prev <-> next
[2018-01-25 10:00:39] - a: We're both clearly idiots.
-Paul[2018-01-24 17:02:21] - paul: if i still had 206m bits (which was my closing balance in 2012), it would've been worth over 2 million dollars now. ~a
[2018-01-24 16:35:08] - a: Heck, I think I even sold a few shares just a few years ago. -Paul
[2018-01-24 16:34:39] - a: Yes, well, I did sell some. I sold all at one point.
-Paul[2018-01-24 16:32:36] - paul: only assuming you never sold any. ~a
[2018-01-24 15:50:16] - https://rampantdiscourse.com/lessons-from-my-biggest-investing-mistake/ Holy crap, it would've been worth over a million dollars now.
-Paul[2018-01-24 15:37:36] - a: Btw, I was looking over my picks from the 2017 challenge and admiring my 30%+ gainers when I looked at yours. I cannot believe Netflix, as big as it already was when we started, is up 71% for you. That's just amazing. I can't even complain about GBTC anymore since your bottom 4 is outpacing mine too. -Paul
[2018-01-24 15:36:12] - a: Okay. Wasn't necessarily trying to make a point. I've just been hearing for so long that wages have stagnated that I assumed it was true. Good to hear that's not entirely accurate. -Paul
[2018-01-24 14:53:37] - paul: yes, you are right. since the last 10 years includes 2008, salaries are pretty low. if you look at the last 6 years (2010-2016), salaries have gone up 16% vs 10% of inflation. (2.5%/year vs 1.7%/year). ~a
[2018-01-24 13:34:46] - a: Okay, but if you look at your numbers (assuming second column is income and third is inflation) over the past 10 years, it looks like wage growth has barely beaten out inflation 28% to 25%. Am I reading it wrong? -Paul
[2018-01-24 12:59:02] - paul: also, inflation recently has been super low. since 2003 (when we graduated from college), inflation has averaged 2%/year. ~a
[2018-01-24 12:52:53] - paul: 2015=4%, 2014=3%. numbers. ~a
[2018-01-24 12:30:32] - Paul: I've heard of some corps giving out bonuses before now but in your forture article Fifth Third Bancorp was the first company I'd heard about who was raising wages. I generally think of bonuses as less valuable than wage increases since its a one time thing. -Daniel
[2018-01-24 12:01:44] - a: Nope! No links at all. Just going by all the rhetoric I have been hearing about wage stagnation lately. Would be happy to be shown to be wrong. -Paul
[2018-01-24 11:57:31] - paul: no, totally disagree with that. do you have a link? median incomes (mostly middle class) and average incomes (mostly upper class) are both on the rise. increases in median incomes: 2015=4%, 2014=3%. we're like doubling inflation here (2% recently). doubling!
~a[2018-01-24 11:51:11] - a: Below average compared to all time? Because hasn't middle class incomes been pretty stagnant for the past decade or so? -Paul
[2018-01-24 11:42:45] - paul: if "at&t" and "boeing" promise to increase pay because of the bill, and the median income increase is barely-above-average (or hell, below-average), i'll say there might be a causation differently than you expect. ~a
[2018-01-24 11:42:19] - a: So to you, examples of the president actually affecting pay increases and bonuses is simply that people get pay increases and bonuses? In that case, my link shows that too. Or are you saying bigger increases = more causation? I'm not trying to straw-man, just legitimately confused. -Paul
[2018-01-24 11:35:59] - paul: actual increases in pay. ~a
[2018-01-24 11:35:12] - a: And I would point to the link I pasted here (or any others). What kind of reasonable causation do you want? -Paul
[2018-01-24 11:33:36] - paul: okay, but again, i'll just point back to that you've provided no causation with a thing that's barely notable. ~a
[2018-01-24 11:29:04] - a: Okay, but again, I'll just point back to how we're looking at different things (size vs causation). -Paul
[2018-01-24 11:28:25] - a: I said, "I'm beginning to wonder if he should be getting like 10% credit". I didn't even say he definitely should, just that I'm beginning to wonder. I think there's some evidence to believe that he has done some things (more than most previous presidents) to affect the performance of the stock market in a positive way. -Paul
[2018-01-24 11:28:02] - paul: but again, i'll repeat, i doubt trump will ever see numbers even close to 1997. ~a
[2018-01-24 11:27:42] - paul: i'll reserve judgement until after we see the 2018 median incomes. ~a
[2018-01-24 11:26:26] - a: Yes, maybe these are all coincidences and maybe I'm reaching. Again, I point back to my tentative 10% comment. I'm not trying to say Trump is great because everything is so much better than Obama and he deserves all the credit MAGA. -Paul
[2018-01-24 11:25:18] - a: I'm seeing many more companies and CEOs making direct connections between raises and bonuses and pulling money overseas and investing more with a specific government action (the tax bill) and there's good reason to believe there might be something to it (lower corporate tax rate) than I saw with Obama and his recovery. -Paul
[2018-01-24 11:24:02] - a: http://fortune.com/2017/12/20/gop-tax-bill-att-boeing/ Like I said, plenty of companies have announced bonuses or pay raises and have tied it to passage of the tax bill. Sure, this isn't at all proof, but I think we all agree proof is impossible. I think this is as close as we'll get in the moment. -Paul
[2018-01-24 11:22:40] - at least admit you're trying to find causation with a thing that's barely notable. ~a
[2018-01-24 11:21:51] - paul: "i'm looking for causation" of course you are. but you've provided no causation. ~a
[2018-01-24 11:19:54] - paul: ok, 1997 saw a 5% increase in median incomes (6% increase in average incomes). i doubt trump will ever see numbers that high. ~a
[2018-01-24 11:18:15] - Daniel: Sure, although I doubt they would've done it in 2 years because they had kept it over there for over a decade already and were borrowing money to pay a dividend instead of paying taxes to bring it back. -Paul
[2018-01-24 11:17:05] - a: Right, but I'm going to point back to what I said before. You're equating size with how much credit is warranted (and frankly, in this case, you showed me a graph of household income up to 2015, which I am having trouble seeing how it proves your point). I'm not just looking for size of increase, I'm looking for causation. -Paul
[2018-01-24 11:12:58] - Paul: I'm sure they did it now because of the tax code but its hard to say if they wouldn't have done it eventually if they didn't think a tax break would be coming. So again maybe sort of credit? But if Clinton won maybe they do it 2 years from now anyways cause they think its going to be another six years of her or something? Don't know. -Daniel
[2018-01-24 11:12:32] - paul: angry? my first words were "sure, yeah, i think he should get a non-zero amount of credit!" ~a
[2018-01-24 11:11:28] - paul: "what about the bonuses and raises that companies have announced?" awwwwww man, we can go down that rabbit hole, but you know what's coming next: previous presidents who presided over much larger increases in salaries/bonuses. ~a
[2018-01-24 11:10:32] - a: So.... you seemed angry that I suggest maybe giving him 10% of the credit... and now you say give him 100%?
-Paul[2018-01-24 11:07:42] - paul: and you want to give trump credit for this barely-above-average year. and i've said give it to him. give him 100% of the credit! barely-above-average year? barely-above-average is likely the best he's going to get. ~a
[2018-01-24 11:07:25] - a: Totally fair point on #1, but I do think it's reasonable to think that it's more likely to help than hurt. What about the bonuses and raises that companies have announced? Do you think it's impossible to judge whether those will have an effect too? -Paul
[2018-01-24 11:05:52] - Daniel: Probably going to be impossible to say with any certainty, but I think everybody believes Apple is doing this mostly because of the changes in corporate tax rates. -Paul
[2018-01-24 11:05:26] - Daniel: "A. M. Sacconaghi, a financial analyst for Sanford C. Bernstein, said Apple had consistently spent tens of billions of dollars on areas like staffing and capital expenditures in recent years. Bringing back the overseas cash, he said, does little to aid its expansion." -Paul
[2018-01-24 11:05:01] - paul: 1. there's no way to know how much of an effect it has or if it even would be net-positive in the long term (measuring the whole bill on the long-term is impossible). no effect? yeah probably not literally no effect. 2. no. ~a
[2018-01-24 11:04:59] - Daniel: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/17/technology/apple-tax-bill-repatriate-cash.html "For years, Apple had said it would not bring its foreign earnings back to the United States until the corporate tax code changed, because such a move would be too costly." -Paul
[2018-01-24 11:03:09] - a: Okay, but I guess I'm looking for reasons to think of causation versus simple correlation. It sounds to me like you're just looking for big movements in the market and assigning credit appropriately. Because I tend to default to "no causation" between presidents and the stock market, I need to look for reasons to think there is some. -Paul
[2018-01-24 10:59:01] - paul: i'd use both. it's good. it's above average. but, i'd rather give credit to someone who actually deserves credit: like someone who presided over a year like 2013 or 1995. or even 2003. ~a
[2018-01-24 10:56:49] - Paul: I'm not sure whether Apple would have done it or not. I think on some level its impossible to say. Aren't they doing it in order to build another big office location similar to amazon? Maybe amazon is what inspired them to that and they would have done it anyways? Don't know. -Daniel
[2018-01-24 10:56:02] - a: Would you be more on board if, instead of uttering Trump's name, I phrased it like, "What amount of credit would you give to government actions in the past year for the stock market run-up?" -Paul
[2018-01-24 10:55:10] - a: So between our terms, would you say that "above average" and "top half" more accurately can be described as "good" or "ain't shit"?
-Paul[2018-01-24 10:53:42] - paul: 19% is above average, nothing more. check the numbers man. it doesn't even rank in the top quartile of years. hell, it's barely in the top half! (median != average for these btw). ~a
[2018-01-24 10:48:45] - a: I mean, I understand this knee-jerk reaction to not be political and say that all presidents deserve equal credit/blame for the stock market on their watch and to a certain extent I agree, but I do think they can effect things on the margins. -Paul
[2018-01-24 10:47:46] - a: Let me ask you two questions: (1) Do you think Apple bringing home hundreds of billions of dollars in overseas cash will have no effect on the economy/stock market? (2) Do you think Apple would've done that were it not for the tax bill? -Paul
[2018-01-24 10:47:01] - a: Maybe it would be higher. Disagree that 19% ain't shit, though. 19% is a good year no matter how you slice it. Yes, I know you were talking about Clinton and Obama having better, but just because there are better doesn't mean 19% sucks. -Paul
[2018-01-24 10:45:35] - 10% credit, yes i know. i was bored of putting all of those extra qualifiers. ~a
[2018-01-24 10:44:48] - paul: wonder?! i wonder if it wouldn't be higher. 19% aint shit. ~a
[2018-01-24 10:44:33] - a: No, I wanted to solely look at this president and not have to look back on 200+ years of others presidents and stock markets.
And I was talking about 10% credit. Let's not get carried away here. -Paul[2018-01-24 10:43:39] - Again, I want to stress, I think there are a ton of other factors at work, and I wouldn't at all give him the majority of the credit or even something close to it, but I wonder if we had an alternate world where Clinton had won if the market would be where it was at now. -Paul
[2018-01-24 10:43:00] - paul: oh, so you want to give trump credit for a small increase but not obama or clinton for a much much larger increase? that seems a bit partisan. ~a
[2018-01-24 10:42:33] - Daniel: I mean, Apple pretty much announced they were going to be pulling back hundreds of billions of overseas cash to invest in America thanks to the tax bill. Hundreds of billions! That's significant even among an economy as big as the US. -Paul
[2018-01-24 10:41:31] - Daniel: Definitely agree, and there's no way I would argue that I could prove anything. I just look at the headlines on CNBC, and so many companies are giving raises and raising guidance because of the tax bill or because they have what they consider to be a more business friendly administration in office. -Paul
[2018-01-24 10:40:15] - a: I don't have to do anything.
I'm not saying we give all presidents credit for the stock market under their watch, I was specifically asking about Trump. You don't think situations can be different? Do governments and legislation have zero effect on the market? -Paul[2018-01-24 10:34:59] - Paul: I think there is some stock response to the tax plan so for that I guess he gets to share some credit? I don't know long term how the tax plan will work out but that is to be seen I guess. Its always hard to judge completely because so much stuff is intertwined and can be ripples from stuff years ago. Economics is hard. Clearly given that its one of the main things people argue about. -Daniel
[2018-01-24 10:33:45] - paul: sure, yeah, i think he should get a non-zero amount of credit! stop though, and think about what you've done. you're giving him (a non-zero amount of) credit for a 19% increase (2017). you'd have to give obama credit for a 32% increase (2013). and you'd have to give clinton credit for a 37% increase (1995). are you ok with that? ~a
[2018-01-24 10:09:12] - So I normally scoff at the idea of a President being able to take credit for stock market performance because there are so many other more important variables, but I'm curious if anybody here thinks Trump should get a non-zero amount of credit for the current stock market run-up. I'm beginning to wonder if he should be getting like 10% credit. -Paul
[2018-01-23 10:13:11] - a: Actually seems like a muted response considering how much they crushed it. I guess people are still concerned over spending and competition from Disney. -Paul
[2018-01-23 10:12:44] - a: Yeah, I saw the news after the closing bell and knew they were going to be up big today. -Paul
[2018-01-23 09:55:42] - haha, speak of the devil, check out nflx this morning
i guess q4 results came out yesterday after market closing; that's why you were mentioning it? ~a[2018-01-22 16:42:25] - a: A few years ago, somebody asked me what my highest conviction holding was, and I said Netflix, so I guess I'm not surprised either (and again, it's my second largest holding), but I'm just surprised they keep being able to do it. Thought they might slow down a few blockbuster reports ago. -Paul
[2018-01-22 16:28:08] - paul: i'm not too surprised by nflx's gains with hindsight. (3-digit p/e ratio is kinda crazy i'll admit). the reason is their "output". they've been spitting out original content like crazy. in the past 10 years they've proven they're more than just content distributors: they're content creators. their revenue is also very very high. (their market cap over their revenue is 9). ~a
[2018-01-22 16:18:48] - a: Can't believe NFLX is your second biggest winner in 2017's challenge. I came close to picking it but chose AMZN instead. Thought about picking it this time too. It's my second largest holding in my portfolio of individual stocks. I should've picked it one of these times. -Paul
[2018-01-22 15:23:49] - hah. since text messages are unencrypted (end-to-end) you better believe you're now on a list.
i've converted many of my coworkers and family over to "signal". ~a[2018-01-22 15:14:48] - google's swipe keyboard is touchy about profanity, so it always autocorrects to things like "duck you" or "holy shot", making the interface clumsy if i actually want to swear. ...but apparently it'll happily autocorrect "i'll leave you the key" to "i'll leave you the meth" - aaron
[2018-01-22 15:09:01] - ok sure. replace it with "increased spending and tax cuts"
~a[2018-01-22 15:06:49] - a: Yes, 100% agree, but that's often what the rhetoric is from them when they are the party out of power. I would be happy to replace that with another thing they unreasonably stand for if you like. -Paul
[2018-01-22 14:56:05] - you could argue that afghanistan and iraq fuck with those numbers, but you'd know i would just pull out reagan's and clinton's numbers. ~a
[2018-01-22 14:53:21] - paul: "unreasonable demands like not increasing spending as much" in practice republicans do not decrease spending. we need to seriously disabuse. 1999 federal spending was 1.7. 2007 federal spending was 2.8 (+60%). 2015 federal spending was 3.6 (+30%). bush had veto power for eight years. his party also had control of congress for most of that time. ~a
[2018-01-22 14:24:29] - a: Whereas I most of what Daniel (and you?) see is them every once in awhile rising up when they're in the minority with their unreasonable demands like not increasing spending as much.
-Paul[2018-01-22 14:23:31] - a: I do think there is something to perspective, though. As somebody who wants to see spending cuts and fiscal responsibility and less regulation, all I see are Republicans constantly disappointing because they wuss out when it comes to debt ceiling stuff and abandon principle when they DO have power. -Paul
[2018-01-22 14:16:00] - let's just agree on that much. ~a
[2018-01-22 14:15:05] - Sp if the Republicans are uncompromising assholes, they sure are inept at it... which I admit might be the case.
-Paul[2018-01-22 14:14:24] - a: But even tax cuts have often been temporary deals (remember the fight over the "Bush tax cuts"?) that involved a ton of compromise and fell well short of what Republicans wanted. -Paul
[2018-01-22 14:13:12] - a: So that could be the difference: What the Republicans talk about versus what they practice. Fully admit that their actions often don't match their rhetoric. But my main point still stands that I don't see much in the way of policy that has moved in their direction over the past few decades. Maybe gun control? -Paul
[2018-01-22 14:13:01] - paul: tax cuts, i'll grant the gop, they've gotten that part figured out a bunch of times. ~a
[2018-01-22 14:10:05] - paul: "Spending cuts?" the gop has never (at least since 1981) been about spending cuts. ~a
[2018-01-22 14:06:52] - Daniel: If the Republicans really were such uncompromising sticks in the mud, they how come they've been losing like every major policy fight over the past few decades despite having control of government a fair bit? -Paul
[2018-01-22 13:58:31] - Daniel: I mean, can you give me an example of them not compromising? Obamacare? Still in place despite them having control over the presidency and congress (as Adrian loves to point out). Debt ceiling? Still getting raised. Spending cuts? Government is spending more than almost ever before. -Paul
[2018-01-22 13:57:08] - Daniel: Depends on what you think of how much they compromise now.
I look at the main planks of the Republican party over the past two decades and see maybe one where they've actually achieved anything (tax cuts) despite having control of the government for a fair bit. -Paul[2018-01-22 13:18:55] - Paul: Sure I don't think that compromise is inherently good in all cases but I think that equally arguing that its always bad is also not good and if you think the R's should compromise even less than they do currently that seems pretty close to never compromising. -Daniel
[2018-01-22 12:56:55] - Daniel: I would argue no. Bad ideas are still bad ideas, even if you water them down. Yes, compromise is usually necessary to get anything done, but that doesn't mean it's always a good idea. It's obviously more nuanced than all of this, but I just think that we shouldn't laud compromise as inherently good. -Paul
[2018-01-22 12:55:29] - Daniel: It obviously depends, but honestly? I usually think they shouldn't. Do you think Democrats should be compromising with Trump or fighting for what they believe in? Should they drop this DACA objection in exchange for Trump dropping his wall proposal or Muslim ban? Would that be a good compromise? -Paul
[2018-01-22 11:53:14] - Paul: "I think of the Republicans as having no spine and far too willing to compromise their ideals" - Do you think that politicians shouldn't compromise to get deals made? I think generally that compromise is what our nation is built on. -Daniel
[2018-01-22 11:38:47] - paul: "If it was a dick move for Republicans (and I don't necessarily think it was), shouldn't it be a dick move now too?" you're assuming the proposed deals both were (or neither were) compromises. ~a
[2018-01-22 11:28:13] - a: Yup, so maybe I was wrong. Fully willing to admit (and wish I had some time to dig into the archives to see what I was thinking about). -Paul
[2018-01-22 11:27:18] - aDaniel: And yes, I guess this time around the Republicans have a few more seats in the Senate (or is it that Democrats have a few less in the House?). I just see those as relatively inconsequential compared to the similarities of what is going on. If it was a dick move for Republicans (and I don't necessarily think it was), shouldn't it be a dick move now too? -Paul
[2018-01-22 11:26:40] - paul: yeah, well it wasn't during a shutdown, but i'm the only person to reference "the party of no". it even addressed your "no spine" thing from five years ago (some things never change). 2013-05 "being the 'party of no' seems to go against the whole spineless thing. until very recently, i thought they were going to stick to the norquist thing even if it killed them." ~a
[2018-01-22 11:24:39] - aDaniel: I guess the main thing I am trying to get at is that it's easy to see the other side as uncompromising assholes when they pull stunts like this, and it's easy to find reasons why it's different when it's your own team pulling the stunt. Maybe some of those reasons are legit. I don't know much about this Trump deal, for instance. -Paul
[2018-01-22 11:22:56] - a: I'm probably partially confusing people here and politicians. For example, I think Democrats were calling Republicans terrorists and strongly condemning them and some people here (I thought you and/or Daniel, but I could easily be wrong) were like: "Yeah, this is a dick move and not the right way to govern." -Paul
[2018-01-22 11:21:31] - Daniel: It's funny, because I think of the Republicans as having no spine and far too willing to compromise their ideals. I think a lot depends on personal point of view. I also wonder how/if the media plays a role in that portrayal. -Paul
[2018-01-22 11:12:07] - paul: "Why would I mention that? The only point I've been trying to make is that in previous shutdowns where the Republicans have largely been the 'no' vote on resolutions to fund the government, there were people who strongly condemned what they did". isn't trump (a republican) the "no" vote on the bipartisan deal we had last week? i'm not sure why the democrats deserve 100% of the blame IYO for the shutdown. ~a
[2018-01-22 11:05:14] - paul: omg, i was in massachusetts for the 2011 "shutdown" (in quotes because i don't think the shutdown happened). i'm starting to notice a pattern. ~a
[2018-01-22 11:00:37] - paul: "there were people who strongly condemned what they did" well, i did not in 2013. but i didn't post very much because i was in italy at the time. i got married right before the shutdown. coincidence? ~a
[2018-01-22 11:00:14] - Paul: I think in general I view the R's as the party that is unwilling to compromise negotiate. Perhaps that is unfair on my part but I think that is often why I generally assign them the blame and not D's. I also don't remember to well but I thought ACA was part last time but maybe not. I couldn't swear to it at this point. -Daniel
[2018-01-22 10:56:17] - mig: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_debt-ceiling_crisis_of_2011 This is the one I was thinking of. I guess it wasn't as big of a deal as the 2013 one. I remembered the opposite. -Paul
[2018-01-22 10:53:01] - a: I'm just trying to foster some understanding between the parties.
-Paul[2018-01-22 10:52:45] - a: And now that we have a shutdown where Democrats have largely been the "no" vote on resolutions to fund the government (regardless of who technically has the majority), I'm wondering if those opinions have changed. -Paul
[2018-01-22 10:52:06] - a: Why would I mention that? The only point I've been trying to make is that in previous shutdowns where the Republicans have largely been the "no" vote on resolutions to fund the government, there were people who strongly condemned what they did (including, I thought, maybe you and/or Daniel). -Paul
[2018-01-22 10:50:18] - a: Agreed it's not just Democrats, but it is overwhelmingly Democrats. -Paul
[2018-01-22 10:48:55] - paul: i'm also a little surprised you haven't mentioned the bipartisan deal that trump said he would sign, then reneged. wth, man? ~a
[2018-01-22 10:48:33] - mig: So, I remember the Cruz one was mostly over Obamacare, but I thought there was an earlier one that wasn't. -Paul
[2018-01-22 10:47:46] - paul: or trumped (no pun intended) by like 10% of republicans voting against. it's not just democrats. if it was, this thing would have passed. ~a
[2018-01-22 10:44:37] - a: I was critical of the Republicans for not sticking to their guns enough, not critical of them for shutting it down in the first place.
-Paul[2018-01-22 10:43:58] - paul: memory is hazy as well, but I do believe trying to defund ACA was a big part of it, at least initially. - mig
[2018-01-22 10:43:54] - a: So, yeah, Republicans technically hold majorities in both branches of congress, but I think that is trumped (no pun intended) by like 90% of Democrats voting against. -Paul
[2018-01-22 10:42:50] - a: "who controls a majority in the house and senate for one thing" Aren't we just talking about the Senate, since the Republicans held the House both times? I'll point back to my previous point of... why does it matter? We're talking about a slim minority of seat changes versus the vast majority of parties voting a certain way. -Paul
[2018-01-22 10:41:18] - Daniel: "the thing that was the hold up couldn't be passed and had zero bipartisan support" What are you referring to here? Are you referring to Obamacare (or at least the repeal of it)? My memory is a little hazy, but the shutdown I am thinking of I don't remember Obamacare repeal being the key issue. -Paul
[2018-01-22 10:34:07] - mig: ok, then i guess i concede that a simple majority doesn't really matter as much as i thought it did. ~a
[2018-01-22 10:33:38] - paul: "going back on their agreement" is definitely something we've seen in 2018. ~a
[2018-01-22 10:32:52] - paul: covering both bases: "I think all but the most hardcore Democratic supporters would say it's the Republicans who are making compromises and the Democrats who refuse to even negotiate" (zero evidence of this was provided). i suggested we couldn't know either way. ~a
[2018-01-22 10:32:46] - paul: "who (if anybody) here was critical" 2013 someone was suggesting republicans were causing a shutdown. twas you. "I fully expect the Republicans to back down before it comes to that, just like I expected them to back down before the 'shutdown'". ~a
[2018-01-22 10:32:27] - a: there are filibusters in play here. - mig
[2018-01-22 10:31:53] - paul: "In what ways that matter aren't they close?" who controls a majority in the house and senate for one thing. i agree with miguel that a supermajority is necessary if a filibuster is on the table, but if there are no filibusters, then all you need is a simple majority. ~a
[2018-01-22 10:28:19] - Daniel: my understanding is that they are willing to pass DACA (Trump has been on record on this too), but want a few things in return for it, which democrats apparently have objected to using the people affected DACA expiring as a "bargaining chip". Which is pretty rich since they themselves are using the government shutdown as a bargaining chip. - mig
[2018-01-22 10:13:11] - Paul: I think its similar enough to warrant the questions. I think the difference was before the thing that was the hold up couldn't be passed and had zero bipartisan support. This time it totally could pass and does have bi partisan support. R leadership just doesn't want to pass it. -Daniel
[2018-01-22 10:04:34] - a: Because I see this as basically the same in the ways that matter to my point (which might be different than your point), the only difference being the parties have swapped sides and the issues they are fighting over are different. -Paul
[2018-01-22 10:03:31] - a: "i have not done this" Not explicitly, but isn't that what you are trying to do? "I don't think they're close enough in the ways that matter" In what ways that matter aren't they close? -Paul
[2018-01-22 10:00:30] - What democrats are doing now very much fits their own definition of what they called "hostage taking" back in 2013. - mig
[2018-01-22 10:00:09] - a: who controls what is a red herring argument (besides, we should all know you don't really "control" the senate for the most part unless you are a supermajority). The relevant part is where the obstruction is. Back in 2013 it was republicans saying no unless they got what they wanted for ACA. Now it's democrats saying no until they get a legislative solution for DACA. - mig
[2018-01-21 14:06:47] - paul: "I get that you're trying to somehow pin both of these on Republicans" i have not done this. but I will say I don't think they're close enough in the ways that matter imo. ~a
[2018-01-21 13:48:51] - a: They are not 100% symmetrical, but they're close enough in the ways that matter IMHO. -Paul
[2018-01-21 13:48:20] - a: For Obama, it was mostly Republicans voting no during a time when Democrats held more branches of federal government. This time it's largely Democrats voting no when Republicans hold more branches of federal government. -Paul
[2018-01-21 13:47:00] - a: Okay, and the Democrats held the Senate and Presidency. I get that you're trying to somehow pin both of these on Republicans, but I don't quite follow your logic.
-Paul[2018-01-21 13:46:56] - a: Probably because they were so different. Those "shutodowns" didn't involve a lot of stuff actually shutting down. -- Xpovos
[2018-01-21 09:20:48] - xpovos: granted. i wonder why the news organizations have ignored that one. ~a
[2018-01-21 09:20:20] - paul: "wondering if people see things differently now" i don't follow. the republicans held the house during both shutdowns. can you address that the situations aren't symmetrical? ~a
[2018-01-20 22:45:52] - a: Apparently, we have. Carter and Congressional Democrats shut the government down as well. But that was also a different situation and arguably not comparable. -- Xpovos
[2018-01-20 21:26:44] - a: I meant when the Republicans were blamed for shutting down the government during Obama's administration. Now, it's more the "fault" of the Democrats. Wondering if people see things differently now. -Paul
[2018-01-20 21:18:07] - paul: what do you mean? the democrats didn't control congress in 2013. this is a first. we've never had a federal shutdown with legislature and executive held by the same party. ~a
[2018-01-20 20:03:30] - I'm not trying to be coy, I seriously can't remember who (if anybody) here was critical, but I thought either Daniel or Adrian were. -Paul
[2018-01-20 20:03:00] - I was thinking about this, though. Weren't there people on this very board who were pretty critical of Republicans when the government shut down during Obama's administration? If so, are those same people supportive of the Democrats here? -Paul
[2018-01-20 20:01:50] - a: I would guess Trump, but that sounds too intelligent to be him.
-Paul[2018-01-20 08:18:03] - paul: fox news forgot one voice from 2013. who should be fired during a government shutdown? "Well, if you say who gets fired it always has to be the top, I mean, problems start from the top and they have to get solved from the top and the president’s the leader. And he’s got to get everybody in a room and he’s got to lead." ill let you guess who said that. ~a
[2018-01-19 22:46:07] - For the record, this is why legislating by continuing resolution isn't ideal. Congress should pass budgets. -Paul
[2018-01-19 22:44:59] - http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/01/19/democrats-ready-to-block-bill-to-avert-shutdown-sang-different-tune-in-2013.html Hah, of course Fox News would be all over it. -Paul
[2018-01-19 22:43:20] - Also, isn't there some hypocrisy here from all those democrats who, when the republicans were threatening government shutdowns, were calling the republicans terrorists and saying that you shouldn't be playing games with the country's finances over policy disputes? -Paul
[2018-01-19 20:38:02] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Monument_Syndrome I'm more interested in seeing if we get more Washington Monument Syndrome out of it. -Paul
[2018-01-19 16:45:12] - Paul: Its just when their previous budget resolutions ran out but its one of the few times where the R's actually need D votes. Because of that the D's decided to make DACA a pre-req to getting any of their votes. So sort of? -Daniel
[2018-01-19 16:35:19] - paul: many people will die over the weekend. but, i think she's implying that a different number of people will die in each situation. ~a
[2018-01-19 15:55:10] - a: My guess is no, because Republicans have no spine, but we will see. Honestly, I don't even know what this shutdown is over. Is it really about DACA? -Paul
[2018-01-19 15:54:39] - mig: Yes. Many people will over the weekend. Shutdown or no.
-Paul[2018-01-19 14:00:38] - a: better question - will people die over the weekend? - mig
[2018-01-19 13:40:52] - are we going to get a shutdown tonight? ~a
[2018-01-17 12:39:12] - a: Interesting. I didn't know bitcoin had such a prolonged period of going down. Makes this crazy run-up even... crazier. -Paul
[2018-01-17 12:03:09] - no, not at all. bitcoin went down through all of 2014 and the first half of 2015 and the market was going up during that time. ~a
[2018-01-17 11:28:25] - a: Uncorrelated? That doesn't seem right. 4 years of data seems to indicate that as one goes up the other goes up, right?
-Paul[2018-01-17 11:09:36] - yeah. if you want to ignore market cap less than 1b, you still have like four years of data to look at. still . . . uncorrelated. ~a
[2018-01-17 11:07:28] - a: "sadly the 2008 stock market crash was a few years before bitcoin trading started in earnest" That's why. How much was the total market cap of all cryptocurrencies back then? Minuscule, right? -Paul
[2018-01-17 11:06:03] - paul: "are going to affect each other". why wonder about the future when you have 7+ years of data to look at? you're going to notice that they're mostly uncorrelated with each-other. sadly the 2008 stock market crash was a few years before bitcoin trading started in earnest. ~a
[2018-01-17 10:58:32] - I'm kind of interested in how the cryptocurrency market and the stock market are going to affect each other in the coming months. This bull market is going to end at some point, and yesterday's weird reversal is... concerning. Do cryptocurrencies benefit if/when the stock market goes boom? Do they suffer too? -Paul
[2018-01-17 10:48:25] - mig: It's funny, because every time I think about buying some more on the dip, I'm reminded of how far it has come. It's still around $10k to buy a single bitcoin! Adrian is still crushing the stock market challenge. Like he just said, it was $5k just a few months ago. So yes, this is big, but the run-up was even bigger. -Paul
[2018-01-17 10:39:59] - bitcoin is over, boys, almost under $10k. *literally worthless*. - mig
[2018-01-17 10:00:27] - https://www.forbes.com/sites/timothylee/2013/04/11/an-illustrated-history-of-bitcoin-crashes/#22e141704039 In light of today, here is an article about some previous bitcoin crashes.... written in 2013. -Paul
[2018-01-16 21:07:37] - https://www.fool.com/investing/2018/01/16/the-bitcoin-investment-trusts-stock-is-splitting-h.aspx GBTC is splitting. -Paul
[2018-01-16 17:46:36] - Crazy to think there's still hope considering your lead, but I guess we're off to a "good" start. Tempted to buy some more, but I think it could fall more. -Paul
[2018-01-16 12:51:12] - well if it's much lower (say 2.5k), you might win the 2017 stock market challenge. ~a
[2018-01-16 12:35:18] - a: I feel like it's either going to be much higher than $5k or much lower, but I don't know which. -Paul
[2018-01-16 09:52:49] - i'm having trouble. i guess i'm still groggy. is this a rerun? ~a
[2018-01-16 09:49:39] - in november we broke past 5k. so i'll say 5k. ~a
[2018-01-16 09:46:04] - So any bets on the low for BTC in 2018?
-Paul[2018-01-14 11:55:45] - lol
[2018-01-13 03:29:48] - lol
[2018-01-13 03:29:22] - lol
[2018-01-13 03:22:28] - lol
[2018-01-12 11:20:04] - subtitle: I remember that joke! "Hand Eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeyeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!" -Paul
[2018-01-12 11:11:49] - paul: yeah i saw. sessions specifically did something that he said he would not do: this will be a problem for him politically. also, the market response to bad news like this is almost always an overreaction. you may take 1st place for a few weeks, but i'll be back! ~a
[2018-01-12 10:47:26] - a: Btw, I'm catching up to you in 2018 thanks to the big drop in your marijuana stock. Winner don't do drugs!
-Paul[2018-01-12 10:33:41] - a: Will do. Having a meeting with them this weekend. -Paul
[2018-01-12 10:16:29] - paul: i think it was you that gave me the idea to open a scottrade account in 2004. ~a
[2018-01-12 10:07:59] - paul: hey, lmk if you move to boa for stock purchases please. i'd like to know your experience after you've used it a few months. i'm already a customer of boa as well, so it probably wouldn't be all that inconvenient. ~a
[2018-01-12 10:05:29] - a: I see it less as a sign of confidence and more of a "there's more stocks I want to buy!" thing.
-Paul[2018-01-11 17:21:02] - daniel: if it matters, paul is much more confident in his abilities than i am. 5% of my portfolio is self-directed whereas 30%+ of paul's portfolio is self-directed. ~a
[2018-01-11 17:20:08] - daniel: if you gave me money to invest, i'd *definitely* start a ponzi scheme. ~a
[2018-01-11 17:02:26] - Paul: Another form of the question I have in my head, is what would it take for me to decide that I should just give you (or Adrian) money and have you invest it for me and I'm not sure if there would be a criterion that would make me think that. -Daniel
[2018-01-11 17:01:08] - Stock market stuff is hard because past performance does not predict future gains but we also have nothing to go on other than some form of past performance. -Daniel
[2018-01-11 17:00:34] - Paul: I do think you tracking your actual stuff is more interesting for trying to see how you do vs market. I like your random reports every so often
. If you and Adrian manage an 80% win rate over 10 years I would be surprised but I'm not sure if it would change my thought process. I guess it would confirm that an individual(s) CAN beat the market but I'm not sure I've asserted otherwise before. -Daniel[2018-01-11 16:08:04] - Daniel: I'm not saying one or two years of Adrian and I getting lucky should change your mind (just like it probably wouldn't change mine), but like Adrian said: What if we have something like an 80% win rate over the next 10 years? That's how long Buffett's bet was for. Wouldn't that be pretty meaningful? -Paul
[2018-01-11 16:06:58] - Daniel: That's why, on a bigger level, I'm tracking how my entire portfolio of individual stocks does against my vanguard index funds (and the S&P). -Paul
[2018-01-11 16:05:36] - Daniel: But you're right, it is somewhat of an oversimplification, but doesn't it benefit you? You're just picking the same one or two index funds each time, whereas we're limited to only 5 picks (probably not enough to give sufficient diversification) and also we can't repeat past picks. -Paul
[2018-01-11 16:04:01] - Daniel: Actually, I kinda do invest like how the challenges work. 7 out of my top 11 or so holdings in terms of percentage of my individual stocks portfolio have been picks so far and I've held all of them for... I think well over a year at least and some for multiple years. -Paul
[2018-01-11 15:50:21] - Paul: I think the challenges can be interesting to watch and see but I'm not sure at what point they would move past fun / novelty type thing into changing my beliefs kind of thing. Do you invest in real life the same way? You choose only five things a year (quarter?) and lock yourselves in? So I'm not sure that I see the challenges as being representative of how you act as an actual investor. -Daniel
[2018-01-11 15:49:00] - daniel: throwing out a more concrete scenario, if paul or adrian can beat the s&p500tr 8 years out of 10 (2017-2026), would that be enough evidence that paul or adrian can beat the market reliably? ~a
[2018-01-11 15:45:30] - paul: "difference between the bid and ask for trades?" yeah, i don't think that's right. i googled it and (in addition to some of their optional services) they make money by "collecting interest on the cash and securities in Robinhood accounts". this implies that they lend out your shares for people to shorters; i imagine scottrade does this too. ~a
[2018-01-11 15:43:12] - Daniel: And, yes, "prove" is intentionally in quotes since it really wouldn't prove anything. If I recall, wasn't Warren Buffett even losing his index fund bet for the first couple of years? -Paul
[2018-01-11 15:40:51] - Daniel: How about this, then? Let me narrow the question. If I perform well enough in these challenges, do you think I could "prove" to you that I can consistently beat the market? -Paul
[2018-01-11 15:37:42] - Daniel: I don't have any studies saying that, but I frankly don't see a lot of studies about individual investing versus mutual funds at all. I will say, though, that I'm not trying to say that ALL individual investors or even most will because I think most individual investors do a bad job diversifying or holding long term. -Paul
[2018-01-11 15:32:55] - a: For BoA, I think I would be getting free trades because I would have over $X with them as an institution, so that probably has some benefits in terms of cash reserves (and hoping I go with them for other products in the future). -Paul
[2018-01-11 15:32:15] - a: I thought I heard somewhere that Robin Hood makes money off the difference between the bid and ask for trades? Not 100% sure I understand that, but I think it has to do with people on average paying some fractions of a cent per share more than on other brokers. -Paul
[2018-01-11 15:27:20] - Paul: I guess if you have any actual study / proof or something that backs up individual investors being able to beat the market at a higher rate than actively managed funds I would be interested in reading that. I have literally never read anything that would suggest that. -Daniel
[2018-01-11 15:01:52] - paul: yeah, i'm not sure i understand free trades. how do they make money? i've heard of a few systems that allow for free trades, and i just don't get it. $7 seems low enough for what i'm getting imo. my scottrade fees average out to ~0.2%/y. much lower than the average actively managed fund (0.8%/y), but still higher than the average passive index fund (0.1%/y). ~a
[2018-01-11 14:57:41] - a: Yes, my fees probably aren't as low as the admiral class vanguard index funds, but they're probably lower than most actively managed mutual funds. Should be even lower if/when I move my money from Scottrade to BoA where I should be getting free trades. -Paul
[2018-01-11 14:56:48] - But I am much closer to 50/50 when it comes to if I can do it. So if we do like 5 of these and I beat the market (ie, Daniel) every time... I think that would meaningfully move the needle for me. -Paul
[2018-01-11 14:55:55] - Anyway, the reason I ask is just because I can see this meaningfully affecting how I think of things. Right now I am around 70% sure that well-informed individuals can beat the market buying individual stocks and that people like Buffett and Lynch (and the Gardners!) aren't just rare exceptions. -Paul
[2018-01-11 14:53:10] - paul: especially if you account for fees (something that can be lower for individual investors vs actively managed funds). ~a
[2018-01-11 14:29:07] - In short, I think it's entirely likely that the "success rate" (how often they beat the market) for individuals buying and selling individual stocks is significantly higher than the success rate for actively managed mutual funds. -Paul
[2018-01-11 14:24:47] - Daniel: But I think they are closer than comparing a single person buying and selling hundreds/thousands of dollars worth of individual stocks with complete control over when to buy and sell versus a giant fund buying and selling millions/billions of dollars worth of stock that are at the whims of clients depositing/withdrawing money. -Paul
[2018-01-11 14:23:09] - Daniel: Right, they use rules, but it's still picking stocks, just using different methods. I would imagine most mutual fund managers would claim that they have rules they follow for picking stocks too. I agree they're slightly different... -Paul
[2018-01-11 14:13:39] - Paul: Maybe its the idea of trying to beat the market vs replicate the market. Both individual investors and actively managed funds seek to beat the market. Index funds do not. -Daniel
[2018-01-11 14:12:29] - Paul: I disagree that index funds pick stocks and hope for the best. The stocks they have or don't have are not part of their decision process. They decide on some set of rules (biggest 500, everything, etc) and then the stocks that fit are the stocks that fit and the rules don't change. -Daniel
[2018-01-11 12:32:37] - paul: this might be part of the answer. it's the return between passive and active in each sector 2005-2014 (fees included). looks like the difference is often ~1%/year (foreign being one of the notable exceptions). i'm guessing average fees in active are more than 1%/year, but i'm not totally sure. ~a
[2018-01-11 12:21:57] - a: I feel like I should know this, but do you know if there is research on how actively managed funds do versus passive index funds if you subtract out fees? I know that's not really fair, but it would get to the point of if active management is the problem or if it's the fees that are the problem. -Paul
[2018-01-11 12:20:13] - Daniel: But would you agree that even index funds are picking stocks? Even the broadest index fund is usually restricted to a certain subset of stocks and usually allocated by market cap or something. -Paul
[2018-01-11 12:18:53] - daniel: "One just charges others for the ability to piggy back along" you're glossing over this even though it's one of your biggest talking points: actively managed mutual funds have (sometimes large) fees. i agree with the distinction: there is active investing and passive investing: sometimes active investing is inefficient, but not always. assuming it is always inefficient is incorrect. ~a
[2018-01-11 12:18:21] - Daniel: Heck, in a way, index funds are also "just picking stocks and hoping for the best". They just pick by different methods (by sector or geography or market cap or whatever). -Paul
[2018-01-11 12:18:06] - makes them* the same
[2018-01-11 12:17:48] - Paul: I think they theory of what they are trying to do (pick stocks) makes the the same bucket in my head. I get that some mutual funds limit themselves in some ways and have some various overhead things but I think they are still close enough for me. -Daniel
[2018-01-11 12:12:59] - Daniel: But individuals are working on a much smaller scale and solely have to worry about themselves. Both mutual funds and index funds are massive vehicles dealing with huge amounts of other people's money, which (as mentioned before) can restrict what they can do. -Paul
[2018-01-11 12:06:23] - Paul: Both actively managed and individual investors are just people picking stocks and hoping for the best? I'm not sure I understand a significant distinction at the moment. One just charges others for the ability to piggy back along. -Daniel
[2018-01-11 11:41:32] - Daniel: To me, actively managed mutual funds have more in common with index funds that individuals investing in stocks. -Paul
[2018-01-11 11:41:02] - Daniel: I guess I disagree with how you seem to associate individuals investing in individual stocks with mutual funds. To me, they are very different, and just because mutual funds (with their fees and restrictions) can't consistently beat an index fund, I don't think that reflects poorly on an individual's chances of doing it. -Paul
[2018-01-11 10:50:44] - xpovos: yeah maybe
or, i guess it's ok that we can play by different rules. ~a[2018-01-11 10:19:50] - a: OK, so fees are a different story, so maybe our threshold needs to be higher? We need to not just beat the market, but beat it by a sufficiently increased percentage that we've overcoming our fee advantage as well? -- Xpovos
[2018-01-11 09:54:59] - xpovos: daniel sometimes forgets that "fees" are very different with individual stocks than they are with actively managed funds. i usually pay $14 for each fund ($7 to buy and $7 to sell) regardless of how many shares i buy. i also don't pay any taxes on my capital gains. so the 20% number definitely does not apply to us. ~a
[2018-01-11 09:43:59] - I haven't tried launching our web content management system yet. But I'm afraid. At least it's the most recent version that works on this OS. But I'm still expecting major problems. Among the less serious problems already experienced: all of my history, bookmarks, and extensions are gone. IE 11's extension library is... amusingly bad. -- Xpovos
[2018-01-11 09:39:31] - After a security update last night, Chrome (and Firefox) are no longer installed, and attempting to reinstall gets a "requires admin priv" error message. Looks like the IT department has changed their mind. Also Google Docs has been completely firewalled out of existence. -- Xpovos
[2018-01-11 09:38:14] - For most of the past decade at work, I've used Chrome. Official office policy has always been stated as IE, but the IT team was pretty much on board with Chrome as well, and for our web development processes, many were broken in IE, but worked in Chrome--so when I have to modify pages, I basically had to use Chrome, even though I didn't 'officially' have it. All of this was possible because Chrome installed without admin priv. -- Xpovos
[2018-01-11 09:14:21] - Daniel: So there's a 20% chance Paul's "actively managed" selection beats the market last year. And 20% this year. So the odds of him doing it two years in a row would be 1/25, or 4%. Three years would be less than 1%. If he can do it three years in a row, that would seem to be statstitically significant. -- Xpovos
[2018-01-10 16:58:20] - Paul: Hmm I don't know. I don't think its impossible to beat the market. I think the stuff I've read was that roughly 20% of active managed funds (don't know if this % has changed in last few years) beat the indexes after taxes each year. Its just which 20% is hard to predict with any accuracy. -Daniel
[2018-01-10 16:47:11] - Daniel: This is, of course, assuming that you don't currently believe that to be the case, which might be an incorrect assumption on my part. -Paul
[2018-01-10 16:46:49] - Daniel: Totally off topic question, but assuming we keep doing these stock market challenges for a few years, is there a set of results that would make you consider that it's possible to beat the market by picking individual stocks consistently enough to make it a valid strategy? -Paul
[2018-01-10 16:45:02] - a: Even with the most trivial of issues, as long as both sides realize it's unimportant in the grand scheme of things, I have zero problem debating. -Paul
[2018-01-10 16:44:21] - a: #3 I was mostly ambivalent about. Yes, I do believe that it's important to keep perspective on how important some issues are versus others (and I actually do believe that we need MORE of that sometimes), but at the same time I don't believe in shutting down discussion by dismissing some issues as not important enough. -Paul
[2018-01-10 16:42:24] - paul: do you agree with #3? "Asking, "Aren’t there more important issues?"" i agree #3 is a valid critique of online discussions. many of the other suggestions seemed dumb. ~a
[2018-01-10 14:57:04] - paul: that document is editable.
you can add whatever you want. ~a[2018-01-10 14:14:51] - Daniel: I think for me it's the rampant use of terms in quick succession that I'm just not familiar with. It makes it really hard to follow. Also, it bothers me that in at least a couple of places they're seemingly trying to redefine certain terms and basically saying that if you don't agree with them, you're being offensive.
-Paul[2018-01-10 12:42:37] - Paul: I read it. /shrug. I don't know that I agreed with all of it but I didn't think it was that out there. Someone's opinions on how to talk to others online. Definitely advocating a very careful approach but doesn't seem terrible or anything. -Daniel
[2018-01-10 12:21:51] - while frankly not understanding probably something like a third of it between terms like "intersectionality" and "cis" and "gaslight" and being unclear about how they were using other terms. I will say, though, that I guess it helps me to somewhat more understand problems I've had talking to people on Nina's facebook posts.
-Paul[2018-01-10 12:19:50] - http://www.yesmagazine.org/people-power/10-not-so-feminist-things-you-should-stop-doing-on-social-media-20180103 So, I stumbled onto this article, but I'm curious how people here feel about it. When I read it, it almost felt like a different world to me. I found myself disagree to varying degrees with probably over half of it... -Paul
[2018-01-10 11:01:47] - a: For the indexes section of the spreadsheet, why not include an international index fund? Is there not a good vanguard one? I know that sometimes it can be tricky since foreign markets aren't as diversified as the US so index funds tend to be overweight in certain sectors... -Paul
[2018-01-10 10:29:07] - a: I won't lie, I was looking for it...
There's plenty of time left. -Paul[2018-01-10 08:27:07] - paul: yah. do i need to add "bottom 4" already? ~a
[2018-01-09 12:23:07] - a: Super early, but this stock market challenge looks remarkably similar to how the last one is shaping up. You jump out to a ridiculous lead on the back of one skyrocketing stock, while I lag behind (but still crush the silly index funds
). -Paul[2018-01-08 16:43:55] - Fascinating, to me at least. https://randomascii.wordpress.com/2018/01/07/finding-a-cpu-design-bug-in-the-xbox-360/ -- Xpovos
[2018-01-08 11:04:57] - And... as soon as I say that, all cryptocurrencies start to plunge.
-Paul[2018-01-06 19:48:03] - a: Price of Bitcoin seems to have stabilized around $1600, but it's interesting that the market cap for all currencies keeps going up. -Paul
[2018-01-05 17:25:16] - paul: mjx was another one i almost put in my top-5. ~a
[2018-01-05 17:23:55] - paul: i looked at it and discounted for some reason. and i'm glad i did. it's up "only" 14% ytd. ~a
[2018-01-05 16:39:42] - a: Also surprised you didn't pick WEED. Now I'm seeing canabis stocks all over the place.
-Paul[2018-01-05 15:34:32] - a: Okay, that's what I thought/was wondering. The site I am looking at lists GNCA as a part of the index with a $33 million market cap. I was wondering what the lower bound was. -Paul
[2018-01-05 14:12:24] - paul: yeah, it's too small. in 2016 russell 3000 minimum cap was 133m. it's probably only gone up through 2018. ~a
[2018-01-05 13:41:57] - a: Was looking for SVBI and didn't see it. -Paul
[2018-01-05 13:22:23] - paul: yep. i remember being surprised and angered that vgt doesn't hold amazon, but that's a very different situation (general equity vs a specific sector). what's missing? ~a
[2018-01-05 12:35:47] - Isn't the Russell 3000 supposed to be the 3000 largest publicly traded US companies by market cap? Is there a reason why I wouldn't see a company in there that I would expect? -Paul
prev <-> next