prev <-> next
[2018-05-14 13:49:35] - paul: i wouldn't be torn if i were in your position. it doesn't matter if you believe in amzn or not. it matters if an unforeseeable drop in amzn could harm your long-term plans. ~a
[2018-05-14 12:59:22] - a: Back to your original point, though, I probably should consider selling some AMZN, though, if for no other reason than it's become an almost uncomfortably large percentage of my individual holdings (12%+). I'm torn, though, because I still really believe in it... -Paul
[2018-05-14 12:51:52] - a: Although I suppose making it easier for low net-worth people to buy your stock might have a slight positive effect in stock price.... maybe? -Paul
[2018-05-14 12:51:20] - a: "is that something you really want?" I dunno. You would have to ask Bezos and Brin and Page.
I suspect they see it as superior to having a low stock price overall. I suppose another way to look at it is "why both splitting"? I'm sure it has some cost to the company and I'm not sure it has a clear positive effect. -Paul[2018-05-14 12:29:36] - paul: also, it's not like "emotionless" investors are in it for the long haul: "emotionless" investors are going to sell the millisecond they think you'll lose them money. small-ish-stake investors will probably hold on a little longer than that. they might not even notice right away they they might be losing money in the long run. ~a
[2018-05-14 12:29:01] - paul: "longer term investors who are in it for the long haul" i agree you're going to get fewer emotional investors. that's true. you're going to get a higher share of passive investors once you kick out all of those small-ish-stake active investors. is that something you really want? ~a
[2018-05-14 12:28:47] - a: I guess I think of it as the opposite side of penny stocks. There's definitely a bias I have (that I think many share) about stocks that are under a dollar. I think it goes both ways. I agree it might not make much sense, but maybe it's oddly self-fulfilling? Since so many believe it, it places some meaning on it? -Paul
[2018-05-14 12:27:21] - a: Sure, but a $1k share price feels twice as large.
I'm only half joking. I think there's some odd prestige about the $300k share price of BRK.A -Paul[2018-05-14 12:22:03] - paul: "larger companies and smaller share prices with smaller companies" i agree with this logic, but feel it breaks down at $1k. doesn't a $500/share ticker symbol still feel like a "large" company to you? ~a
[2018-05-14 11:50:07] - a: Also, I think there's still something psychological among people about share prices too. Even though I know it has zero bearing on things, I still emotionally associate higher share prices with larger companies and smaller share prices with smaller companies. -Paul
[2018-05-14 11:49:21] - a: I think I recall hearing sometime about a company with a high share price that it encouraged longer term investors who are in it for the long haul. I think there's something to be said for lower share prices attracting more high frequency trading at least. -Paul
[2018-05-14 11:48:35] - a: Um... I don't really care except that it would make options (which I almost never do anyway) a little easier to do. I think the reason they don't split is because a higher share price might have an effect on the type of investors they get. -Paul
[2018-05-14 11:42:34] - paul: do you wish that amzn and goog would split? i'm trying to wrestle with whether i should sell *ONE* share of amzn this week. i'd like to sell more, but two shares is too much! i don't understand the logic of not splitting once you pass $1k. ~a
[2018-05-14 11:39:28] - a: A little weird that it's the only place, yeah. -Paul
[2018-05-14 11:15:48] - it's weird that sports betting has been legal in nevada this whole time, right? ~a
[2018-05-14 11:12:54] - Oops, that was me. -Paul
[2018-05-14 11:12:48] - https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/14/politics/sports-betting-ncaa-supreme-court/index.html So, who wants to set up a sports bet business with me?
[2018-05-12 13:12:46] - a: Heh, it's okay. I apparently kinda changed my mind over the same 2 years?
-Paul[2018-05-11 16:21:58] - what's more, i totally agree with what you were saying in 2016. sorry it took you two years to convince me.
~a[2018-05-11 16:20:37] - yeah i disagree with my 2016 thinking. playing a zero-sum-game against experts is fine if you're using it to hedge. ~a
[2018-05-11 15:57:16] - https://aporter.org/msg/?action=prev&prev=138500#138569 I think this link takes you close to it. I see covered calls as very similar in terms of hedging. You give up some upside in return for some guaranteed money now. -Paul
[2018-05-11 15:44:51] - paul: "from our discussion awhile ago". ummm hmm. i don't remember my opinion on options. i can't find that conversation, when were we having it? i agree options are strictly a zero-sum-game. but i think that's ok if you're using as a hedge. i don't use options (partly because i'm not comfortable with options, but also partly because i worry the fees from options would damage the hedge). ~a
[2018-05-11 14:56:19] - a: That's a good point. So how does that jive with your opinion on options (specifically covered calls) from our discussion awhile ago. If I recall, my thinking was more similar to yours (not a binary choice, can be a way of hedging) and you seemed to see it more in terms of winners and losers. -Paul
[2018-05-10 16:41:53] - paul: also do not try and bend the spoon. that's impossible. instead only try to realize the truth. ~a
[2018-05-10 16:41:35] - paul: i see it differently than you do. nothing is as binary as you're making it. when i sell 1/3rd of a stock, i'm making a prediction: "i think there's a reasonable chance that this stock will increase less than the rest of the market." that "prediction" is the hedge. and whether the stock goes up or down, the prediction was right. i do not try and predict the future. that's impossible. instead only i try to manage my risk. ~a
[2018-05-10 16:28:52] - a: Maybe it's, "I think the market is going to crash, so I need some dry powder" or "I think the stock I sold is going to drop" or "I think this other stock is going to go up more so I want to buy some of that instead". -Paul
[2018-05-10 16:28:12] - a: Sorry, wasn't ignoring your response to my sunk cost fallacy. I agree that, in a way, I am completely wrong about it being sunk cost because the sunk cost is the action already taken. Honestly, whenever you sell a stock (and don't withdraw it to spend on something) you're kinda making a prediction about the future. -Paul
[2018-05-10 14:15:39] - aaron: Why does the turtle have a pregnancy test? -- Xpovos
[2018-05-10 11:43:07] - ha nice. love it.
i swear i've seen you use a url like that in one of your previous drawings before. yah? ~a[2018-05-10 11:37:22] - https://imgur.com/gallery/uidIZxB comic i drew today (during a personal day) - aaron
[2018-05-10 10:08:12] - Things I took away from that link: Steve Carrell has been missing for two seasons and still has basically double the words of any other person. -- Xpovos
[2018-05-10 10:00:09] - xpovos: articles are at the top because they're so volatile because they're so common. i'm going to try to bias that with a more complex model like this one ~a
[2018-05-10 09:44:22] - index made my top 25. Clearly I need to promote index funds more because who doesn't love index funds so that I can get index into the top 10 of my words. index. -Daniel
[2018-05-09 22:34:23] - Apparently I am very self-centered. Also, was I the only one who was shocked that for Miguel, there wasn't a swear word near the top?
-Paul[2018-05-09 21:03:44] - a: Weird. My most frequent word relative to everyone else is "the." Does that mean no one else likes to use articles? It's a fascinating study, but I'm not sure what the analysis is yet. Do you have the sample sizes? -- Xpovos
[2018-05-09 19:12:44] - aaron: I love hamburgers but without forks and spoons there are a lot of foods I wouldn't like anymore. ~a
[2018-05-09 16:39:50] - https://aporter.org/msg/vs-everyone/ . . . counting the frequency each person uses words *COMPARED* to everyone else. at the top, you can see the words you use more often than everyone else. half way down each page, you can see the words you use less often than everyone else. ~a
[2018-05-09 16:25:13] - Paul: MS has been tagged with a lot of acquisition discussions of late. Steam/Valve, EA, now Netflix. It seems likely they'll make another big acquisition, but I think Netflix is the least likely of all of those (except possibly Valve because Newell would never sell and definitely never sell to MS). -- Xpovos
[2018-05-09 14:38:21] - forks and spoons. ~a
[2018-05-09 14:25:47] - which would you miss more if it were gone? hamburgers, or forks and spoons? ... ...in other words, if one of those two things disappeared from the world, and the world adapted, but you still had a memory of it... which would bother you more? - aaron
[2018-05-09 13:55:34] - you gave up some of your potential upside selling 1/3rd of netflix. but you got a lower volatility. it wasn't a bad decision. especially if you took that 1/3rd in sales and ended up buying something that could also work for you. ~a
[2018-05-09 13:53:50] - hedging is a powerful tool, but it also has downsides. you give up something (usually potential upside, or sometimes a flat amount money), and you get something (usually lower volatility). ~a
[2018-05-09 13:51:22] - paul: let's take an example: you sold 1/3rd of your netflix *after* it had gone up a shit-ton, but *before* it went up a shit-ton more. was that a "bad" decision only considering what you knew at the time? if you could RERUN the world in some sort of simulation, changing a bunch of minor factors you don't have insight into, would it have even gone up at all after your sale? ~a
[2018-05-09 13:47:46] - paul: but then stock markets in general are meaningless if you can predict the future. ~a
[2018-05-09 13:47:17] - paul: "like the sunk cost fallacy" depends on your definition of "like". i think this is a very different situation. "The decision to sell the shares you DID sell turned out to be a mistake": no actually this is very wrong. the decision to sell the shares you DID sell was (hypothetically) the right thing to do with the information you had at the time. hedging is meaningless if you can predict the future. ~a
[2018-05-09 13:37:01] - a: I understand, but I also kinda see that as a bit like the sunk cost fallacy. The rest of the shares of NVDA/NFLX that you have are irrelevant. The decision to sell the shares you DID sell turned out to be a mistake. -Paul
[2018-05-09 13:30:26] - paul: nvda is a prime example of that. i sold at 40. i sold at 80. i sold at 160. yet, at 250, i regret nothing.
~a[2018-05-09 13:28:58] - paul: "I've been regretting it" yeah i usually don't "regret" selling 1/3rd or 1/2lf, because if it goes up, i still get money.
hedging is hedging, you basically both "win" and "lose" no matter what happens. ~a[2018-05-09 13:22:46] - a: I understand the desire to sell some shares of Netflix. I sold about 1/3rd of my shares a little over a year ago since it was getting to be too big a part of my portfolio, and I've been regretting it. -Paul
[2018-05-09 13:20:32] - Xpovos: If Microsoft wanted Netflix, why not buy them a year ago at half the cost or a five years ago at 1/10th the cost? I think the time for buying Netflix has passed. LinkedIn was Microsoft's biggest acquisition by far and it cost them $26 billion. Netflix could cost them almost 10x that, assuming they wanted to sell. -Paul
[2018-05-09 13:18:17] - Xpovos: I'm not buying it (pun not intended). There's been plenty of stories on CNBC about how Apple or Alphabet or Facebook should buy Netflix. Microsoft is just the latest in a long line of speculation and seems like an even worse match. Considering the huge run up the stock has had, now would be the worst time to buy it. -Paul
[2018-05-09 13:15:49] - xpovos: yeah i guess maybe that's why we're up 7% this week. i was thinking of selling some of my nflx. i guess i'm not sure if i should wait or not! if the deal *doesn't* go through then won't the price go down? ~a
[2018-05-09 12:21:26] - Financially, this is probably a winner for Paul. As a consumer user of Netflix, it terrifies me. https://www.cnbc.com/2018/05/08/veteran-media-analyst-microsoft-will-buy-netflix.html -- Xpovos
[2018-05-08 16:43:14] - https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2018/05/google-bans-bail-bond-ads.html "preventing advertising doesn’t reduce the need to pay bail it simply makes it harder to find a lender" -Paul
[2018-05-08 16:20:40] - It's getting harder and harder for me to look at some of these large social media platforms and not think that they have a pretty clear bias, even if it's unintentional. -Paul
[2018-05-08 16:19:52] - https://twitter.com/i/moments/993891675306184704 This could be way into some weird twitter web that nobody else understands, but considering the people profiled in this Bari Weiss piece, I find it really funny that twitter decided to randomly tack on the word "conservative" to their twitter moment. -Paul
[2018-05-08 11:30:57] - paul: if we start another challenge, we should probably do it at the end of the half. june 20ish? ~a
[2018-05-08 11:29:35] - paul: buffet is the single largest stockholder in boa and wells fargo (via brk.b). he also hates gold. it's not that he doesn't understand non-equity investments, it's that he doesn't want to understand non-equity investments. ~a
[2018-05-08 10:04:33] - So... when does the next stock market challenge start? Did we decide if we're doing it every 6 months or every year? -Paul
[2018-05-08 10:01:39] - https://www.cnbc.com/2018/05/08/tyler-winklevoss-tells-bill-gates-how-to-short-bitcoin.html I thought it was odd when I read Gates' quote that there wasn't an easy way to short bitcoin considering the options contracts out there... -Paul
[2018-05-07 21:04:54] - a: When it's not really comparable to an equity for so many reasons. It's a different class. -Paul
[2018-05-07 21:04:37] - a: Right, again, I don't think we disagree much here. I own Bitcoin not to use as a currency, but as a speculative investment, so clearly I think it can be an investment. My point is that I think it's entirely possible that Buffett is overly dismissive of Bitcoin because he's looking at it through equity eyes. -Paul
[2018-05-07 20:59:41] - Daniel: Predatory? Maybe. But what's the alternative? Being stuck in jail and probably being in even worse shape (losing your job, etc)? -Paul
[2018-05-07 17:02:04] - paul: "bitcoin is going to come up short" i agree with you in principle: imo equities are "better" than commodities. a commodity itself isn't going to do anything for you. but historically, gold beats inflation and even gets nearly the same return as equities. gold sucks, but it can perform. ~a
[2018-05-07 16:51:10] - paul: "you can only make money off Bitcoin by selling it to somebody for more than you paid for it" this is also true of any equity that doesn't pay a dividend. over 100 of equities in the s&p500 don't pay dividends. ~a
[2018-05-07 16:21:49] - Paul: I mean they could probably get off that list if they became less predatory... -Daniel
[2018-05-07 16:07:09] - https://www.cnbc.com/2018/05/07/google-and-koch-brothers-team-up-for-bail-reform.html Kochs team up with Google for bail reform. Also, you can add "bail bonds" to the list of things the Google apparently has prohibited ads for. -Paul
[2018-05-07 15:49:03] - a: So, yeah, if comparing Bitcoin to Facebook, Bitcoin is going to come up short since it doesn't "make" money and you can only make money off Bitcoin by selling it to somebody for more than you paid for it. The same thing is true for gold and oil. -Paul
[2018-05-07 15:48:04] - a: I suspect we're on the same side here. I'm not saying Bitcoin can't be an investment, just that it sounds to me like Buffett and Gates are comparing it to stuff like shares of Facebook or shares of Apple that have things like cash flow and earnings per share. Bitcoin, like gold and like oil, don't have either of those. -Paul
[2018-05-07 15:17:31] - paul: sure, but currencies can be investments (this definitely happens all the time in major ways). commodities can be investments (again this is super common in great amounts). so back to the beginning: "bitcoin as an investment doesn't really have a lot of the things people normally look for in an investment" that's ridiculous. oil doesn't have cash flow, jpy doesn't have cashflow, but people still invest in them just the same. ~a
[2018-05-07 14:46:32] - a: Well, wubnub also pre-dated slack by like a decade, so who knows what it might've evolved into?
You're right that it's different, but I'm still amazed that something as non-innovative as slack (it's basically Instant Messenger again, to your point about IRC) got as big as it did. -Paul[2018-05-07 14:45:02] - a: Gold can be an investment, but like Daniel said, I think of it more as a commodity. I don't think it's inaccurate to call Bitcoin an investment either, but I just feel like it's better thought of as a currency. -Paul
[2018-05-07 14:34:40] - paul: haha yes of course i do. i definitely didn't imagine wubnub to be where slack is now. i see slack as a revamped-irc, and i didn't imagine irc when thinking of wubnub. for instance, i don't think of irc or slack when i think of the message board. ~a
[2018-05-07 14:31:09] - a: But gold isn't a stock either so still different too. -Daniel
[2018-05-07 14:30:55] - a: Isn't gold treated like a commodity? So yes to an investment? -Daniel
[2018-05-07 14:26:46] - paul: is gold an investment? does gold have cashflow? ~a
[2018-05-07 14:24:39] - a: Question. Do you remember wubnub? If so, how similar was the idea to what slack is now? -Paul
[2018-05-07 14:19:52] - I feel like it would be odd to ask Buffett about "investing" in pesos or rupees or something. -Paul
[2018-05-07 14:19:14] - Because bitcoin as an investment doesn't really have a lot of the things people normally look for in an investment (like cash flow). But Bitcoin as an investment as always seemed odd to me because I see Bitcoin more as a currency (or at least an aspiring one), and so judging it as an investment seems a little unfair. -Paul
[2018-05-07 14:17:34] - https://www.cnbc.com/2018/05/07/bitcoin-backs-away-from-10k-after-buffett-gates-criticism.html While reading this, it really struck home that Buffett and Munger and Gates are looking at Bitcoin like an investment (which makes sense, in a lot of ways) and that explains a large part of why they are negative on it. -Paul
[2018-05-07 10:23:20] - Daniel: Yeah, 14% is pretty nice for a year. My individual stocks portfolio made that in the fourth quarter of 2017.
-Paul[2018-05-07 10:10:07] - 14% for the year is certainly much lower than you two for the 2017 year but not actually bad results. If my "market" position gets 14% I'm pretty happy with that. -Daniel
[2018-05-06 08:40:59] - a: 2018 performance hasn't been as good, but considering how Twitter has been (unfairly, in my mind) brought down by Facebook, I've got hope I've got upside still. -Paul
[2018-05-06 08:39:24] - a: Really happy with my performance, especially versus Daniel "the market", but I do wish my bottom 4 could've beaten yours. Who would've thought Netflix had a doubling in it!? At least it was my second biggest individual holding (now biggest). -Paul
[2018-05-06 08:37:43] - a: Oh, yeah. I forgot too! May kinda snuck up on me. I was still holding out on hope for a bitcoin crash so I could somehow overtake you. Really drives home how, even with the pullback, bitcoin had a crazy past 12 months. -Paul
[2018-05-05 03:20:01] - you quadrupled the market
~a[2018-05-05 03:05:16] - paul: i didn't realize that our bet ended on tuesday, oops! i updated the spreadsheet. ~a
[2018-05-04 11:21:13] - The possible refusal to let T-Mobile and Sprint merge took me by surprise. That seems like a no-brainer to accept to me. That was part of my rationale for choosing T-Mobile. So if that continues, that'll hurt. And my bluechip is... feeling blue. -- Xpovos
[2018-05-04 11:20:01] - a: Nope, I hadn't. Nice. That's the kind of pop I was looking for. Now if BKD could stop being mismanaged and just meet the expectations of being a market leader in a growth industry, that'd be great. -- Xpovos
[2018-05-04 11:18:51] - a: I think it might work as long as you both continue to agree that you're who you said you were when you signed. If there comes a point where Freddy ever denies to you that he is Mr. Orange, even if you're still cool acknowledging (even if only in private to Freddy and a judge) that you're Mr. Blonde, the judge is going to have a hard time deciding how to enforce the contract. -- Xpovos
[2018-05-04 11:18:32] - xpovos: have you seen shak today?
~a[2018-05-04 10:22:30] - regarding title: thoughts? can i make up a name, and you make up a name, and we both sign a document with our made-up names, and it's now legally binding for us irl? oh also, we don't tell anyone what our made-up names are. they aren't like public made-up names. only we know them. (*potentially* in the future we'd tell a judge what our fake-names are) ~a
[2018-05-03 07:24:23] - Hello. And Bye.
[2018-05-01 12:45:47] - Daniel: Cutting out the cash aspect. Just pick X stocks (like we do with our challenge) and not have to worry about how much cash to allocate to each. -Paul
[2018-05-01 12:44:47] - Paul: I guess the draft idea is different. -Daniel
[2018-05-01 12:44:30] - Paul: In what way are you wanting to be different from https://www.investopedia.com/simulator/ -Daniel?
[2018-05-01 12:37:02] - a: Agreed on 1 week (and 1 month) being way too short, but I figure the best thing to do is start off with lots of options to cast as wide a net as possible, and then hopefully show how longer time frames are more meaningful. After all, there's daily fantasy sports now which are hot... -Paul
[2018-05-01 12:25:10] - sounds like fun. similar to the stock market challenge in a lot of ways. i'd totally play. 1 week is wayyyy too short though. 1 month might be too short too. ~a
[2018-05-01 11:35:30] - aDaniel: (3) Challenge Mode - You pick a portfolio of stocks and challenge a friend (or a bunch of friends) to see who wins over a set amount of time (1 week? 1 month? 1 year?). Rules could be flexible, including how many stocks in a portfolio and allowing people to have a stock multiple times to "double down" on some. -Paul
[2018-05-01 11:34:00] - aDaniel: So if I take Tesla with the first pick, nobody else can have Tesla. This has some more flexibility (maybe "teams" are 5 stocks or 10, maybe there is a "bench" where you keep stocks or maybe you can switch them out for "free agents" if you accept a small penalty for swapping. -Paul
[2018-05-01 11:32:48] - aDaniel: I was thinking everybody is restricted to one entry. Winner is the person who has the most points of alpha, but you could also see what percentile you are in and if you are beating the market. (2) Draft League - Similar to fantasy football, where you form a league with some friends and draft stocks... -Paul
[2018-05-01 11:31:46] - aDaniel: Hey, so I was wondering if you guys are interested in brainstorming some ideas for a fantasy investing game. I'm thinking there could be three types of games: (1) Season Long - Where everybody picks 10 unique stocks for their portfolio. Contest has a set start/end date (6 months or a year)... -Paul
[2018-04-30 12:44:53] - Stupid Celgene is really killing me. Wish I had gone with NVDA.
-Paul[2018-04-30 10:09:07] - a: Was I? Oo, back to third already though. That might be the first time I've overtaken Paul ever though if I did. -Daniel
[2018-04-30 09:42:49] - daniel: 2nd place, woo! ~a
[2018-04-27 16:44:37] - "student discounts" this is actually a good idea, i hadn't thought of that. "surveys" yeah i guess you could at least get some information from this. ~a
[2018-04-27 16:33:09] - a: You don't think they've run tests on things like price sensitivity in terms of student discounts or surveys seeing if people would be willing to pay more? I highly doubt they're going into this without some pretty well-informed estimate on how many members they will lose versus keeping things the same. -Paul
[2018-04-27 16:14:32] - i don't disagree with your first few sentences. i didn't say either way (whether it was a net win or a net loss). however this "I'm confident they've crunched the numbers and decided this is a net win". they're dealing with an unknown. they're dealing with an unknowable. so i'm not sure how they could crunch numbers with any real sense of confidence. ~a
[2018-04-27 15:37:12] - Understood not every might feel the same way, but I feel fairly confident that 1 year from now, Amazon will not only not have lost prime members, but will have many more. Less than if they had kept prices the same? Probably. But I'm confident they've crunched the numbers and decided this is a net win. -Paul
[2018-04-27 15:14:21] - ah, gotcha. weirdly enough the pandora app on ubuntu doesn't have ads . . . so basically i get this for free for some reason. ~a
[2018-04-27 14:12:41] - a: There are others like that, but that's the first one I found. -- Xpovos
[2018-04-27 14:12:27] - a: I found it. One of the benefits I'm most interested in having shared is for Amazon music (basically a Pandora replacement). That isn't in the shared list. Katie gets it. I don't. -- Xpovos
[2018-04-27 14:11:28] - xpovos: "I think it just doesn't work like that, though." i think i'm confused. my link was to amazon, they definitely let you share some benefits. maybe if her account is already shared with someone else it might not work. ~a
[2018-04-27 14:09:41] - a: We are. It doesn't work for us. Maybe I need to work with Amazon customer service? I think it just doesn't work like that, though. -- Xpovos
[2018-04-27 12:39:55] - you have to be in the same household, btw. ~a
[2018-04-27 12:39:03] - xpovos: well, you're in luck. most of the benefits are shareable ~a
[2018-04-27 12:36:57] - They need to add some more value to make up for the price hike, IMO. Extending primary owner Prime benefits to family members would do it for me. Then I'd be happy to pay $120 and possible more long term. -- Xpovos
[2018-04-27 12:36:04] - I'm in the same boat. $120/yr is too much for me to be comfortable with consistently. There will be times when it is worth it, but a lot of times it won't. We dont buy as much off Amazon as we used to, so the free shipping isn't as big of a deal. I could pay for shipping and be under $120. The Prime content is interesting, but I don't get much use out of it because it's linked to Katie's account. -- Xpovos
[2018-04-27 11:57:09] - I don't think we are going to get rid of prime currently but I think it might be capped out for me at 10 a month. Past that and I would probably go a different way. -Daniel
[2018-04-27 11:53:59] - yes, that sounds right. but it's at 120/year now. which is 10/month. "Prime feels like an incredible deal to me". i thought so too until i divided 120 by the number of things i buy per year. it might actually be cheaper to just pay for shipping. prime instant is sometimes ok, amazon exclusives are sometimes good, but it just doesn't seem compelling to me. ~a
[2018-04-27 11:20:40] - a: Wasn't it a $20 increase for the year? Anyway, Netflix was able to raise prices AND grow members... -Paul
[2018-04-27 11:20:17] - a: I don't know for sure if it will, but I suspect that long term it will. Prime feels like an incredible deal to me, and I've spoken to a few people who have admitted they would pay a lot more. Even if the price raise means prime membership freezes where it is (instead of growing), it means $2 billion more in revenue without raising costs. -Paul
[2018-04-27 11:13:58] - Paul: And you are back in the lead. Was nice while it lasted
-Daniel[2018-04-27 11:04:23] - paul: i'm actually a little surprised that an increase in prime prices means an increase in stock price. won't a lot of people consider ditching prime? we watch a bunch of prime-instant, and i buy stuff online occasionally, and i also own a shit ton of amzn (though probably less than you), and i'm still considering ditching prime. $10/month in actually a lot. ~a
[2018-04-27 10:52:56] - Daniel: Neither of us are exactly covering ourselves in glory there.
-Paul[2018-04-27 10:50:20] - Paul: oO tied currently for the 2018 stocks. -Daniel
[2018-04-27 10:36:45] - Being an investor can be strange sometimes. I saw that Amazon was raising prices for Prime and because it's my second largest individual holding, my first thought was, "YES!". -Paul
[2018-04-26 16:35:39] - a: I showed it to her, so yes.
-Paul[2018-04-26 12:10:04] - paul: did gurkie see cmg today? ~a
[2018-04-26 10:27:34] - buy my bed - aaron
[2018-04-26 10:23:41] - a: ah I gotcha. -Daniel
[2018-04-26 10:12:44] - daniel: it definitely does count as tax evasion. where did i say you don't report it? what i said was you won't have to pay any taxes (i literally said "if your cost-basis is the same as your proceeds, the capital gains is zero"). not paying taxes (legal for you) and not reporting (illegal for most situations) are two different things. ~a
[2018-04-26 09:32:21] - The 3% is to accept payments in USD (2.9% + .3). Taking payments in bits and staying in bits is cheaper fee wise. -Daniel
[2018-04-26 09:31:43] - Andrea thinks me trading you bits for USD if we don't report it might be tax evasion
-Daniel[2018-04-25 17:37:52] - daniel: if you're wedded to usd for whatever reason, i'm serious about the venmo thing. (i know we're just talking in theory here: so, if you have a person who's ok exchanging for 0% because they really want the one currency, that's a theoretical solution as well) ~a
[2018-04-25 17:32:51] - you're trying to confuse things by thinking in usd. just remove usd from the equation. ~a
[2018-04-25 17:31:28] - "So 3% to just take payment" i don't follow. it's 0% + 1 cent if you start in btc and stay in btc. ~a
[2018-04-25 17:29:41] - daniel: "Doesn't selling bits count as a capital gains taxable event?" i don't know, but i have been treating it as such on my taxes. regardless, if your cost-basis is the same as your proceeds, the capital gains is zero. . . . 1.5% seems too high to me. gemini is around 1%. ~a
[2018-04-25 17:25:48] - or BTC to a and USD to me and maybe taxes? -Daniel
[2018-04-25 17:25:18] - a: lol that would be a funny solution to me. Doesn't selling bits count as a capital gains taxable event? 1.5% at coinbase to convert back to USD. So 3% to just take payment in USD vs 1.5% to take payment in BTC and convert + taxes? -Daniel
[2018-04-25 17:19:07] - daniel: why would you want usd?
seriously, though, you could keep it in bits and spend the bits (or pay for expenses like server costs in bits) then you won't have to pay a fee. regardless, yes most exchanges charge a fee. if you give me the bits and i give you usd over venmo, i won't charge you a fee. ~a[2018-04-25 17:06:03] - a: my cousin works in oil and gas industry. he was talking to me one time while our kids were playing about a thing he was trying to do in excel for a few companies to put some different data points together. I was like yeah I could do that for you. So I did, he thinks he might be able to sell it but that part hasn't actually happened yet. If I did accept bits is there a fee to convert back to USD? -Daniel
[2018-04-25 16:43:37] - daniel: "you interested in who is drilling for oil in Texas?" wow you have piqued my interest. i guess people want to buy and sell land-rights or information on land-rights. sounds like fun. yeah i'm glad you've come around! next we need to set you up with a wallet
i like mycelium on android. ~a[2018-04-25 16:19:37] - a: But I felt like I should at least admit to seeing the issue of having to pay the fee to accept payment online. -Daniel
[2018-04-25 16:19:08] - a: It would be educational I'm sure to set it up to be able to accept payment in bits. That said I'm not sure that we are currently planning on that. -Daniel
[2018-04-25 16:18:39] - a: I don't think so - you interested in who is drilling for oil in Texas? -Daniel
[2018-04-25 15:04:05] - daniel: bits, man, bits. i know you were hard-against it before, but seriously, 0% + 1 cents is pretty nice. also there are people like me that are excited to transact in bits. . . . would i be interested in buying what you're selling? ~a
[2018-04-25 14:59:24] - Paul: They can but paypal charges the 2.9% + 30 cents. All the places I looked up (paypal, amazon, google, etc) all charged that same amount to process online payment. Paypal is still probably the top contender though. -Daniel
[2018-04-25 14:31:35] - Daniel: Those people can't send money through paypal or something? -Paul
[2018-04-25 14:30:03] - daniel: for side-hustles bitcoin definitely has it's pros. one of the only side-hustles i ever participated in, the dude paid me in bits. it's especially nice if you're dealing with people who are over-seas. sometimes venmo or paypal work in those situations, but sometimes not. ~a
[2018-04-25 14:29:30] - "LIke I'm not sure a site should be responsible for stuff a user posts" This is pretty much the only line of this discussion that I've read, but to me, that is the danger with the SESTA/FOSTA thing and it was interesting to me when Zuckerberg told Congress that Facebook was responsible for content on their site. -Paul
[2018-04-25 14:26:49] - daniel:
yeah, there's also direct-deposit/direct-debit (ach), and that's much cheaper than a credit card. some companies charge $0.50 - $1 for that. i pay for direct deposit for my employee pay-checks, but that's bundled with a bunch of other services, so i'm not sure how much that costs. ~a[2018-04-25 14:15:50] - a: On a different note - I'm looking into a potential side hustle thing with a cousin of mine and definitely ran into the people can't send us money online thing without the 2.9% + 30cents fee. Made me think of you and the bitcoin discussion. -Daniel
[2018-04-25 14:11:46] - a: I'm not currently mad at them no, so no I don't think so. -Daniel
[2018-04-25 14:11:34] - i don't find it repugnant, i guess is what i'd say. i'm fine with kids dying videos. or all people dying videos. as a sub. as long as nobody is dying *because* of the sub. i'm disinterested in the content, though. i wouldn't watch one of those videos even if i was really bored and nothing else was available. ~a
[2018-04-25 14:09:40] - daniel: "wouldn't object to them deciding a no kids dying rule" that's of course all right with me. but, i also wouldn't object to them deciding a kids-dying is ok rule. would you?
you find it repugnant, as you say, but you would be mad at reddit if they continue to allow it? ~a[2018-04-25 14:07:17] - a: I'm not aware of any kids dying because of that sub. Just that I find it repugnant enough that I wouldn't object to them deciding a no kids dying rule. Which I realize as a policy precedent is dangerous but thats my conflicted point. Balancing the policy vs the actual implementations that arise. -Daniel
[2018-04-25 14:05:08] - daniel: "Like that doesn't really seem like something that should be online for people to share and upvote" are you harmed by it? is anybody harmed by it? really that's my own personal line. are you infringing on anyone else's rights? if not, i'm not sure why it *shouldn't* exist. do you know why? like, are potentially more kids going to die because of the sub? ~a
[2018-04-25 13:03:26] - I feel like it ties into the backpage discussion. LIke I'm not sure a site should be responsible for stuff a user posts. But if instead of a single user posting part of the site becomes a community for some specific activity does that change the moral calculus? I'm not sure. -Daniel
[2018-04-25 13:01:40] - a: Looking through https://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/6rjqmk/what_is_the_worst_subreddit_youve_come_across/ has some candidates. -Daniel
[2018-04-25 12:55:32] - a: Like I'm not sure I even want to go look but I think there is a sub that is videos of kids dying. I know there is one just about people in general but I think there is one for kids too. Like that doesn't really seem like something that should be online for people to share and upvote. But I'm not sure its breaking any rules. But if reddit added a rule tomorrow that said - no kids dying - and banned that subreddit I would be ok. -Daniel
[2018-04-25 12:52:58] - a: Or examples of subreddits they should ban? I'd have to go look but I think there are a couple out there that are pretty odious. But right thats the point, I'm not sure that any definitely should be taken down but I'm also not sure I would mind if they were. -Daniel
[2018-04-25 12:51:18] - I mean its real close and maybe depends on definition of porn maybe but it was people out in public wearing their clothes. -Daniel
[2018-04-25 12:50:56] - a: There was a subreddit awhile back that got banned because it was people taking pictures of ladies out in public who were unaware of it. I don't know that it was breaking any of those rules explicitly but was real close. It because a deal after Anderson Cooper reported on it and it got shut down. I think most people agreed that was "good" but I'm not sure it was against any rules specifically? -Daniel
[2018-04-25 10:55:42] - daniel: they've banned subreddits before. do you have any examples? i think the_donald is a horrible subreddit, but nothing i've ever read on there would violate their content policy ("bullying", maybe?). of note, racism and sexism aren't prohibited on their content policy. ~a
[2018-04-25 10:49:16] - a: Like if Reddit just came out and said "We are changing our policy and will now ban whoever the f we want - take it or leave it" and started to get rid of some subreddits - its possible I might think reddit was a better site for it. Even though I would think that was a pretty terrible policy. Thats the conflict. -Daniel
[2018-04-25 10:47:52] - a: I think thats a reasonable policy for them to set out and follow. I just wonder sometimes if there is a way to be more proactive about toxic communities without becoming "bad" where I'm not entirely sure what bad is. -Daniel
[2018-04-25 10:43:46] - daniel: reddit's definition is pretty clear. assuming they're following that policy on deciding who to ban, i'm fine with that policy. do you agree? ~a
[2018-04-25 10:43:21] - I think there is some new case making its way that it argues that homophobic behavior is illegal because its a form of gender discrimination because people wouldn't be anti that person liking who they like if it wasn't for their gender. But if reddit (or whoever) shut down some community because it was to misogynistic couldn't the same logic be applied where its only because they are men that they are being discriminated against? -Daniel
[2018-04-25 10:39:35] - I go back and forth on that question and don't think I have a good answer. Like backpage or the cake maker who didn't want gay marriage clients its weird on both ends. On one side you think duh this business shouldn't support this awful stuff, but on the other side I'm like duh you shouldn't discriminate just cause you don't like their beliefs. I don't know. -Daniel
[2018-04-25 10:38:01] - daniel: depends completely on your definition of unsavory. ~a
[2018-04-25 10:35:24] - Should reddit do more to censor / ban / disrupt unsavory communities on its site? -Daniel
[2018-04-24 16:57:33] - daniel: you're right, sorry i missed that word. ~a
[2018-04-24 16:39:45] - a: One is about "industrial markets" and the other "office markets"?. I'm not totally sure what those mean precisely but maybe it adds a qualifier that makes different data sets? -Daniel
[2018-04-24 16:29:46] - also related fact: in ~2012 i tried pretty hard to rent a space for my company and rent was pretty expensive everywhere. instead i decided to sublet (actually ended up paying more per square foot, but was able to rent a much smaller space). ~a
[2018-04-24 16:26:49] - i want to trust wamu on this, but it's still a little weird. ~a
[2018-04-24 16:26:19] - paul: two different articles looking at ~2012-2016 with opposite graphs showing opposite trends. am i misinterpreting the graphs or what? vacancies in nova+dc are down and vacancies in nova+dc are up. ~a
[2018-04-23 11:35:40] - ahhhhhhhhhhh. ~a
[2018-04-23 11:33:07] - a: i guess he took off his helmet to see what the weather was like? - aaron
[2018-04-23 11:28:03] - nobody gets mouths except cute baby and GIANT MUSTACHE. i like this guy. why did the spaceman's head explode in how's the weather ~a
[2018-04-23 11:14:28] - https://linsedition.files.wordpress.com/2018/04/war-and-peas-cute-baby.jpg cute baby airplane comic - aaron
[2018-04-20 12:50:49] - http://blog.stephenwolfram.com/2017/06/oh-my-gosh-its-covered-in-rule-30s/ wow this guy really loves rule 30 - aaron
[2018-04-20 12:41:30] - Daniel: And if we those pitfalls can be avoided, then you might be able to end up with a fund that can beat the market net of fees. If you look at the three funds they manage, all are beating their benchmarks (I didn't check to see if it was net of fees or not, now that I think of it). -Paul
[2018-04-20 12:40:17] - Daniel: Yup. No doubt. I don't think either of those authors would disagree either. I don't want to put words in their mouth, but I think they're saying there are reasons we can identify why many funds under-perform (not enough active share percentage, not sticking with highest conviction picks, etc)... -Paul
[2018-04-20 12:34:37] - Paul: I agree with that point. Indexing does guarantee just under the overall market. That is also better than the performance of most funds. Both of those statements are true. -Daniel
[2018-04-20 12:17:34] - Daniel: As low as their fees are, as long as they are still non-zero, then you are slightly under-performing the average returns of all the stocks. Maybe that's what he meant by average. -paul
[2018-04-20 12:15:38] - Daniel: Ah, yes, I can see why you would be against that. Yeah, maybe average is the wrong word because it gives the wrong impression. I think his ultimate point was probably that, while index funds are great, they basically guarantee below baseline (or whatever you want to call it) results. -paul
[2018-04-20 12:04:45] - People certainly talk about index'es being the baseline. But calling it average seems wrong. -Daniel
[2018-04-20 12:01:48] - Paul: If index funds beat out a majority of mutual funds then defining average as the index fund seems misleading. -Daniel
[2018-04-20 11:59:34] - Paul: FTA "I can promise that passive index investing will produce below-average investment results over the long term (indexes provide you with average, less a fee)" That seems like cheating. -Daniel
[2018-04-20 11:55:31] - Daniel: "Also defining "average returns" as the returns of the index seems like cheating." I'm not sure what this is referring to. I feel like most of the time when discussing average returns and/or benchmarking returns people compare to indexes though. -Paul
[2018-04-20 11:53:59] - Daniel: I think the larger point is that, yes, many mutual funds under-perform, but there are some reasons we can identify as to why, and if we can avoid those things, then those funds have a better chance to over-perform. -Paul
[2018-04-20 11:40:45] - Also defining "average returns" as the returns of the index seems like cheating. If instead you define the average return as the average of all the funds that were available over a given time frame (including those that went out during that time frame) then I bet indexing suddenly isn't average anymore. -Daniel
[2018-04-20 11:39:22] - It also gives no indication on how you determine which 5 are the 5 worst which is the ENTIRE point of everything. That no one knows which five are the worst until its already happened. -Daniel
[2018-04-20 11:38:52] - The other article states that if you can only avoid the worst 5 stocks you can make a big improvement (but that would give you a pretty low active score) -Daniel
[2018-04-20 11:38:04] - One argues that you have to deviate a lot from the index in order to beat it more. This is intuitively true but carries the risk of also being wrong in their bets. In order to significantly underperform the index you also need to deviate from it also seems intuitively true. -Daniel
[2018-04-20 11:36:45] - Paul: Basically those two articles do nothing for me and almost seem to argue against themselves. -Daniel
[2018-04-20 11:36:22] - Like if there are 100 funds in that top 20% of active share and 80 of them returned blah results and 20 of them returned amazing results then the average performance for that quintile would still look good. -Daniel
[2018-04-20 11:34:52] - The thing I couldn't find was a breakdown of the funds in their top 20% that gave them an average out performance of the 1.15% -Daniel
[2018-04-20 11:33:49] - a: They picked the index that gave the lowest possible active share score. -Daniel
[2018-04-20 11:33:27] - a: Their "high active share funds" were funds in the top 20% of highest active share -Daniel
[2018-04-20 11:32:43] - a: So I just read through their paper and can answer some of that. -Daniel
[2018-04-20 11:15:22] - paul: what's more, we're supposed to take on faith that a high active-share is good. wouldn't just picking a benchmark that has nothing to do with your fund give you a very high active-share? ~a
[2018-04-20 11:14:52] - paul: maybe because that cut-off needed to be something very specific for their math to work? ~a
[2018-04-20 11:14:16] - paul: "They studied and computed Active Share for all U.S. equity mutual funds from 1980 to 2003 and found that high active-share funds outperformed their benchmarks by 1.13% to 1.15% annually, net of fees and expenses." uh oh, they defined what active share funds are, but didn't give us the cut-off. what percent active share did they use to determine which funds outperformed their benchmarks? ~a
[2018-04-20 10:56:52] - Daniel: Also, I checked the performance of all three funds offered and they all appear to be beating their indices since inception. -Paul
[2018-04-20 10:56:14] - Daniel: Some of it goes to things I have mentioned before. -Paul
[2018-04-20 10:55:58] - Daniel: https://www.foolfunds.com/insights/the-obscure-fund-statistic-all-investors-should-know/?source=ifffblnk0000002 It's two articles making the case for why some actively managed funds can beat the average/passive index funds and why so many funds under-perform. -Paul
[2018-04-20 10:54:52] - Daniel: https://www.foolfunds.com/insights/the-case-for-active-investing/ Not sure if anybody else would be interested in this, but I found a few TMF articles (from their fund managers, so people who actively manage funds) that I thought you might find interesting. -Paul
[2018-04-20 10:45:34] - Yeah, I can't put my finger on it, because there's nothing that jumps out as being wrong, but it just felt like I was looking at something small that was designed to look bigger. -Paul
[2018-04-20 09:52:08] - a: Yeah I think I started out looking more at the planes which aren't moving so are easy to believe. -Daniel
[2018-04-20 09:46:57] - i see what you mean, yeah, it happens right before the end, so it could just be i was looking at another part of the video at that time. ~a
[2018-04-20 09:45:54] - i did not.
maybe i was in a different head space than you guys, or maybe i'm just oblivious to details like that. ~a[2018-04-20 09:09:37] - I got it when the bus tried to turn so barely in time, Totally bought it as real till then. -Daniel
[2018-04-20 08:02:56] - i did not. ~a
[2018-04-19 22:39:58] - a: For some reason, I suspected it was a model early on. -Paul
[2018-04-19 11:59:58] - hah, this video is amazing ~a
[2018-04-18 11:34:06] - Paul: Probably impossible to answer until someone actually finds it or he comes clean to say he didn't actually hide it, but I find it plausible that some rich guy who loved the outdoors and thought he was going to die hid a bunch of crap out in the wilderness. -Daniel
[2018-04-18 11:33:27] - paul: yes(ish). when you close vtsax long, you close the short. you don't use the shares, but you use the cash. ~a
[2018-04-18 11:24:55] - https://www.cnbc.com/2018/04/17/millionaire-forrest-fenn-hid-treasure-in-the-rockies-and-left-a-clue.html What do you all think? Is the treasure real or is it a hoax? -Paul
[2018-04-18 11:24:22] - a: But can you liquidate the shares from your fund to cover the short? -Paul
[2018-04-18 11:07:08] - (zero additional risk). ~a
[2018-04-18 11:04:38] - paul: what? no risk. none. if you're short-selling the same number of shares that you're long-buying (in vtsax), there is zero risk. ~a
[2018-04-18 11:04:04] - the problem you'll probably fall into is the fees on short-selling are huge. so it might not be worth it in the long run. ~a
[2018-04-18 11:03:57] - a: While I understand what you're saying about shorting in terms of it technically (or more accurately, maybe, morally) canceling out the purchase of gun stocks with a sell, I think it adds unnecessary risk. -Paul
[2018-04-18 11:03:11] - a: Yes, I was joking. Forgot my
face. -Paul[2018-04-18 10:58:55] - anyways, shorts let you do interesting combinations of things. you could make your own index fund minus gun stocks. or minus tobacco stocks. or minus both. ~a
[2018-04-18 10:51:35] - daniel: a normal short, no, you never actually have possession of the shares. when you close the short, the "bought" shares go back to who you borrowed them from. ~a
[2018-04-18 10:49:42] - a: A normal short, if I borrow shares, sell those, stock goes down, I buy shares. I have made profit, but I still am invested in gun companies. -Daniel
[2018-04-18 10:47:29] - daniel: depends. are you talking about a normal short? or are you talking about the crazy adrian plan of combining vtsax with the short? ~a
[2018-04-18 10:46:35] - daniel: maybe you're confusing options and shorting? options do not actually sell any shares (until/unless you exercise). ~a
[2018-04-18 10:46:01] - a: So don't I still end up owning shares after the short is completed? -Daniel
[2018-04-18 10:43:28] - daniel: short sale requires that you borrow the shares (this happens automatically by your broker and depending on what you are shorting, there is sometimes a monthly fee here), then you do a "normal" sale, then when you close your position, you do a "normal" buy. ~a
[2018-04-18 10:42:14] - daniel: "I thought shorting was a bet that the stock would go down? Not actually selling off shares in it?" here is the part where you're wrong. it is literally a sale. if you both short and long the same number of shares you are effectively doing nothing: (you will *only* pay fees). ~a
[2018-04-18 10:32:49] - a: I thought shorting was a bet that the stock would go down? Not actually selling off shares in it? So if the stock didn't actually go down the shorts would just cost me money? Admittedly I don't know much about shorting so I could be wrong. Do they actually help drive the price down? -Daniel
[2018-04-18 09:59:35] - daniel/paul: you could also just buy vtsax and short the things you don't like. that would give you the endless permutations you desire. ~a
[2018-04-18 09:49:52] - According to https://goodbyegunstocks.com/fund/VTSMX it seems like its a pretty low percentage in gun stocks. Would I switch if Vanguard offered a VTSMX-gun fund? Maybe? But I think there are other venues to deal with the issue. Also I think on some level that money isn't the issue but rather the culture of the US and its interwoven-ness with guns. -Daniel
[2018-04-18 09:48:24] - Then you start adding permutations and I think it gets crazy pretty quick to try and have the appropriate fund for someone who supports gun and oil and gas but think thats tobacco and casino's are bad. -Daniel
[2018-04-18 09:47:23] - Paul: Eh. I've talked with some people before about socially conscious investing. I think there is definitely a place for it and I would probably be amenable to it if there was a easy / simple way to manage it but its kind of crazy to think about it from the other side. Like if you make a gunless index fund, do you make a tobacoless index fund? casinoless index fund? Sodaless index fund? Oil and Gas less index fund? -Daniel
[2018-04-18 08:03:20] - paul: i'm guessing you're being sarcastic? i doubt daniel believes american firearm makers are murderers. ~a
[2018-04-18 08:01:48] - paul: yeah i noticed that later, you're right. probably not much will change in the US landscape until the challenge is over. ~a
[2018-04-17 23:07:52] - Daniel: https://www.cnbc.com/2018/04/17/student-activist-david-hogg-calls-for-boycott-of-vanguard-and-blackrock-over-gunmaker-ownership.html How do you feel about supporting murder? -Paul
[2018-04-17 23:07:30] - a: Right, but you referenced US states, which I don't think would have nearly the impact as the US federal government changing. There's a reason so many of these companies are Canadian.... people are still worried about the US federal government cracking down. -Paul
[2018-04-17 17:26:20] - paul: there are federal changes happening though. just not in our country. acbff is a non-us stock.
~a[2018-04-17 16:37:28] - a: I think it's going to take federal law changes before we see any big moves in marijuana stocks. -Paul
[2018-04-17 16:32:38] - sorry, 2-8. so, like 300% up. ~a
[2018-04-17 16:31:28] - no. acbff has gone from 2-6 in like one year (their revenue is high, and their book value is high, but their earnings are . . . well, positive). i have a feeling that acbff will go up once a few more US states change their laws. ~a
[2018-04-17 16:08:55] - aDaniel: I crushed you both in both contest for today's returns. "i'm hopeful for the future" What does this mean? Hopeful that twitter will come back down to earth so the future of the bet? -Paul
[2018-04-17 15:34:35] - paul/daniel: yeah ouch. you guys are closing the gap. twitter, jeeze. i'm hopeful for the future.
~aprev <-> next