kulkarnic
Joined 18 years ago
Joined 18 years ago
Commodities I think no longer do, but did until recently.
Concentrated portfolios are also positive-sum, and have returns higher than passive investing if you are smart or lucky.
I wish you all success, but this assumption goes against about a half-century of academic research. You might say "but it's crypto!" But the law of averages is brutal, and it is agnostic to whether we're in a crypto world or not -- if some fraction of market participants get an above-average return, mathematically, some must get a return that is below-average.
If you actually care about the facts, read the original researcher's essay: https://hbr.org/2016/10/dont-let-power-corrupt-you And if you want to still believe your success is the exclusive result of your hard work, read about Raj Chetty's work on just how much luck matters. http://scopeblog.stanford.edu/2016/04/12/stanford-study-shed...
Edit: I got it wrong, the original study was four people as Lewis reports, not five as some commenters here believe. Lewis is also right about table manners, btw.
Here's a simple example to illustrate: you have an interview tomorrow, and you want to buy a suit to be sure you are appropriately dressed for it. The net-present-utility of the suit is quite high -- not having one may cost you the job opportunity. On the other hand, a suit is a depreciating asset. It is also not an income-generating asset (i.e. you may sell the suit the day after the interview at no loss of income.)
Using the reasoning of "debt for appreciating/income generating purchase" will preclude you from buying this suit, sensible though the purchase is.
PS: in an ideal world, you'd rent the suit, or any asset that has only temporary utility and pay depreciation+premium. http://john-joseph-horton.com/papers/sharing.pdf
To me, that the top comment right now is about how Baidu "cheated" on an AI benchmark says both that no one can have perfect oversight, but also that no matter your other achievements, someone will always point out a shortcoming.
Three examples:
- You can't see prices for many items without logging in. For a site that is geared towards price-conscious consumers, this is such a silly move. Alternatively, they consider login/registration as a worthwhile conversion (otherwise they could show you the price when you add something to cart.)
- Yet, their registration page doesn't let you create an account with Facebook, Google or anything else. If you care about conversions, act like you care!
- Their Help is an email address or a phone number. Seriously? No chat? No FAQ? Even Comcast has this figured out. If your LTCV is > $500, there is no reason to skimp on support when you don't have traction.
- The total wealth of the world is expected to keep increasing - Capital grows faster than labour - Taxes and disasters redistribute wealth
This is why investing in index funds that don't pay dividends is such a good idea.
Trump would pay 15% of $20B = ~$3B, so his net worth would be $17B. And this is assuming that his stock investments don't pay qualified dividends that are reinvested. So, yeah, he'd have much more than $12B.
The irrational reason is that it's been 60+ years since atomic weapons were deployed, and we are confident the danger has passed. But really, there's plenty of weapons out there: http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/11/map-nuclear-bomb...