockies over the 2011-2012 season. Since melting snowpack is where most of the moisture that feeds the region comes from, an extremely dry summer with very high fire danger was expected. Worse, the Rocky Mountain Pine Beetle epidemic is sweeping across the forests of northern and central Colorado, leaving millions of dead pine trees in its wake. As soon as it looked like we might be buying a property in the Colorado mountains, I started reading up on protecting my property from wildfires by removing the dead and infested trees. I knew that I was moving into a high-risk zone, and I wanted to be as prepared as possible. The volunteer fire department is located only about 1/3 mile away, which is very encouraging, but preventing fire is always preferable to fighting it. 

Our initial offer went to the sellers on May 12, 2012. On May 14, 2012, the Hewlett Gulch fire started on the north side of the Poudre Canyon, about 4 miles from the house. D and I watched carefully as it was fully contained in about a week, thankful that there was a river, two roads, and a ridge-top between the fire and the property we hoped would soon be ours. Fire fighters managed to bring the fire under control without losing a single structure. The fire was the largest that Larimer County had ever had, at 7,685 acres.

We returned to the property on June 2 to do the inspection. Encouraged by the results, we returned home elated, and put our own house on the market. On June 9th, we spent the day visiting with D's family, who threw her a going away party. There was much interest in our plans, and the Hewlett Gulch fire, so we happily chattered about how excited we were about the new property, and how relieved we were that the horrible fire hadn't gotten too close. During the party, D received a text from our Fort Collins friend -- she didn't read it until we got home that evening, and it went something like this: just thought you guys should know there's another fire burning near your new place. That fire, it turned out, was the High Park Fire.

Over the course of the next three days, the High Park Fire exploded in size, screaming across the entire Rist Canyon area. In the initial days of the fire, getting everyone to safety was the first priority. This meant that the limited resources already in the area couldn't do much to protect structures. Structure protection was much more effective later after the personnel fighting the fire increased from 250 up to its high somewhere near 2500. We watched in horror as the fire seemed to circle our new house, expanding first to the northeast, then the south, then back to the west again. Entire neighborhoods of houses were wiped out, for a total of 118 in the first few days. The Garage House survived, but the garage itself was destroyed and nearly all the trees on the property were reduced to blackened toothpicks. The sellers' agent also lost her house during those first few days. Eventually, the fire completed its circuit around and mostly filled a more-or-less square area 41,142 acres in size. Right in the center of that area was a little diagonal patch of unburned ground running from northwest to southeast along the road. In the middle of that patch was our house.

High Park Fire as of June 12
Bear in mind, we were still negotiating the contract when the fire broke out. Our earnest money was sitting in an escrow account protecting our offer, and things like the inspection and water potability test had been removing our excuses for canceling the contract. Of course, having a fire come through and destroy the house would certainly be a good excuse. But the earnest money was only 1% of the purchase price, so we could afford to walk away at any time if we decided we weren't comfortable, without any explanation. And that topic definitely came up in our conversations, especially the morning of June 13, when we saw that the unburned patch of ground had shrunk overnight, and now our new property was within the burn area. Both D and I started preparing ourselves emotionally for what we were sure was coming: a phone call from our agent informing us that the house had been heavily damaged or destroyed.



But that call didn't come. Instead, the seller -- part of the volunteer fire department battling the blaze -- reached out to me directly via email, sending me pictures that painted a very different story than the doom-filled media reports of walls of flame 200 feet high marching inexorably across the landscape. Those flame-walls were real, but they weren't representative of every part of the burn area. In many places, the fire contented itself with ground fuels, leaving the tops of the trees untouched while consuming the fallen needles, branches, scrub, and grass. Looking at the pictures, I almost couldn't believe my eyes. Instead of the blackened moonscape I expected to see, I saw green grass, green trees, and occasional black stripes on the ground where the fire sent out a finger, testing the defensible area around the house. The pictures were strategically shot, showing me bits of burn area but mostly focusing on the green stuff. I can't really blame the seller for that, he was trying to keep me from panicking and killing the deal -- and he surely knew that we would be visiting prior to closing and would see the whole story, so I view his shot selection as reassuring, rather than misleading.


On June 15, we learned that the major insurance carriers had all frozen the writing of new policies in the area indefinitely, as of the start date of the fire -- June 9. We obviously couldn't imagine buying a house with no hazard insurance, and the bank requires hazard insurance in order to approve a mortgage, so that had the potential to kill the deal. On June 16, after making some calls to find out more details, we discovered that our insurance policy had been delivered to our loan underwriter on June 8, one day before the freeze went into effect. Our agent promised to head up into the canyon as soon as the roads were reopened to take some pictures and video so that we could see the full extent of the situation and make a decision about the closing.

Despite our house being spared, the fire was nowhere near done. The management team spent the next two weeks scrambling to create and defend a line of containment around this fire, as record high temperatures, 30-50mph winds, and single-digit humidity levels all contributed to make the fire extremely aggressive and difficult to predict. Many stories have been written about the High Park Fire, so I won't repeat them except to give the final stats. By the time full containment was reached on July 1st, it had burned 87,284 acres making it the second-largest in Colorado history. 259 homes where destroyed in the High Park Fire, making it the most destructive fire in Colorado history (that record was broken immediately by the Waldo Canyon Fire outside Colorado Springs). Not including the property damages, the actual fighting of the fire cost $39.2 million.

Progression through June 23. Expansion in WSW corner is not mapped.

We had a closing date of June 29 scheduled, but our agent couldn't get into the canyon to view the house because the road hadn't been reopened. After much soul searching, we decided to fly out anyway, and to be very thorough with the final walk-through, since that would be our last chance to pull out. As the day drew nearer and nearer, we started questioning the prudence of closing on a house that remained evacuated and in an active fire zone. On June 28 in the late afternoon, as we were boarding our plane to Colorado, the evacuation was lifted. Only residents could pass the National Guard checkpoints, but we had the selling agent to drive us up, so that was no problem.

D and I wandered around the property and the house with our agent for about two hours that morning. We saw lots of devastation in the surrounding forest, but we saw plenty of hope, too. The views from the house are largely intact, with the worst destruction occurring deep in the forest away from the house. Most of the burn visible from the house is limited to grass damage, which will repair itself in a matter of months. There was minor smoke damage to the interior walls, but the seller's insurance covered its professional mitigation before we moved in. We found many green shoots pushing through blackened vegetation. But in the process of walking that property and surveying the situation, as well as conversations with the seller before, during, and after closing, we learned some terrifying details about the events of June 12.

It turned out that our seller/firefighter was defending his real estate agent's house and had to let it go because a huge wall of flame was sweeping up the hill from the road. He and his partner barely made their escape and were forced to cut the hose for lack of time. Despite this near-death experience, he chose to spend the night in his/our house so he could defend it. In the dusk, he and fire personnel from 3 other trucks felled trees, laid out hoses, and plowed dirt rings between the forest and the house -- effectively fortifying what was already a defensible zone. About 2am, he awoke to see an orange glow in the west-facing windows, so he wearily donned his protective gear and headed out expecting to watch the fire die at the fire break. Instead, he discovered that it had jumped the break and was within 10 feet of the western wall of the house. With his pre-laid hose, he was able to shut it down and contain the remainder of the fire behind the fire break. At some point he also had to turn his attention to the detached garage, which was closely threatened on its north and east sides. Propane tanks for both the garage and house show burned grass beneath them.

Many, many friends and relatives have tactfully or tactlessly asked us if we're crazy for completing this transaction. Our logic ran like this: the entire Front Range is experiencing record-dry drought conditions this year, making the fire danger extreme throughout all of our potential home sites. Now that the High Park Fire has burned away most of the fuel in Rist Canyon and the surrounding areas, another major fire in that area is unlikely for the next 20 years or so. So which is better? an area that has some black eyes but won't burn again for 20 years, or a pretty tinder box that could go up at any moment?

Our luck was magical: one day later with the insurance, and the bank would have killed the deal. Ours was the first real estate transaction to close after the fire. One day earlier with the closing date, and the evacuation order would have remained in place and our agent would have talked us out of closing. Ten feet more from the fire, and our beautiful new house would have been damaged or destroyed, and our seller would have been in grave peril. We also learned later that the Garage House was sold and closed on June 8. So those poor buyers, the very next day, found themselves thrust into an evacuation situation. We were spared that, since we were still in Chicago and in the stressful but safe situation of being able to simply cancel the deal if the house was damaged. All the other homeowners in the area had to wait and see if their summers would be spent rebuilding -- we could wait to see if we had to restart the real estate shopping or not.


Words cannot express my gratitude to the previous owner of our new house, as well as all the men and women on the many fire-fighting agencies that came together to contain this fire and protect the structures within it. But especially the seller, because I know he risked his life for the property, and then thought to take pictures to reassure us the next morning. He was an absolute prince of a man throughout the entire transaction, and I like to think that I can now number him as one of my friends.



28 March 2012

Lotteries as Investments

There has been a lot of excitement lately about the Mega Millions lottery reaching its largest-ever jackpot of $476 million. This can happen whenever a long period of time goes by without a winner, as the jackpot continues to "roll over" and accumulate. Having co-workers and friends that enjoy thinking about probabilities means that a lot of impromptu discussions have sprouted regarding the general question: "Should I play?" The answer, unless you are already a billionaire, is no.

This post is based almost solely on the information in the excellent and accessible paper by Abrams and Garibaldi entitled, "Finding Good Bets in the Lottery, and Why You Shouldn't Take Them". I will cover some of the same ground, but with a focus on working up the current Mega Millions jackpot as an example, using their paper as a starting point. I'll show, specifically for this $476 million jackpot, that Mega Millions may be a good bet this week, depending on the number tickets sold. Spoiler alert: but it's still a bad investment.

Betting Vs Investing

Abrams and Garibaldi define "good bet" to mean any wager with positive expected return. My fellow poker players are very familiar with this concept, and it's why we head straight for the poker room in a casino instead of stopping to play craps or slots (well, most of us). If you're sitting there with pocket aces, you know it's a good idea, mathematically, to get all your chips committed pre-flop. In fact, you're pretty close to an 85% favorite to win against a single opponent.

A "good investment", on the other hand takes risk of ruin into account, and is much harder to understand. Under very specific circumstances, it might be right to fold those pocket aces pre-flop! If you're on the bubble in a satellite with a hard cut-off and you see two other big stacks get all-in ahead of you, it's probably better to fold AA. For those of you that don't follow poker jargon, imagine the case of real estate auction sales: you can get properties at fractions of their worth, but there is a reasonable chance (say 25%) that one of them will be totally worthless - and you must pay cash. The auction is only a good investment if you have enough capital to absorb some bad runs of luck: 3 out of your 4 houses you bought this time around turn out to be structurally unsound and worthless, instead of the expected 1 out of 4.

That's Nice - Should I Play or Not?

OK, enough background. Let's get to the analysis! I'll save you the formulas: the probability of any randomly selected ticket in Mega Millions being a jackpot winner is 1 in 175,711,536. There are also lesser prizes with correspondingly higher probabilities, and on the downside the jackpot needs to be diluted for taxes and the probability of having to split the prize with another winner. To begin, we must calculate the simple expected rate of return (eROR), which requires knowing the ticket sales. Since we don't know that for March 30, I plugged in the numbers from the previous drawing, and then gave some projections for color on the next one. I drew heavily from Abrams to calculate these numbers:

March 27: $363M jackpot, 190,922,875 tickets sold. eROR=-3%
March 30: $476M jackpot:
    100million tickets sold: eROR=58%
    200million tickets sold: eROR=24%
    300million tickets sold: eROR=Dead Even
    400million tickets sold: eROR=-17%
(Note: all returns assume 25% taxes withheld)

Abrams converts these financialish returns into break-even curves, which I won't show here (see page 14 of his paper if you're curious). Then he uses some calculus that I also won't include here and generates an upper and lower bound for all possible break-even curves for lotteries like Mega Millions. The end result, though, is that we want the jackpot to be large relative to the number of tickets sold. But you didn't need all the math above to tell you that. What the math tells us is how much larger it needs to be.

Well it turns out that anytime the Mega Millions jackpot (lump sum, after tax) is 20% more than its ticket sales - and as I said you'll need to project this number - it's a good bet. By the way, it also has to be larger than 171million (after tax), which is the straight-up probabilistic break-even regardless of sales. Abrams predicts that this will never happen, and that the surge in ticket-buying that surrounds a big jackpot more than makes up for the improved probability-weighted return. I think he fails to see the large numbers that can happen in a roll-over jackpot like Mega Millions, which is a natural human mistake.

There is an undefined upper-bound to the public's appetite for lottery tickets regardless of mathematical edge, as well as a diminishing stimulus to ever-higher jackpots. Eventually, an extra $100million in jackpot fails to generate an extra 100million ticket sales in a few days. And that's what we're seeing right now: the jackpot has gotten so big that the habitual and some-time players have all already joined the list. Even the almost-never players are about tapped out at this point, which lets the jackpot grow without adding additional ticket sales.

Yes Yes, 300 Million Tickets - Should I Play or Not?

Will March 30 be a good bet? This really comes down to your opinion of whether 300 million tickets will be sold. If I were a betting man, and I am, I would set my over-under line at just about that figure. But I'll look one drawing farther into the future, and say this: if it rolls over one more time, the jackpot will outpace demand. At that point, it will certainly be a good bet.

But will it be a good investment? The short answer is no. Abrams goes into a detailed portfolio analysis of the variance on the Texas Lottery, using the Nobel Prize-winning techniques developed by Markowitz and Sharpe in 1990. He calculates that for that particular lottery, a reasonable investor should invest nothing in any syndicate buying lottery tickets unless that syndicate buys at least 145,000 per week. These numbers are impressive, but they don't really apply to Mega Millions. To do that, I would have to retrace the rest of Abrams' work, which I leave as an exercise for the reader. But intuitively, I think we can all see that the variance on a 1-in-176million investment is crazy-high, and should be such a tiny sliver of any investment portfolio that only the largest investors would buy any tickets at all.

I am not that investor, so I won't be buying a ticket next week, regardless of the March 30 outcome.

As a post-script, as I was chasing down all the links for this post, I stumbled upon a less technical version (Word document) of the paper I wish I had found before working through the math for this post. If you want Abrams' own words, I suggest starting there. And if you want the spreadsheet I used to do the calculations, I put it into a public Google Docs file. You'll need to download it in order to play with the numbers, but help yourself.

21 February 2012

Recovering an Unbootable Kernel Image

This is a quick how-to on rebuilding an Arch Linux initramfs image when both the main and fallback images are unbootable. This can happen if something goes wrong during an update to the "linux" package and the problem isn't detected and solved before a reboot. This post draws information from the Arch Wiki articles Change Root and mkinitcpio, as well as an Arch Forum post discussing a path problem causing an unbootable image. All the information necessary to recover is contained within these three links, but I felt that a cookbook would be helpful, especially in the stressful moment when a vital computer is sitting at the limited shell prior to booting the kernel.

This is intended to solve the specific problem when the Arch bootstrap claims it can't find the boot drive, and when it is very unlikely that the hardware is actually having a problem. In my case, I experienced this with regularity on a Virtual Machine, which was not having virtual hardware failure. It turned out to be exactly the problem in the forum post described above, but first I needed to recover the system.

Step 1 - Get It Booted
Your system isn't going to boot on its own: both the primary and fallback boot images are refusing to behave. So go get yourself an Arch ISO and burn it to CD or a USB. If you've already installed Arch, you know how to do this. Or read the Arch Wiki article about it if you've forgotten. Use the download and burn process as an opportunity to take a deep breath - that will help with the remaining steps.

Boot from the ISO, and choose the first option from the ISO's boot menu. But don't start Arch setup. Instead get the network running so you can update with pacman.

# aif -p partial-configuration-network

Answer the prompts. If this first step doesn't go well, don't sweat it - it just means you won't have internet access, which probably isn't required anyway.

Step 2 - Take Stock
We need to manually mount all the necessary partitions, and to do that we need to know what they are. If you remember how you partitioned your disk, that's great. But if you don't remember exactly which /dev/sdaX goes where, you'll need to do a little guessing. Luckily, fdisk can help. Note that I've trimmed the output some for brevity. I've also cheated a little and typed in some partitions from gparted because my /dev/sdb uses GPT.

# fdisk -l

Disk /dev/sda: 100.0 GB, 100030242816 bytes
   Device Boot     Start         End      Blocks   Id  System
/dev/sda1   *         63     3903794     1951866   83  Linux
/dev/sda2        3903795   195371567    95733886+  83  Linux


Disk /dev/sdb: 2000.4 GB, 2000398934016 bytes
   Device Boot     Start         End      Blocks   Id  System
/dev/sdb1             31 3871748080   3871748047   83 Linux
/dev/sdb2     3871748081 3907029134     35281054   xx Linux-Swap

On my system I have a roughly 2GB bootable ext2 partition on /dev/sda1 and the remainder of the 100GB SSD is ext4. I have a 1.8TB data partition at /dev/sdb1, and my swap file is /dev/sdb2. This is enough information for me to remember that sda2 mounts to / and sdb1 mounts to /caviar but contains the /var directory, which is sym-linked over from sda2.

If fdisk isn't enough to jog your memory, you may need to test-mount and explore a little.

Step 3 - Mount and Prep
Once you know which partitions you need to mount where, get it all mounted under /mnt/arch. Also mount the proc, sys, and dev directories so they'll be available to your chrooted sandbox.

# mount /dev/sda2 /mnt/arch
# mount /dev/sda1 /mnt/arch/boot
# mount /dev/sdb1 /mnt/arch/caviar
# mount -t proc proc /mnt/arch/proc
# mount -t sysfs sys /mnt/arch/sys
# mount -o bind /dev /mnt/arch/dev

In case you need to update with pacman, you'll want network access. If you got the network running in Step 1, copy the resolv.conf down into the chroot world.

# cp -L /etc/resolv.conf /mnt/arch/etc/resolv.conf

Step 4 - Chroot and Fix
Next, jump into your sandbox.

# chroot /mnt/arch /bin/bash

Now that you're here, feel free to poke around in logs to see what might have gone wrong. In my case, I had stupidly run pacman -Syu --noconfirm from a cron job without setting the PATH to include /sbin. As a result, the update script failed to call depmod but then blindly ran mkinitcpio on the incomplete map files, rendering the image stillborn. The depmod result should really be considered during a linux upgrade so that mkinitcpio doesn't trash the boot image, IMHO, but what do I know.

For now, let's assume you have the same problem I did. To resolve it, all I needed to do was the following:

# /sbin/depmod
# mkinitcpio -p linux

As a precaution, I also did a full update with pacman and made sure that everything went smoothly.

# pacman -Syu

All was well, and I was able to reboot into my system again. 

12 June 2011

The Dangers of Stubbornness

A facebook friend enjoyed the comment I made in my previous post: "Or else it's the beginning of a downtrend, and your position is doomed - you can never tell which." Reading her comment on facebook, I started to reply in place and realized I had a lot more to say than a couple of lines.  So I'll put it here.

As I said earlier, the Collaboration is Good trade is a mean-reversion trade.  This is actually a misnomer, as there is no "mean" the market is returning to; a more accurate term would be "trend-reversion", but the industry uses the terms it uses.  In any case, the general principle is that when a market is in a long-term trend, and has a short period (the length of this period varies by market) of returns counter to that trend, a correction back toward the long-term trend is more likely than a continuation of the short term counter trend.  I realize for most readers, that makes very little sense, so let me illustrate.

Example: A Rubber Band

Go get a rubber band - say a medium-sized one about 4 inches long, and hold it in your left hand at a stationary height. With your right hand, grasp its other end and stretch it a few inches downward and release it.  It snaps back, but not too violently, right?  Now stretch it a lot farther than you did before - to something like 12-14 inches.  Notice how you feel the band begin to fight you, equaling out the force of your hand with its own elastic properties?  OK, release it, and notice how much faster it returns to slack.  In fact, it probably bounced up past the fingers of your left hand - in finance, we call this over-correction.  It may have snapped your fingers, too, which provides a good object lesson on why you shouldn't take my blog commentary as advice.

The problem with the rubber band example is that the market is not being held stationary in someone's left hand.  Because of the vast chaos and complexity that exists in the capital markets, there is plenty of room for contrary viewpoints.  One of these is the Random Walk Hypothesis.  In a nutshell, it states that the market cannot be predicted, and any apparent successes in doing so are simply luck.

Counter Example: The Coin-Flip Fallacy

Imagine we have a fair coin for flipping, one that gives heads 50% of the time, and tails 50% of the time.  Now, if we flip this coin 3 times and then report its results in percentage terms without giving the flip count, it will look terribly weighted toward one or the other (67%/33%, or even 100%/0%).  As we flip it more and more, though, we naturally expect it to approach 50/50.  Does that mean that a long run of all heads makes tails somehow more likely?  Of course not - any reasonably aware person can see that the results of any given flip of the coin are independent of all previous flips.

But when roulette players mutter about a particular number being "due", isn't that the exact same thing?  As the number of variables increase, the complexity goes up; this, in turn, makes the game look more and more beatable.  Now how much more complex is the capital market system than a game of roulette?  If it is indeed just a random environment, no human has the ability to intuitively detect that - we're just not wired that way.

I was once forced to "prove" to a previous employer that die rolls in a craps game were independent of each other.  I put it in quotes because the only thing that constituted proof, to him, was a complete model of the entire game that he could run various betting systems on until he managed to convince himself it was just a negative expected-value game of chance.  This man was a trader - none of us are immune.

I personally prefer to believe that the market is not random - instead, it is the numerical result of millions of complex and confusing variables and herd psychology.  Whenever I evaluate a strategy, I try to understand the underlying causes for the apparent pattern. If I can't identify any, I find it very difficult to trust the predictive nature of the strategy.

Real-World Data Sample

Starting in March, 2009, the S&P (proxied here by SPY) enjoyed a massive 14-month, 85% rally.  One leg of that rally started in July and ended in October. Backtesting reveals that CiG would have signaled a buy on September 28, after 3 days of counter-trend price movement.  That time period is visible here, with a couple of trendlines to help remove some of the noise (click the picture for a larger view).  For the curious, yes there were other signals - profitable ones - near Aug 17 and Sep 2.  But they had more bowl-shaped corrective rallies, and thus were not as clear an example as Sep 28, took its profits after a single day.


Here is a zoomed-in view of SPY at the time of the trade signal.  I've overlayed a Relative Strength Indicator to help illustrate the stretching rubber band effect that CiG is designed to capture.


As you can see, SPY built up three days of upward corrective pressure, shown by the red counter-trend line. Finally, nearly all that pressure was relieved on Sep 28 with a 19-point (in the futures) rally. CiG would have signaled a buy on the close of Sep 25 (Friday), and a flattening sell on the close on the next trading day, Sep 28, booking a $950/contract profit.

Double-Down or Go Home

Essentially, the reasoning behind doubling one's investment in a trade that has lost money goes like this:
  1. I still think the trade will work out and be profitable; in fact, I feel that it is more likely to have a winning result now that the security I'm trading is even more incorrectly priced.
  2. Given that the probability of success is higher now than when I originally entered the trade, I should allocate more capital to it.
Notice that there is a very fine line between this reasoning and the degenerate gambler's muttered mantra, "If I can win one big bet I can make back all my losses." A very fine line indeed.  Also bear in mind that doubling down is a reasonable possibility only for trades that revert.  Such an attitude for a trend-follower or an option spreader would quickly lead to the end of the trader's career.

Even if it makes sense for the trade at hand, it ultimately is a Martingale.  If a trader decides to take this approach, even after some soul-searching and healthy self-doubt, he ought to first clearly define his risk-management rules.  The truly dangerous nature of a Martingale, to the plan-deprived, is that at any given moment during this trade, booking the loss looks worse than taking on a little more risk.  Notice that the reasoning above doesn't ask two important questions: can I bet a greater slice of my financial life that my model is flawless and applies to this situation? and do I have more capital to allocate?

CiG doesn't attempt to answer these questions - good strategies shouldn't presume to be that comprehensive.  Instead, it does not allow increasing position size within a security, and limits the list of securities traded; it also has predefined stop-loss limits.  When the limit is crossed, the position is closed and the loss is booked.  Period.

Even if a trade is good, even if the market is irrational and you have positioned yourself to take advantage of it when it returns to normalcy, you may not have the required funds to reap those benefits.  As John Maynard Keynes famously said: markets can remain irrational a lot longer than you and I can remain solvent.

And that, my friends, is the Risk of Ruin.