prev <-> next
[2016-10-13 13:51:20] - if they didn't go Trump. - mig
[2016-10-13 13:51:13] - paul: unfortunately, I think I think the house would go with McMullan if it came down to that. - mig
[2016-10-13 13:50:37] - Crazy Crazy scenario - McMullan wins Utah and Gary Johnson wins New Mexico (both are polling really strongly in their respective home states), and no one gets 270. - mig
[2016-10-13 13:47:28] - Daniel: Yeah, I'm not sure anything could surprise me anymore. I'm starting to even believe scenarios where somebody drops out or the election gets tossed to the House of Representatives or even *gasp* Gary Johnson wins. -Paul
[2016-10-13 13:25:17] - This election is the craziest thing I think I've ever seen. -Daniel
[2016-10-12 15:04:07] - Daniel: Hmmm, that's unfortunate, but I don't know what I can do about that. You can post comments on your phone. Our website is mobile friendly! -Paul
[2016-10-12 14:47:13] - Paul: I checked out the website. I don't know that its important but I can't do comments on things there because apparently my work blocks whatever you use for comments. -Daniel
[2016-10-12 13:24:23] - a: That does seem a little high, but I can believe it. -Paul
[2016-10-12 11:53:14] - i didn't realize it was that high actually. ~a
[2016-10-12 11:53:01] - paul: i added s&p total return. interesting how they're different by ~3%/year. i guess that's how much companies do in dividends per year? ~a
[2016-10-12 11:23:44] - a: Done. -Paul
[2016-10-12 11:18:01] - i added edit permissions. ~a
[2016-10-12 11:17:55] - . . . otherwise, if you want to do it, to annualize a percentage, you can use this: (percentIncrease+1)^4-1 or (newNumber/oldNumber)^4-1 also works if you didn't have any money added or taken out. ~a
[2016-10-12 11:16:41] - a: Also, I don't appear to have edit permissions. -Paul
[2016-10-12 11:15:52] -
just put the numbers in and i'll annualize them. ~a[2016-10-12 11:14:40] - a: Wait, now I don't understand the numbers that you have in there... -Paul
[2016-10-12 11:13:07] - a: Ah, sorry, missed that. I can put numbers in. -Paul
[2016-10-12 11:09:40] - did you see my link? i don't have your q2 numbers. ~a
[2016-10-12 11:09:12] - annualizing, means turning the number into a yearly figure. i.e. for quarters . . . if something goes up 10% in a quarter, that would equate to ~50% for a year (1.1**4-1). annualizing things makes it easier to compare numbers. ~a
[2016-10-12 11:00:29] - a: What do you mean by "annualizing"? I look at my overall returns (since inception) by comparing the money I started off with to the money I have now. -Paul
[2016-10-12 10:59:40] - a: Good point about S&P500 total return. That's not something I had considered. Let me look into it. -Paul
[2016-10-12 10:58:56] - a: For my vanguard and Roth IRA accounts, I'm just taking the value of the accounts at the end of the quarter based on my statements, so they should include dividends (which I should have set up to reinvest). -Paul
[2016-10-12 09:31:30] - paul: i care. 1. are you counting dividends? 2. shouldn't we be using the s&p500 total return? (aka ^SP500TR) since it includes dividends? 3. are you annualizing your "scores"? shouldn't you be? 4. link ~a
[2016-10-11 16:04:55] - aaron: Thanks! Hopefully it'll look even better once we get some additional graphics added (which I hope we can get implemented this week). Please let me know if you notice any issues with the site (for example, the mobile version used to have some anomalies). -Paul
[2016-10-11 15:09:25] - whoa!! web site looks great paul - aaron
[2016-10-11 13:52:55] - So Vanguard and the S&P are winning for now. But I'm catching up from my disastrous first quarter to this year (down 15.22%... ouch!). -Paul
[2016-10-11 13:51:33] - However, since I started tracking in the 3rd quarter of last year, here are the scores: S&P500 - 12.92%. Vanguard - 14.11%. Me - 5.01%. -Paul
[2016-10-11 13:50:28] - I forgot the mention, another quarter is in the books, so it's time for an update to my "Can Paul beat the S&P500?" challenge that nobody cares about. For the past quarter, the S&P was up 3.29% (nice work!) and my Vanguard collection of funds was up 6.4% (awesome!) while my personally managed Roth IRA was up 8.57% (woohoo!). -Paul
[2016-10-09 17:14:53] - ransomware meets IoT. ~a
[2016-10-08 21:40:17] - a: Ironically, Andrew's current Xbox picture kind of is a stock photo, but I agree that yours would be much funnier. -Paul
[2016-10-08 21:39:47] - a: Thanks! I'm trying to make it look at least a little professional. Should look even better once we get the banner graphics and if I can fix my thumbnail image. -Paul
[2016-10-08 10:15:00] - travis: haha, when i saw those titles, i thought of that marshall mathers song too. ~a
[2016-10-08 10:09:11] - i think instead of the xbox controller andrew's image should be a stock photo. it would make me laugh. one of these please ~a
[2016-10-08 10:06:52] - very pretty website. ~a
[2016-10-07 14:06:52] - Sending out a second call for anybody who is interested in writing the occasional post for a blog-type website. Topic can be pretty much anything. This thing is becoming a reality. You can get a sneak peek at www.rampantdiscourse.com (although we're not ready for a hard launch just yet). -Paul
[2016-10-07 11:51:02] - i can't decide if i love that video or hate that video but it makes me very uncomfortable - aaron
[2016-10-07 11:48:47] - I just found out one of my favorite youtube vidoes of all time was exiled from its channel due to music copyright issues. Sadness. - mig
[2016-10-07 11:48:40] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KP_1Zx79Loo doom (2016) with unnecessary sound effects - aaron
[2016-10-06 14:44:14] - aaron: grumble. perl gets no respect. ~a
[2016-10-06 14:22:55] - xpovos: my coworker just shared something similar: http://v1.std3.ru/71/b7/1450110575-71b77b2bd06f431f2bd0b4abb983738f.gif ~a
[2016-10-06 14:14:36] - daniel: making an image is cool too. any changes you make to a container can be turned into a tiny image. it works much like a git commit, but for an OS image change. ~a
[2016-10-06 14:13:49] - daniel: docker run --interactive --tty --rm ubuntu:16.10 creates a new "container" (which is effectively like a VM), starts it up, with a full-up operating system in it, in less than a second. and when you exit from it, it deletes the whole OS. you can start up tons of them, and each container uses like 5 megs of ram. ~a
[2016-10-06 09:22:48] - daniel: hah, nice. i've been using node.js and docker a lot at work recently. they're both pretty cool, but i'm able to see some interesting problems with both. ~a
[2016-10-06 08:30:01] - This popped up for me today and seemed apropos: https://toggl.com/programming-princess -- Xpovos
[2016-10-05 12:05:45] - a: i got 19/20, admittedly due to the flawed multiple choice format. the last four questions were just, "well i have no idea what language this is so i'll just guess the weird one." (i messed up perl) - aaron
[2016-10-05 11:57:47] - http://fortune.com/2016/10/03/software-patents/ why software patents are in peril after the intellectual ventures ruling - aaron
[2016-10-05 09:58:05] - a: Same idea, different frameworks: https://circleci.com/blog/its-the-future/ -Daniel
[2016-10-04 12:42:24] - a: I laughed. That was entertaining. -Daniel
[2016-10-04 12:22:57] - how it feels to learn javascript in 2016 ~a
[2016-10-04 12:22:34] - xpovos: yah, gj! after the fact, i looked up chicken. also js fuck. ~a
[2016-10-04 11:07:50] - a: 13/20. Not too shabby. -- Xpovos
[2016-10-03 16:43:28] - http://tutorialzine.com/2014/06/guess-the-programming-language/ ~a
[2016-10-03 14:53:15] - a: oo that is pretty cool. -Daniel
[2016-10-03 14:00:10] - a: WOW that is the coolest thing i've ever seen - aaron
[2016-10-03 09:49:48] - this geocache looks like it might be too hard. ~a
[2016-09-30 18:52:59] - aaron: an algorithm that turns simple examples bitmaps into huge bitmaps. the videos further down are fascinating to watch. and the 3d images are mind blowing. ~a
[2016-09-29 13:49:41] - When it rains, it pours. Ironically, as we're talking about medium term expenses and home warranties, it sounds like in addition to needing a new A/C, we might need to sink some money into some roof repairs too. The joys of home ownership! -Paul
[2016-09-29 13:28:28] - I think considering that I had to replace my AC unit when I moved in, I don't anticipate any really expensive component of my house breaking for a while. - mig
[2016-09-29 13:27:23] - mig: Yeah, I generally avoid insurance for stuff that I feel like I can pay myself to replace it if something goes wrong. -Paul
[2016-09-29 13:15:44] - it just really feels like a total rip-off. - mig
[2016-09-29 13:08:53] - The opportunity has arisen in the past, it's just they've come up with bullshit reasons not to actually cover what I would have thought they did, which is why I'm considering dropping them. - mig
[2016-09-29 13:06:37] - mig: So unless I think my home is likely to need an unusually high amount of work done, or if I don't have the funds to handle an unexpected expense (like a new A/C), I don't think it's worth it. -Paul
[2016-09-29 13:05:59] - mig: I think I had one for a year as part of my contract when I bought my townhouse... and I completely forgot to use it when the opportunity arose. The way I always think about it is that those companies make money off warranties because on average, they cost use more than they pay out. -Paul
[2016-09-29 13:02:43] - speaking of something like an AC, does anyone here who has a home warranty think it has any value at all. Mine's up for renewal and I'm giving serious consideration to just dropping it. - mig
[2016-09-29 11:15:05] - paul: and an AC is a perfect example of something i'm referring to. it's something expensive, that will come in the distant (on average) future, but way way before i retire. ~a
[2016-09-29 10:41:17] - paul: understood. yeah, in some ways i consider it long-term savings. even if i use some of it in the next 5 years, i won't use all of it in the next 5 years, so most of the money in my taxable account is going to be pretty long-term. ~a
[2016-09-29 09:51:58] - a: For example, we probably need to buy a new A/C for our house... which is looking to be around $10k (if not more). -Paul
[2016-09-29 09:51:00] - a: Yeah, I guess my answer about medium term savings is that it's about half in a taxable brokerage account (and I haven't sold any of the stocks I own in that account in years) and about half in Lending Club. I do keep a sizeable amount in our joint checking account, but that's because we often have random large bills that come up. -Paul
[2016-09-28 23:45:54] - https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/10/20/s-f-middle-school-delays-election-results-because-winners-not-diverse-enough/ if this is really where society is heading ... god help us all. - mig
[2016-09-28 23:43:53] - i've been registered since forever. I've voted twice before. - mig
[2016-09-28 22:45:05] - wooo! do it. are you registered? ~a
[2016-09-28 22:06:48] - https://reason.com/blog/2016/09/28/gary-johnson-gets-angry-you-will-too you know what. I'm motivated to spend the effort to vote now. - mig
[2016-09-28 13:48:08] - short description of langley's law. sounds crazy. ~a
[2016-09-28 12:30:50] - it's not even something that has a definite cost or due date. it's "money for fun things". things that don't have a price. ~a
[2016-09-28 12:26:20] - yep, i know the risk is high. "I don't want to have to put off buying my mountain bike" why not? i feel like we're not talking about a necessary expense, here. we're talking about something you could easily put off in the unlikely event that you have negative growth over five years. ~a
[2016-09-28 11:22:35] - a: Its the average of part of your sentence thats important. For short term things I think market risk outweights inflation risk in my head. I don't want to have to put off buying my mountain bike so I don't expose that money to market fluctuations. Are you advocating all savings no matter the time frame should be done in the market in some capacity? -Daniel
[2016-09-28 10:42:09] - daniel: 5 years will make you (average of) a 50% increase! i know the risk is high, but (for stuff like a boat?) you could potentially put off buying these things if the market falls. compare that to a savings account that makes (average of) about a 0% increase over 5 years! with to the 20% you just lost on inflation, you're kinda boned with a savings account? ~a
[2016-09-28 09:41:35] - a: I think for anything that I planned on spending within five years I'd probably just put it in a savings account since anything else has more risk than I think I would want for something I was going to spend sooner than that. For something like I want a boat roughly seven years from now I could see trying to put some in the market somewhere. -Daniel
[2016-09-27 17:27:53] - paul/daniel: yeah, i'm talking about medium-term. stuff you'll want more than a year away, but . . . but before you're in your 60s. whether or not you're maxed out on tax-deferred stuff or not seems to be orthagonal. yes, it's good to max-out on tax-deferred stuff, but i want (some) money sooner, and i don't know why i'd store that money in a losings account. ~a
[2016-09-27 16:35:41] - Once our housing situation resolves and Andrea figures out her job down here we will probably start looking more at taxable market investments for some savings. That will still be longer term savings though. For things like a mountain bike I would just use an online savings account. -Daniel
[2016-09-27 16:34:19] - a: Like Paul, my tax deferred isn't maxed out and our savings account isn't in the market but its in an online savings account so we are getting .9% interest at least. We've been saving up for a house down payment for awhile so we didn't want to that money to go down so it stayed out of the market. -Daniel
[2016-09-27 16:31:39] - a: Having said that, I've got stuff invested in what I like to think of as medium-term savings (like my taxable brokerage account and Lending Club) for stuff that I don't need in the near term but would like a return and probably will want before retirement. -Paul
[2016-09-27 16:30:21] - a: Not enough money? I've got tax deferred accounts I haven't maxed out (401(k), 529), so those would typically get increases before I hit a taxable account. Money I might need short term I keep in the checking account. Don't feel comfortable putting that money in the market. -Paul
[2016-09-27 16:15:28] - daniel/paul: no taxable accounts? why? where do you keep the money for things you're going to want before you retire? i.e. i hope to buy a mountain bike some day. also a car some day. also vacations? ~a
[2016-09-27 15:47:25] - Daniel: Ditto. I have very little money invested outside of tax-deferred accounts, and even in those, I haven't sold any for capital gains (or losses) in years. -Paul
[2016-09-27 15:23:57] - I don't have any real taxable investments at the moment so it hasn't really been an issue for me yet. I think that will probably start to change over the next few years so I might take more of a look at some point. I think Mr Money Mustache uses one of them? I don't remember which one. -Daniel
[2016-09-27 15:23:03] - a: I've heard of them. There are several companies that have similar ideas I think. WealthFront, Personal Capital, Bettermint, and Vanguard Personal Advisor Services are all automated or semi automated investing management I think. I haven't signed up for any but I've thought about it. -Daniel
[2016-09-27 14:50:11] - a: I could be thinking of another company, though. -Paul
[2016-09-27 14:50:03] - a: Heard of Wealthfront, although I'm honestly not that sure what they do. If I recall correctly, the Fool considers them somewhat of a competitor, although I think there is also the belief that they can't survive long as an independent entity at the rate they're burning through cash trying to acquire people. -Paul
[2016-09-27 14:43:11] - daniel/paul: have you heard of wealthfront? they're like robinhood/vanguard in that they don't have commissions. but they use other techniques like tax-loss-harvesting to increase your money (by deferring taxes on non-retirement accounts). thoughts? ~a
[2016-09-27 14:37:19] - There's also Warner Bros, who owns Netherrealm Studios (Mortal Kombat, Injustice), but I don't know how strong a place they have in the esports scene. - mig
[2016-09-27 14:29:05] - mig: I know EA has been trying to start up their own eSports stuff too, but I just don't know if I like EA as an investment overall. Seems like Amazon and Activision are the big (public) players. -Paul
[2016-09-27 14:26:48] - paul: capcom, maybe? People are kind of lukewarm on the possibilities for Street Fighter, but that option is there. - mig
[2016-09-27 14:23:52] - paul: doing some digging (which i probably should have done before throwing those names out there), it looks like neither are publicly available. - mig
[2016-09-27 13:57:10] - a: Definitely, the distributedness (if that's a word, which I doubt) of bitcoin is one of the most attractive things about it. I know I've mentioned looking at bitcoin as an investment, but it's also attractive as a "$h!t hits the fan" kind of resource to draw upon too. -Paul
[2016-09-27 13:31:34] - paul: with bits you just memorize a few words and (assuming torture is out of the question) your options are limited at a border. ~a
[2016-09-27 13:31:03] - paul: it's interesting to me that it's much harder to stop money from moving across borders with bits. if you want to take cash across national boundaries, it can be confiscated (or stolen, civil asset forfeitured). if you want to wire money to someone overseas, it goes over pipes that people can freeze. ~a
[2016-09-27 13:19:37] - mig: Valve and Riot are publicly available? -Paul
[2016-09-27 13:19:13] - a: I figured memorizing my words was better than writing it down all over the place. I should still have it written down somewhere, though, just in case the Mad Cow Disease gets me. Some day I'll figure out the difference between a hot (and presumably) cold wallet. Is one not installed on a phone? -Paul
[2016-09-27 13:18:19] - a: I'm not sure what you mean about "moving" money over a national border... Is there some wink-wink, nudge-nudge that I am missing? Are we talking about moving to Canada?
-Paul[2016-09-27 13:14:20] - mig: it's trump's quote. i think your question is for him. ~a
[2016-09-27 13:09:33] - a: what government action can be pointed at to explain this job creation? I've been told this is the least productive congress in the history of the known universe, so I'm curious as to what we can attribute this job outlook to. - mig
[2016-09-27 13:01:09] - a job creator like we haven't seen since reagan ~a
[2016-09-27 12:58:31] - paul: out of things that are publicly available ... hmmm, Valve or Riot maybe? - mig
[2016-09-27 12:47:38] - paul:
that's a very effective way of "moving" money over a national border, yah? . . . i have not memorized my 12 words, but i do have them written down in more than one place and i keep (relatively) very little money in my hot-wallet. ~a[2016-09-27 12:42:30] - a: I just memorized my bitcoin wallet 12 words today (going through the words slowly over time). -Paul
[2016-09-27 12:42:02] - aaron: Microsoft just spend big on LinkedIn (another blue company), so your theory has some merit.
-Paul[2016-09-27 12:41:40] - mig: I'm all in on investing in eSports. Got myself shares of Amazon (twitch) and Activision. Any others I am missing? -Paul
[2016-09-27 11:48:00] - http://www.businessinsider.com/warriors-wizards-co-owners-and-magic-johnson-buy-esports-team-2016-9 esports goin legit, yo. - mig
[2016-09-27 11:31:24] - twitter is blue, so microsoft - aaron
[2016-09-27 11:28:50] - paul: google does seem like the best fit but I would bet busybody regulators would get in the way (UNFAIR!). - mig
[2016-09-27 11:26:15] - mig: The rumored companies are: Salesforce, Google, Disney, Microsoft, Verizon, as far as I can tell. Salesforce seems to have the most interest, but the least amount of cash. -Paul
[2016-09-27 11:20:03] - paul: I was reading a rumor that Disney was making a bid. - mig
[2016-09-27 10:51:00] - So, who buys Twitter? I still think Google is the best match, but a part of me wonders if some other company comes from out of nowhere to purchase it. Amazon? Apple? -Paul
[2016-09-27 10:35:18] - a: Not at all surprising to me. While I was watching the debate (I watched some), Trump kept throwing out stats that I wasn't sure, but sounded made up.
-Paul[2016-09-27 10:00:48] - transcript with fact checking embedded ~a
[2016-09-27 08:28:06] - "Politico found that Trump averaged one falsehood every three minutes and 15 seconds over nearly five hours of remarks while Clinton averaged one falsehood every twelve minutes." ~a
[2016-09-26 13:01:37] - a: I think I knew that (in that I knew Maine did, but am not sure if I knew about Nebraska, like mig). -Paul
[2016-09-26 12:47:18] - a: Maine I knew about, Nebraska I did not. - mig
[2016-09-26 12:45:03] - did you guys know that maine and nebraska split up their electoral votes? apparently it's been like that for a long time (1960s and 1990s respectively). i like it and wish more states would do this, but am i the only person that didn't know they had that system? ~a
[2016-09-26 11:58:28] - Daniel: My hope, even if I don't watch, is that both self-destruct and make it more clear than ever how bad of a choice they would be for president (although I honestly don't even know how Trump could self-destruct, since I feel like he's been doing that for months now). -Paul
[2016-09-26 11:57:26] - half Clinton shrilly (not trying to be sexist, I just find her voice grating) defending herself from whatever ridiculous thing Trump is saying just doesn't sound at all appealing. -Paul
[2016-09-26 11:55:44] - Daniel: I don't know. I feel like I should watch the debate, and I guess there will be some drama, but I really don't feel like it. I know some people enjoy the whole "train wreck" thing, but I usually don't, and so the prospect of a debate that is half Trump shotgunning quarter-formed thoughts and... -Paul
[2016-09-26 11:44:50] - i'll watch it. i'm not hoping for anything in particular. ~a
[2016-09-26 11:29:15] - -Daniel
[2016-09-26 11:29:10] - Who here is watching the debate tonight? What are you expecting / hoping for in it? -Daneil
[2016-09-26 10:06:06] - I heard the radio say it seemed to be partly because Trump was gaining popularity here in TX so his lack of endorsement was starting to be an issue for him. Something like that. -Daniel
[2016-09-26 09:41:20] - mig: I don't know. It certainly means I am all out on Cruz. At least before, no matter what else, he could lean on being "principled". Now he doesn't have anything that appeals to me. -Paul
[2016-09-25 10:18:25] - paul: it's certainly puzzling. Why even go through all the convention stuff if you were going to inevitably endorse him anyways. - mig
[2016-09-23 14:45:25] - http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/23/politics/ted-cruz-endorses-donald-trump/index.html This would be super, super disappointing. Cruz's speech at the convention was probably the high-water mark of my respect for him, and he would be giving all that back (and more) if he decided to flip-flop and endorse Trump. -Paul
[2016-09-23 14:06:08] - a: http://www.theverge.com/2016/4/15/11439798/franky-zapata-racing-jet-powered-flying-hoverboard-interview it is fueled by a backpack full of jet fuel. it is powered by four 250 hp turboengines. it is stabilized electronically similar to a segway but still takes a lot of practice to stay balanced - aaron
[2016-09-23 12:41:15] - aaron: uhhh, wow. do you have more information on what is propelling that thing? what's powering it? i guess he probably has feul in his backpack? are we sure it's not fake? daniel, you'd prefer to be over the unforgiving ground? ~a
[2016-09-23 11:37:33] - aaron: I did not know that. Not totally shocked though. Not sure I would want to do it over anything but a lake though. -Daniel
[2016-09-23 10:47:13] - https://i.imgur.com/FR3wEMf.gifv did anybody else know they have drones capable of supporting a human's weight? i feel like this just came out of absolute nowhere. how is this not a bigger deal? - aaron
[2016-09-23 09:47:13] - paul: http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/18e820ec3f/between-two-ferns-with-zach-galifianakis-president-barack-obama and if you haven't seen between two ferns you might also like obama's. most guests are more abrasive towards zack - aaron
[2016-09-23 09:37:29] - paul: ha ha nice. i'm surprised to read that clinton has "struggled to win over" the critical young voter base. i kind of assumed that she'd have that demographic nailed down. but yeah lots of good jokes in that one! "white power tie." - aaron
[2016-09-22 12:45:07] - a: Weak?
I really liked both the initial joke and the second one. Heck, that was actually a second and third joke after him mistaking Secretary of State as a regular secretary. -Paul[2016-09-22 12:33:34] - paul: yeah, i thought that was pretty funny too. "and how does president obama like his coffee, like himself?" ~a
[2016-09-22 12:28:33] - http://thehill.com/blogs/in-the-know/in-the-know/hillary-clinton-zach-galifianakis-between-two-ferns Not sure if I've ever seen Between Two Ferns, but I enjoyed this one. Some really good zingers from Zach. -Paul
[2016-09-21 11:23:30] - mig: it could be that "quantifying fault" is up to the cop. (i'm totally guessing) making "fault" binary doesn't actually make things any easier though. what if you're sort-of at fault? does the cop say you're at fault or doesn't he? ~a
[2016-09-21 10:36:03] - How do you even quantify fault anyways? Usually in accidents between cars, police assign fault, but it's pretty binary. You either were at fault or you weren't. - mig
[2016-09-21 10:34:42] - As a side, note, I'm sure health insurance companies were probably happy with this change. - mig
[2016-09-21 10:26:14] - a: absolutely, the old law was terrible since it was pretty obvious the intent was to shield insurance companies from potentially having to provide compensation from certain types of accidents. But my question is why does the government codify this in the first place. - mig
[2016-09-21 10:18:02] - mig: the old % was 0%. so, the old codification was very broken, agreed? ~a
[2016-09-21 10:12:02] - a: It's odd to me that this something (% of blame needed for compensation for cyclists/pedestrians) like this needs or should be codified into law. This feels like the kind of thing that should be handled naturally in some sort of settlement process. - mig
[2016-09-21 09:58:41] - also, let's argue about this link. "insurance companies and the AAA-Atlantic lobbied against changing the law, arguing that it would amount to an increase in auto insurance premiums" duhhh. before, your customers weren't paying anything when they negligently ran their cars into things. ~a
[2016-09-21 09:42:45] - what kind of caterpillar is this? ~a
[2016-09-21 09:42:19] - g: would you hang out there? ~a
[2016-09-20 11:39:14] - g: What would it be used for? A replacement for the message board? Something complementary? -Paul
[2016-09-20 11:33:05] - Would you all be into creating a slack team? For communicating? I know we already use this so I can see you saying no... ~g
[2016-09-20 11:27:39] - a: I like to imagine a time when the Libertarian Party will be considered a major party. I try to be realistic, though.
-Paul[2016-09-20 11:14:29] - no, there's nothing wrong with it. however, i like to imagine a time where people will treat it like any other currency. and instead of "buying" it, they'll just "earn" it. ~a
[2016-09-19 19:37:32] - a: I don't think there is anything wrong with saying you're "investing" in a currency in general. I don't do currency trades, but lots of people try to buy and sell currencies based on perceived cheapness relative to other currencies, right? -Paul
[2016-09-19 19:36:16] - a: The reasons are because (1) I've never really spent bitcoin on anything, so it's hard for me to consider it as a currency and (2) it's values relative to other things seems volatile enough that it seems to make more sense to hold it as an investment than to spend it (instead of spending USD) right now. -Paul
[2016-09-19 19:35:09] - a: Yeah, I definitely used the term "invested" very non-seriously there with my reference to my bets on Trump/Clinton, but that's a real good question about bitcoin. Despite it being a currency (like USD), I currently view the bitcoins I have in my possession as an investment. -Paul
[2016-09-19 15:55:45] - paul: ok, changing subjects to terminology: you say you're "invested" in bitcoin. isn't that like saying you're "invested" in USD or euros? i'd say (assuming i lived in europe) that i use euros, or that i spend euros. which is why i don't usually focus on buying or selling bitcoin, but instead on earning, using, saving, or spending it. thoughts? ~a
[2016-09-19 15:49:43] - a: Frankly, the riskiest stuff I'm invested in is probably bitcoin and bets against Trump/Clinton.
(And, I suppose, my tiny investment in Legion M). -Paul[2016-09-19 15:48:46] - a: Perfectly reasonable. Probably 2/3 to 3/4 of my retirement funds are in index funds (some might be technically low fee mutual funds or ETFs and not index funds). I only rarely do covered calls and other low-risk options trades. No margins. No shorting. No futures. I think I mostly a conservative investor despite my talk.
-Paul[2016-09-19 15:44:55] - (also, i'm mostly ignoring commodities trading). ~a
[2016-09-19 15:42:35] - paul: i hear you. i was trying to make a joke. anyways, covered calls sounds less risky than other types of options. but for my own personal investing, i think i'll continue to ignore options, and ignore futures, and ignore margin accounts, and ignore forex (mostly ignore forex
). ~a[2016-09-19 15:36:46] - a: But the alternative (in my mind) was to just sell it instead, so I was missing that gain anyway. -Paul
[2016-09-19 15:36:28] - a: Except, I don't always do covered calls or surrender. It's something I just dabble with, and always in the safest way possible. Most of the covered calls I've made have been on companies I was considering just selling outright at the time. One of them DID jump big and I lost out on that big gain... -Paul
[2016-09-19 15:35:07] - a: I'm trying to show how my options trades are in many ways less "gambling" than individual stocks or even index funds. Yes, I'm certainly limiting my upside. I think of it like always surrendering in blackjack. It might not always be the best move, but it takes some risk out of the game instead of adding more risk. -Paul
[2016-09-19 15:33:02] - a: I'm not trying to present my options trades as a magical winning trade that always is the best option nor am I trying to discount the potential earnings. What I am trying to do is address what I felt like was your skepticism when you said: "options trades" now here's some fucking gambling. tell me more about your options trades, paul -Paul
[2016-09-19 15:31:15] - a: I'm so confused. Wasn't the whole discussions just a few hours ago about how "experts" can't beat index funds and how day traders lose money in a market that generally goes up?
-Paul[2016-09-19 15:27:16] - futures. yeah, i believe futures are probably zero-sum too. ~a
[2016-09-19 15:26:57] - "If they're losing money, who is making money?" warren buffet. seriously, "experts" are making money. i'm not saying that your options decisions are bad ones, i'm saying, you'd do better to invest in non-zero-sum-games. like daniel said, you're discounting the potential earnings you could have made ignoring options. ~a
[2016-09-19 15:26:20] - a: Yeah I think you are right. http://www.investopedia.com/terms/z/zero-sumgame.asp certainly agrees. -Daniel
[2016-09-19 15:25:59] - Daniel: Oh, right, I totally agree. That's where the downside to the trade is and why it's not some magical win/win. But it's hard for me to count hypothetical gains as losses. I usually do covered calls on stocks I'm already thinking of selling, so it's a way of getting some more gains out of a stock I might normally just sell outright. -Paul
[2016-09-19 15:24:21] - daniel: since stocks (all of them, on average) are going to go up. we're all buying and selling pieces of an ever-increasing pie. you may be able to say "hey, if i still had shares in company X, a long time ago, i'd have more money than if i had held it in USD that whole time", but that's not the same thing as a zero-sum-game. ~a
[2016-09-19 15:24:06] - a: Another way to think of it is that I am "taking advantage" (I don't really think this, but it's one way of thinking of it) of all those day traders who lose money. They're trying to do fancy stuff and guess where a stock is going and hedge and whatever else. If they're losing money, who is making money? -Paul
[2016-09-19 15:23:48] - Paul: I think the cost you have of missing out on growth is perhaps a bigger cost than you are allowing. -Daniel
[2016-09-19 15:22:29] - daniel: i disagree with your assessment. options are zero-some. stocks are not. "Only one of those person's made the correct decision" != "zero sum game". ~a
[2016-09-19 15:22:05] - a: Is that I get paid some money and sell my shares of Apple at a higher price then they are currently trading for. That's my "losing" scenario. That's not bad. -Paul
[2016-09-19 15:21:33] - a: Sure, and I'm certainly not trying to convince you to do anything you wouldn't feel comfortable with. I do hope, though, that I can make you understand why I don't think it's risky. In this example, I already own Apple stock. If I make this trade, the worst thing that can possibly happen as a result... -Paul
[2016-09-19 15:20:48] - a: I think all stocks is zero sum. Someone who is buying is buying from someone who is selling. Only one of those person's made the correct decision. -Daniel
[2016-09-19 15:02:16] - paul: but that same person decided it was better for him to *not* hold apple at the current price as you did. i'll go by to my original sentiment: i don't want to ever play a zero-sum-game against experts. as crazy and risky as i get, that's something i don't do. i'm sure daniel would agree. ~a
[2016-09-19 15:01:33] - a: It should be noted, though, that I don't do this for all my stocks (for various reasons). I often like to keep that potential upside for myself. If I recall, I would've lost out on a lot of Netflix/Disney/Amazon gains last year if I had done covered calls with them. -Paul
[2016-09-19 15:00:12] - a: I don't worry about "beating" somebody else. I look at every trade through the lens of what is the best and worst thing that can happen. When both of those result in me having more money than I had before the trade, I generally don't hate it.
-Paul[2016-09-19 14:59:13] - a: But people are looking for different things. I have shares of a stock that I wouldn't mind selling at a higher price and don't mind possibly forgoing upside. Somebody else wants to buy shares of Apple cheap if the price soars. It's a market. -Paul
[2016-09-19 14:58:08] - a: And it probably is a zero sum game, in a way (I haven't thought this through). The person who bought my covered calls is either going to be happy (Apple goes to $200 and I get to buy shares for $120 for an instant gain of $80 a share!) or sad (I just blew some money and got nothing) inversely related to my happiness/sadness. -Paul
[2016-09-19 14:56:01] - a: Because you are forfeiting the potential upside of Apple going up to $200. It's actually a way of using options to reduce volatility in a way. -Paul
[2016-09-19 14:55:16] - a: If Apple never drops below $100 before the month is out, then I get to keep the money and nothing else happens. But if Apple goes to $50 a share tomorrow, I am on the hook to buy those shares at $100 a piece. -Paul
[2016-09-19 14:54:08] - a: The other options trades I do are... I think selling puts? My knowledge of terminology is iffy. Again, I get paid up front (and keep the money no matter what). Let's say I want to buy Apple shares, but think $113 is too expensive. I would rather buy them at $100. I sell puts for $100 that expire in a month... -Paul
[2016-09-19 14:53:18] - paul: i am pessamistic that i would be able to make money option trading against experts. it seems too zero-sum-game to me. in fact, help me out there, why isn't it zero-sum-game? assuming you aren't hedging something? ~a
[2016-09-19 14:53:00] - paul: i understand your method, now explain this to me: if what you say is true, and a holder of apple could make this money in every situation, then why doesn't every holder of apple make this option? wouldn't it be less profitable for you if everybody realized the win-win-ness? ~a
[2016-09-19 14:51:40] - a: But if Apple goes up to $500 suddenly, then I have to sell my shares for $120 to the person who bought my call. It sucks I lose out on $380 of upside, but I still got paid money to sell my shares of Apple for more than they were worth at the time. So it's still a win for me. -Paul
[2016-09-19 14:50:50] - a: So if I own Apple shares (currently trading around $113), then I might sell covered calls for $120 that expire in a month. I get paid money up front. If Apple stays below $120 between now and then, nothing else happens. Free money! -Paul
[2016-09-19 14:49:41] - a: The majority of my options trades are covered calls, which means I get paid money (that I keep no matter what happens) and the worst thing that can happen is my stock goes up some crazy amount and I miss on some of that upside. -Paul
[2016-09-19 14:48:57] - a: I would be happy to! I actually think I can convince you my trades are LESS like gambling (maybe). -Paul
[2016-09-19 14:46:56] - paul: using bitcoin is *by far* the riskiest thing i do. ~a
[2016-09-19 14:45:28] - paul: "options trades" now here's some fucking gambling. tell me more about your options trades, paul (though, as a bitcoin user, i have no room to talk). more seriously, i do want to know more about your "method" for deciding how to make an option trade. ~a
[2016-09-19 14:42:21] - a: I mean, isn't owning bitcoin a bit of a gamble too? So are the bets I made about Trump and Clinton. Gambling can be fun. -Paul
[2016-09-19 14:41:33] - a: Oh, I know, I wasn't trying to prove anything. I was just trying to gamble.
-Paul[2016-09-19 14:41:11] - Daniel: Because I thought 3D printing could be the next big thing. Turns out it wasn't, so I sold (at a loss). It's worth noting I don't sell too often. I'm very much NOT a day trader. When I buy a company, I hope to hold it for years. If I'm selling before then, it's usually because something went horribly wrong. -Paul
[2016-09-19 14:40:29] - paul: your test doesn't actually measure risk. what's more, it's with hindsight. you need to look at 1000 people who are using your "method" to pick stocks, and see how well they do. sadly, we can't do that. ~a
[2016-09-19 14:39:55] - Daniel: That's one reason I buy. Sometimes it's different reasons (I own Yahoo because I felt like they would find a way around the tax penalties that were being assumed with their Alibaba stake sale). I sell when I feel like my thesis is no longer valid. For example, I used to own some 3d printing companies... -Paul
[2016-09-19 14:38:08] - Daniel: Other than you taking my word that my spreadsheet tracking it is accurate.
-Paul[2016-09-19 14:37:56] - Daniel: But I don't mind gambling.... in fact... I would make a wager with you that my Roth IRA (which I self-direct buying individual stocks and the rare options trade) outperforms my traditional IRA (which is all invested in 4 different Vanguard funds) over a 5+ year time horizon, but I don't know of an easy way to measure that. -Paul
[2016-09-19 14:37:51] - daniel: if it's a good company, with a good business model, with steady P/E every year? buy when: now. sell when: that stops being true. if that never stops being true, sell when you retire? ~a
[2016-09-19 14:36:15] - Paul: So you buy stocks for companies where you think cool things are going to happen with them? How do you decide when to sell? When you buy do you not think the value of future cool things are not already part of the price? -Daniel
[2016-09-19 14:36:13] - Daniel: Okay, that's the only point I was trying to make. I might even agree it's a worse gamble.
-Paul[2016-09-19 14:35:19] - Daniel: And I think the major players in that space in 5-10 years are going to probably be Alphabet (Google), Tesla and/or Uber. I can't own any of Uber, but I do own shares of the first two. -Paul
[2016-09-19 14:34:47] - Paul: Sorry, I think I'm with you on this. I need to phrase it better. Gambling on individual stocks is imo a much worse gamble than a gamble on the US economy as a whole. I agree they are both gambling though. -Daniel
[2016-09-19 14:34:40] - Daniel: I don't "know" when to buy or sell a stock, and I very rarely look at the price of the stock. I just look at what the business is doing and where it's going and see if I think big things are ahead. For example, I'm a big believer in self-driving cars being the future and cars as a service instead of something we buy being the norm. -Paul
[2016-09-19 14:32:58] - Daniel: "just gambling", but is index fund investment also "just gambling"? If not, why? -Paul
[2016-09-19 14:32:18] - a: Sure, the volatility of one stock is much higher than an index. But just because somebody plays one game of roulette vs 500 games of roulette doesn't fundamentally change whether it's gambling or not, does it? -Paul
[2016-09-19 14:32:07] - Paul: Sure but then its just gambling. Which can be fine if you have the budget. Clearly I've played poker with you so I'm not against that on some level. But picking individual stocks is definitely gambling. Like poker you can be good at it. I'm just not totally sure I'm convinced anyone really is. -Daniel
[2016-09-19 14:31:01] - But I also feel like following stocks just helps to keep me more informed about the world. I barely knew anything about Elon Musk before I bought shares of Tesla. Now he's frankly one of my business heroes and I follow all sorts of stuff he does. -Paul
[2016-09-19 14:30:58] - Paul: How do you know when to buy and sell a given stock? I don't know how to answer that which is why I didn't actually use robinhood. Its why I just invest in indexes and never sell. -Daniel
[2016-09-19 14:29:44] - I think I've made this point before, but I enjoy investing in individual stocks (and have enjoyed doing it well before working at the Fool). I'm willing to accept a slight under-performance of the market with the funds I manage myself for that enjoyment. Probably the same part of me that doesn't mind spending $100 on blackjack at Vegas. -Paul
[2016-09-19 14:29:04] - paul: no: commission = $7/trade. fee = $0.05/sale (about). ~a
[2016-09-19 14:28:11] - paul: you have to admit the volatility of any one randomly chosen stock is much higher than the volatility of an index fund, right? it's especially true, if we include dumb decisions like margin accounts, penny stocks, and shorting. the telling statistic for me was that day-traders lose more than they make. how is that possible if the market is always going up? ~a
[2016-09-19 14:25:53] - a: Oh! I wonder if those high fee ones were options trades. In fact, I'm pretty sure they are. That makes more sense. -Paul
[2016-09-19 14:24:41] - a: Wait, your commissions are always $4? I thought Scottrade was always $7... -Paul
[2016-09-19 14:24:21] - Daniel: Fair enough. I just feel like gambling has a negative connotation involving mostly chance and mostly losing money. I think there can be skill in picking stocks and if you have an even temperament and are diversified, you should usually make money investing (even in individual stocks). -Paul
[2016-09-19 14:21:49] - Paul: Those are all valid parts of your asset allocation. The S&P is a very commonly discussed index fund but I don't think I'm actually invested in one? Maybe? I'd have to check. -Daniel
[2016-09-19 14:19:27] - paul: count them or don't. i don't know why your "fees" are so high, my fees are $4 (total, ever. fees for me are only on a "sale" and usually about 5 cents). "commissions" = scottrade, "fees" = goes to someone else, i'm not sure who. ~a
[2016-09-19 14:18:32] - Buying one stock over another might just seem like some random game of chance, but how is that different from buying one index fund over another? The S&P500 is just the largest US companies, right? What about mid-caps? Small-caps? International? What about bonds and real estate and currencies and commodities? -Paul
[2016-09-19 14:18:27] - Paul: I see index funds as making a different gamble than individual stocks. Still a gamble though in its own way though. Index funds are gambling on the market/economy as a whole. Individuals stocks is betting on I don't even know... fear? human psychology? hope? business fundamentals? -Daniel
[2016-09-19 14:17:24] - There's no reason why somebody couldn't lose a whole bunch of money buying an S&P index fund. -Paul
[2016-09-19 14:15:59] - aDaniel: I guess my objection in this conversation about investing some in the market is the heavy association with gambling. I can see why some might call it that, but is index fund investing not like gambling in a similar way? -Paul
[2016-09-19 14:13:56] - a: Hmmm, that's interesting. According to the spreadsheet, I'm also over $1k in commissions+fees, but there are some recent trades where the commissions were big ($17+?) that I have no idea why they would be that high and I don't recall them being that high. Also, should I be counting the fees column? I don't recall seeing those when I trade. -Paul
[2016-09-19 14:09:06] - a: If learning those things is worth 5% of your portfolio to you then sure. I also do not know what those things all mean and how they all work but given an efficient market I don't think I need to. Certainly if you don't believe or think that there are inefficient portions of the market then it might be worth it to learn more about those things. -Daneil
[2016-09-19 14:08:51] - daniel: you're right. gambling is fun, and kids (also many adults) won't *learn* the difference between gambling and investing. i'm starting to believe the #1 suggestion might actually be a bad one the more i talk to you. ~a
[2016-09-19 14:07:11] - "if you can motivate yourself w/o it" i cannot. i've tried, but honestly, i can't track a portfolio (or spend time learning what P/E means and how that relates to EPS and how that relates to EBITDA, and honestly how much any of that even matters) if it's not a non-trivial amount of money. ~a
[2016-09-19 14:03:54] - a: I'm not set on yet either way but it seems like giving someone a taste of gambling at the moment to learn about gambling. -Daniel
[2016-09-19 14:03:22] - a: Honestly maybe the more I think about it, perhaps the more I would advise against a 15 year old playing the market. I think maybe the worst outcome is they do well and think they are good at it. Its like giving someone 50 bucks to play blackjack and they win 2 grand and think they are good at it. Then come back with their rent money and it goes south. -Daniel
[2016-09-19 14:00:57] - a: Like this comment (https://www.reddit.com/r/personalfinance/comments/53fkpm/15_years_old_dad_gave_me_1966_in_his_td/d7svz4d) you can do all of that w/o actually investing in anything random. Thats why its a bit of a wash for me. The money adds motivation but if you can motivate yourself w/o it then the money doesn't do much to teach you in and of itself. -Daniel
[2016-09-19 13:58:34] - -Daniel
[2016-09-19 13:58:31] - The interesting thing I read somewhere (maybe linked here?) was that a position someone had where if to many people go the index route that then the market might become inefficient. I don't think we are there yet and I'm not sure we ever really get there, but as more and more people turn to indexing for retirement it makes a very large pool of money in index funds.
[2016-09-19 13:57:10] - a: If you feel you need that 5% to mess around with so that you better understand financial markets then I suppose! However even then I think I would contend that purely financially that gained knowledge isn't going to benefit you so you should just leave it in an index fund and move on. -Daniel
[2016-09-19 13:56:01] - a: I just read that! I think for a 15 year old with a small budget there is a case to be made for messing around and being ok with losing it. I think there is also a case that the best financial decision is to park it in an index fund and move on. I don't know that either is right/wrong in this case. -Daniel
[2016-09-19 13:44:12] - paul: if you're like me and you have a scottrade ira account as well, you have to do this twice. ~a
[2016-09-19 13:42:44] - paul: yes there is. "easy"ish: 1. transaction history. 2. "all available" 3. export to excel. 4. open in google docs (or whatever). 5. select the column for "Commission". 6. google docs (or whatever) will tell you the "sum" when you select cells in the bottom right-hand corner. ~a
[2016-09-19 13:38:56] - daniel: for example, i just read this. the number 1 reply, is basically, "hey, this is about education, not making money, so don't do the smartest thing, because the smartest thing actually will educate you the least." what do you think about that? ~a
[2016-09-19 13:38:06] - daniel: "it still seemed to much like gambling to me". yeah, i know you're against this kind of investing. and, honestly, i am too! it's only ~5% of my current portfolio and i feel like it keeps me educated. ~a
[2016-09-19 13:33:47] - a: No doubt, especially since I've been trading with them for so long. Is there an easy way to find out? -Paul
[2016-09-19 13:31:38] - paul: i only do a "few" trades per year as well. you'd be surprised how quickly that adds up. like . . . i bought a house in 2005, and sold everything: that's a lot of $7 trades to sell everything. then all again in 2016. you should see how much you've paid scottrade. even though it's probably not $1k, it's still probably higher than you think it is. ~a
[2016-09-19 12:49:27] - daniel: http://imgur.com/EIQ6cXU I don't know if you've had to deal with this fuckhead yet, but this brightened up my day. - mig
[2016-09-19 11:48:09] - a: I actually came super close to switching from Scottrade to Interactive Brokers (to the point where I have an IB account and initiated the money transfer... except it never went through) because IB has much lower fees. The good thing is I probably only do a few trades a year, so my total fees is probably still under $1k lifetime. -Paul
[2016-09-19 11:46:48] - a: Yup, definitely heard of it, and it's been a topic of discussion here at the Fool. I've never used it, but heard from people that have. Seems to be legit, but apparently customer service is what you might expect from a discount broker like that. -Paul
[2016-09-19 10:40:04] - a; But the 0 dollar things was intriguing for me. -Daniel
[2016-09-19 10:39:32] - a: I actually looked at it recently and was slightly interested cause I have a small amount of extra $ currently that I considered investing but after thinking about it - it still seemed to much like gambling to me. I couldn't decide on how I would decide on when to buy or when to sell anything. -Daniel
[2016-09-19 10:24:05] - paul: looking back, i've spent $1k on scottrade fees since 2004, so the $7/trade is a non-trivial amount of money. otoh, i do like scottrade's service, so it could be i've gotten my $1k worth. ~a
[2016-09-19 10:16:29] - paul: (i'd also flag daniel, but i know this kind of investing does not interest him) robinhood.com, have you heard of it? like scottrade, i guess, except instead of $7/trade it's $0/trade. apparently they make money on interest of your cash balance and on margin accounts. i haven't tried their site yet. ~a
[2016-09-16 16:10:37] - a: Well, I think it went along with her confusion about Snowden having worked with WikiLeaks. -Paul
[2016-09-16 16:05:17] - daniel: i agree with miguel, i don't think snowden ever used wikileaks directly. i think you're wrong about the facts when it comes to snowden.
~a[2016-09-16 16:04:38] - paul: "releasing info that endangered overseas agents" i don't think that happened with snowden. does gurkie have some info on that? ~a
prev <-> next