[ucodegen]

One more question.. are you sure you are not dealing with hillcrest chicks or leucadia chicks? The ratio of hens is odd.. some may be cross-dressing or in the closet…..

[ucodegen]

One more question.. are you sure you are not dealing with hillcrest chicks or leucadia chicks? The ratio of hens is odd.. some may be cross-dressing or in the closet…..

[ucodegen]

One more question.. are you sure you are not dealing with hillcrest chicks or leucadia chicks? The ratio of hens is odd.. some may be cross-dressing or in the closet…..

[ucodegen]

The probability problem needs clarification. Were the 8 baby chicks picked from a large (virtually infinite) litter of chicks that were stochastically sexed (Demming process control type) at a rate of 95% hens?

Open (virtually infinite) sets have different probabilities than closed (choosing from a set of which is 95% hens – sexing operation 100% accurate) In this case, the set you are selecting from has to have more than 100 chicks because 6 are roosters, but your sexing showed 5 out of 100 as roosters.

For the first, you have 5 out of 100 (20) raised to the 6th power multiplied by 95 out of 100 (1.0526315) raised to the 2nd power, divided by the number of ways you can select 2 of one kind and 6 of another out of 8 (# of combinations).

Crap.. my calculator does not have a factorial button. longhand time…

Ok.. the odds of getting a group of 6 roosters followed by 2 hens from a pull of an infinite group of chicks is 1 out of 1108033.24099…

There are 28 different ways you can get 6 roosters and 2 hens from a pull of 8 chicks.. meaning that odds of getting 6 roosters and 2 hens from an endless pile of little clucks sexed at 95% hen is 1 out of 39572.6157

[ucodegen]

The probability problem needs clarification. Were the 8 baby chicks picked from a large (virtually infinite) litter of chicks that were stochastically sexed (Demming process control type) at a rate of 95% hens?

Open (virtually infinite) sets have different probabilities than closed (choosing from a set of which is 95% hens – sexing operation 100% accurate) In this case, the set you are selecting from has to have more than 100 chicks because 6 are roosters, but your sexing showed 5 out of 100 as roosters.

For the first, you have 5 out of 100 (20) raised to the 6th power multiplied by 95 out of 100 (1.0526315) raised to the 2nd power, divided by the number of ways you can select 2 of one kind and 6 of another out of 8 (# of combinations).

Crap.. my calculator does not have a factorial button. longhand time…

Ok.. the odds of getting a group of 6 roosters followed by 2 hens from a pull of an infinite group of chicks is 1 out of 1108033.24099…

There are 28 different ways you can get 6 roosters and 2 hens from a pull of 8 chicks.. meaning that odds of getting 6 roosters and 2 hens from an endless pile of little clucks sexed at 95% hen is 1 out of 39572.6157

[ucodegen]

The probability problem needs clarification. Were the 8 baby chicks picked from a large (virtually infinite) litter of chicks that were stochastically sexed (Demming process control type) at a rate of 95% hens?

Open (virtually infinite) sets have different probabilities than closed (choosing from a set of which is 95% hens – sexing operation 100% accurate) In this case, the set you are selecting from has to have more than 100 chicks because 6 are roosters, but your sexing showed 5 out of 100 as roosters.

For the first, you have 5 out of 100 (20) raised to the 6th power multiplied by 95 out of 100 (1.0526315) raised to the 2nd power, divided by the number of ways you can select 2 of one kind and 6 of another out of 8 (# of combinations).

Crap.. my calculator does not have a factorial button. longhand time…

Ok.. the odds of getting a group of 6 roosters followed by 2 hens from a pull of an infinite group of chicks is 1 out of 1108033.24099…

There are 28 different ways you can get 6 roosters and 2 hens from a pull of 8 chicks.. meaning that odds of getting 6 roosters and 2 hens from an endless pile of little clucks sexed at 95% hen is 1 out of 39572.6157

[ucodegen]

The probability problem needs clarification. Were the 8 baby chicks picked from a large (virtually infinite) litter of chicks that were stochastically sexed (Demming process control type) at a rate of 95% hens?

Open (virtually infinite) sets have different probabilities than closed (choosing from a set of which is 95% hens – sexing operation 100% accurate) In this case, the set you are selecting from has to have more than 100 chicks because 6 are roosters, but your sexing showed 5 out of 100 as roosters.

For the first, you have 5 out of 100 (20) raised to the 6th power multiplied by 95 out of 100 (1.0526315) raised to the 2nd power, divided by the number of ways you can select 2 of one kind and 6 of another out of 8 (# of combinations).

Crap.. my calculator does not have a factorial button. longhand time…

Ok.. the odds of getting a group of 6 roosters followed by 2 hens from a pull of an infinite group of chicks is 1 out of 1108033.24099…

There are 28 different ways you can get 6 roosters and 2 hens from a pull of 8 chicks.. meaning that odds of getting 6 roosters and 2 hens from an endless pile of little clucks sexed at 95% hen is 1 out of 39572.6157

[ucodegen]

The probability problem needs clarification. Were the 8 baby chicks picked from a large (virtually infinite) litter of chicks that were stochastically sexed (Demming process control type) at a rate of 95% hens?

Open (virtually infinite) sets have different probabilities than closed (choosing from a set of which is 95% hens – sexing operation 100% accurate) In this case, the set you are selecting from has to have more than 100 chicks because 6 are roosters, but your sexing showed 5 out of 100 as roosters.

For the first, you have 5 out of 100 (20) raised to the 6th power multiplied by 95 out of 100 (1.0526315) raised to the 2nd power, divided by the number of ways you can select 2 of one kind and 6 of another out of 8 (# of combinations).

Crap.. my calculator does not have a factorial button. longhand time…

Ok.. the odds of getting a group of 6 roosters followed by 2 hens from a pull of an infinite group of chicks is 1 out of 1108033.24099…

There are 28 different ways you can get 6 roosters and 2 hens from a pull of 8 chicks.. meaning that odds of getting 6 roosters and 2 hens from an endless pile of little clucks sexed at 95% hen is 1 out of 39572.6157

[ucodegen]

To answer the question: Which is next, I went scouring around to see if I could find some useful info.. voila.. a new graph courtesy of financial sight blog.

Entry for this is a bit dated.. but graph is interesting.

[img_assist|nid=8227|title=Non Performing Assets as %|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=466|height=343]

Select see original from image page to see the lettering. Higher on the graph is worse off. The big downward curved line is Case Shiller HPI. On the right, going down from the top is: Countrywide, Downey Savings, Indymac, a gap followed by Washington Mutual, Wachovia, Wells Fargo and Bank of America. The upward curve in Washington Mutual and Wachovia doesn’t look good. They are quickly leaving Wells Fargo and Bank of America behind on % of non-performing, just as Option-ARM resets are arriving.. and we all know that they played in that dirty pool of toxic waste!

Now for another graph from the past:

[img_assist|nid=8228|title=Mortgage Rate Resets 2007.10|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=653|height=600]

Note the second hump which has a large Option-ARM component and correlate the start of the onset on defaults to the change in curvature of the default rate for Washington Mutual and Wachovia.

BTW: I don’t think Wells Fargo is safe.. and as a result of Bank of America’s purchase of CFC, I don’t think they are safe anymore. Here is more on Wells Fargo by Mr Mortgage..

I wonder if some of the banking industry is being a little lenient as to what is a non-performing loan right now!!

— Have fun!!

[ucodegen]

To answer the question: Which is next, I went scouring around to see if I could find some useful info.. voila.. a new graph courtesy of financial sight blog.

Entry for this is a bit dated.. but graph is interesting.

[img_assist|nid=8227|title=Non Performing Assets as %|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=466|height=343]

Select see original from image page to see the lettering. Higher on the graph is worse off. The big downward curved line is Case Shiller HPI. On the right, going down from the top is: Countrywide, Downey Savings, Indymac, a gap followed by Washington Mutual, Wachovia, Wells Fargo and Bank of America. The upward curve in Washington Mutual and Wachovia doesn’t look good. They are quickly leaving Wells Fargo and Bank of America behind on % of non-performing, just as Option-ARM resets are arriving.. and we all know that they played in that dirty pool of toxic waste!

Now for another graph from the past:

[img_assist|nid=8228|title=Mortgage Rate Resets 2007.10|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=653|height=600]

Note the second hump which has a large Option-ARM component and correlate the start of the onset on defaults to the change in curvature of the default rate for Washington Mutual and Wachovia.

BTW: I don’t think Wells Fargo is safe.. and as a result of Bank of America’s purchase of CFC, I don’t think they are safe anymore. Here is more on Wells Fargo by Mr Mortgage..

I wonder if some of the banking industry is being a little lenient as to what is a non-performing loan right now!!

— Have fun!!

[ucodegen]

To answer the question: Which is next, I went scouring around to see if I could find some useful info.. voila.. a new graph courtesy of financial sight blog.

Entry for this is a bit dated.. but graph is interesting.

[img_assist|nid=8227|title=Non Performing Assets as %|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=466|height=343]

Select see original from image page to see the lettering. Higher on the graph is worse off. The big downward curved line is Case Shiller HPI. On the right, going down from the top is: Countrywide, Downey Savings, Indymac, a gap followed by Washington Mutual, Wachovia, Wells Fargo and Bank of America. The upward curve in Washington Mutual and Wachovia doesn’t look good. They are quickly leaving Wells Fargo and Bank of America behind on % of non-performing, just as Option-ARM resets are arriving.. and we all know that they played in that dirty pool of toxic waste!

Now for another graph from the past:

[img_assist|nid=8228|title=Mortgage Rate Resets 2007.10|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=653|height=600]

Note the second hump which has a large Option-ARM component and correlate the start of the onset on defaults to the change in curvature of the default rate for Washington Mutual and Wachovia.

BTW: I don’t think Wells Fargo is safe.. and as a result of Bank of America’s purchase of CFC, I don’t think they are safe anymore. Here is more on Wells Fargo by Mr Mortgage..

I wonder if some of the banking industry is being a little lenient as to what is a non-performing loan right now!!

— Have fun!!

[ucodegen]

To answer the question: Which is next, I went scouring around to see if I could find some useful info.. voila.. a new graph courtesy of financial sight blog.

Entry for this is a bit dated.. but graph is interesting.

[img_assist|nid=8227|title=Non Performing Assets as %|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=466|height=343]

Select see original from image page to see the lettering. Higher on the graph is worse off. The big downward curved line is Case Shiller HPI. On the right, going down from the top is: Countrywide, Downey Savings, Indymac, a gap followed by Washington Mutual, Wachovia, Wells Fargo and Bank of America. The upward curve in Washington Mutual and Wachovia doesn’t look good. They are quickly leaving Wells Fargo and Bank of America behind on % of non-performing, just as Option-ARM resets are arriving.. and we all know that they played in that dirty pool of toxic waste!

Now for another graph from the past:

[img_assist|nid=8228|title=Mortgage Rate Resets 2007.10|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=653|height=600]

Note the second hump which has a large Option-ARM component and correlate the start of the onset on defaults to the change in curvature of the default rate for Washington Mutual and Wachovia.

BTW: I don’t think Wells Fargo is safe.. and as a result of Bank of America’s purchase of CFC, I don’t think they are safe anymore. Here is more on Wells Fargo by Mr Mortgage..

I wonder if some of the banking industry is being a little lenient as to what is a non-performing loan right now!!

— Have fun!!

[ucodegen]

To answer the question: Which is next, I went scouring around to see if I could find some useful info.. voila.. a new graph courtesy of financial sight blog.

Entry for this is a bit dated.. but graph is interesting.

[img_assist|nid=8227|title=Non Performing Assets as %|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=466|height=343]

Select see original from image page to see the lettering. Higher on the graph is worse off. The big downward curved line is Case Shiller HPI. On the right, going down from the top is: Countrywide, Downey Savings, Indymac, a gap followed by Washington Mutual, Wachovia, Wells Fargo and Bank of America. The upward curve in Washington Mutual and Wachovia doesn’t look good. They are quickly leaving Wells Fargo and Bank of America behind on % of non-performing, just as Option-ARM resets are arriving.. and we all know that they played in that dirty pool of toxic waste!

Now for another graph from the past:

[img_assist|nid=8228|title=Mortgage Rate Resets 2007.10|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=653|height=600]

Note the second hump which has a large Option-ARM component and correlate the start of the onset on defaults to the change in curvature of the default rate for Washington Mutual and Wachovia.

BTW: I don’t think Wells Fargo is safe.. and as a result of Bank of America’s purchase of CFC, I don’t think they are safe anymore. Here is more on Wells Fargo by Mr Mortgage..

I wonder if some of the banking industry is being a little lenient as to what is a non-performing loan right now!!

— Have fun!!

[ucodegen]

Lets revist an important graph from the past…

[img_assist|nid=8194|title=LoanOrignation.2005-2006|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=100|height=86]

The NegAms/Option Arms are the resets coming up..

(Click on image followed by clicking on the ‘original’ link to get the clear, un-butchered image.)

[ucodegen]

Lets revist an important graph from the past…

[img_assist|nid=8194|title=LoanOrignation.2005-2006|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=100|height=86]

The NegAms/Option Arms are the resets coming up..

(Click on image followed by clicking on the ‘original’ link to get the clear, un-butchered image.)

[Author]

Posts