prev <-> next
[2019-03-20 10:31:01] - a: So if you go solely by population, then big population states like California and Texas and New York would just crush the tiny states which would be seen as entirely unimportant. -Paul
[2019-03-20 10:30:12] - a: The most compelling argument I can make is the same argument for the Senate as a body where Wyoming gets the same power as California: There was an idea... to bring together a group of remarkable people... oh, sorry, got distracted... an idea that states should have a certain amount of power to balance out the federal government. -Paul
[2019-03-20 10:25:52] - paul: ... the complication of doing everything via courrier *needed* to be simplified. but it was also made in a time before the president and vp were on the same ticket. and in a time before we had political parties. so the ec did have a complicated job. but today? i don't get it. it remains as a body that gives a higher weight to people living in certain states than people living in other states. what's your argument FOR the ec? ~a
[2019-03-20 10:25:50] - paul: when i was in 6th grade (so before 2016 and before 2000), i remember hearing arguments *for* the electoral college. i remember thinking: even if i grant all of your axioms, i think this still makes no sense. the electoral college was made in a time before we had election counting machines (with paper audit trails, right?!). we did everything manually: we didn't have telephones or a telegraph to transmit results. courier only. ~a
[2019-03-20 10:22:43] - Paul: Same way they cover senator races now I suppose where they zoom the map in and look at which counties have reported and which haven't and what the margins are in certain counties. -Daniel
[2019-03-20 10:21:38] - Paul: Margins will all be more important. So maybe the fact that NY goes to a D isn't important anymore but how MUCH does it go to a D. And likewise with Florida - is it close either way or can one party swing an extra million votes to their side there. -Daniel
[2019-03-20 10:19:52] - Daniel: Instead, it will be a somewhat boring progression of votes coming in and adding to a total.
-Paul[2019-03-20 10:19:31] - Daniel: Considering what we've done with direct election of Senators and how federalism has fallen out of fashion, it does seem like the EC is not long for this world. It'll be weird to see how it changes media coverage of the election because there won't be big climatic moments like Ohio or Florida being called for certain candidates... -Paul
[2019-03-20 10:12:54] - -Daniel
[2019-03-20 10:12:51] - Paul: I think the more out of balance the EC gets in regards to geo vs pop the more likely it will be to change because the more population there will be pushing for change. It seems somewhat inherent in the system. -Daneil
[2019-03-20 09:56:00] - Paul: Its hard to be sure but its possible that everyone would flip sides on the EC if the parties it had benefited switched but its also hard to see how that would be the case given the demographics of voting in our country. I think the EC was put in place to give some balance between geography and population but its continued to get more and more out of balance as urbanization has occurred. -Daniel
[2019-03-20 09:52:48] - And while I can see some reasonable arguments for ending the electoral college, I can't help but feel like this is 100% in reaction to the outcome of the most recent election (and the 2000 election). If the roles were reversed and the EC saved President Clinton from Trump's popular vote win it feels like 90% of people would be on opposite sides of this issue. -Paul
[2019-03-20 09:51:23] - Paul: I'm against court packing. I'm pretty eh on the EC though I think it seems more likely the states run around of it comes to fruition before a change at the federal level. Eliminating the filibuster I go back and forth on. I have mixed feelings on it and I'm not sure what the best answer for it is. -Daniel
[2019-03-20 09:51:07] - Additionally, it's as if they have learned absolutely nothing from the past 3 years or so in terms of power and can't imagine a scenario where they are out of power again despite the fact that they're barely in power now. Really? You want to increase the size of the supreme court and kill the filibuster so Trump can have more power if he wins again? -Paul
[2019-03-20 09:49:45] - Hard to tell how much is empty talk to get media attention and how much is serious, but even the talk of it is driving me crazy. I feel like all the democrats have to do is not be batshit insane this presidential election in order to win and this seems like a giant "hold my beer" moment. -Paul
[2019-03-20 09:48:54] - Wondering how the democratic leaning people here feel about some of the positions taken by some of the leading presidential candidates so far. I've heard talk of ending the electoral college, increasing the size of the supreme court, eliminating the filibuster... -Paul
[2019-03-20 09:20:09] - Daniel: I will say, though, that the movies that Disney has coming out this year is ridiculous and this could be the best year for them in terms of box office for a long time. Endgame, Star Wars IX, Frozen 2, Aladdin, Lion King, Toy Story 4.... -Paul
[2019-03-20 09:19:09] - Daniel: Whereas it's hard to argue Endgame will be more impactful than Star Wars... at least in the US. -Paul
[2019-03-20 09:18:49] - Daniel: I think it really depends on what metric you want to use, like Adrian asked. In terms of money, I'm sure it will be #1 for awhile, but for inflation adjusted (and worldwide) it will almost certainly be surpassed. Cultural impact is hard to measure, especially in the moment. Avatar was huge but really hasn't had a lasting impact... -Paul
[2019-03-20 09:17:32] - a: Yeah, it sounds complicated. I knew there was some limit on the number of shares available for shorting, but wasn't sure how it was determined. -Paul
[2019-03-20 09:17:10] - Xpovos: Really on the GOOG call? Because of Stadia? You of all people?
-Paul[2019-03-19 17:17:40] - Endgame feels bigger to me than titanic. But maybe not. Titanic probably had more broad appeal. And that Celene Dion song was all over the radio at the time which probably helped it staying in the minds of people. -Daniel
[2019-03-19 17:16:31] - Avatar is always weird to me on these lists for how little cultural impact it had. I guess it ushered in 3D movies? And for awhile people tried to make 3D TVs a thing. -Daniel
[2019-03-19 16:57:18] - daniel: only two movies since 2000 in the worldwide top 10. jeeze. ~a
[2019-03-19 16:55:46] - daniel: again, if we're going (adjusted) dollars only . . . i'm not sure if endgame will even get in the top 10. ~a
[2019-03-19 16:51:43] - daniel: i think "gone with the wind" wins on dollars (adjusted, domestic *and* worldwide, gross). ~a
[2019-03-19 16:48:15] - s/usually/sometimes/. i guess. ~a
[2019-03-19 16:48:01] - well usually dollars gets inflation adjusted. ~a
[2019-03-19 16:46:42] - Dollars I'm sure it gets surpassed eventually just cause of inflation. -Daniel
[2019-03-19 16:46:20] - however you want? cultural impact? -Daniel
[2019-03-19 16:45:54] - you're defining the event size in dollars? or people? something else unmeasurable? ~a
[2019-03-19 16:44:50] - Is Avengers Endgame the biggest movie event ever? If no which movie event was bigger? If yes will another movie top it in the next 20 years? -Daniel
[2019-03-19 16:23:41] - paul: "when the shares were used in the short sale transaction, the initial source lost its voting rights as it was no longer the holder of record" ok now i've changed my original stance. this would explain voting rights: if you're a "margin account" person, you're possibly giving up your voting rights (and the "holder of record" status). if you're a regular account person, you get to keep your voting rights/holder of record status? ~a
[2019-03-19 16:21:09] - paul: according to investopedia, what i just said isn't true. according to them, only "margin account" holders get their shares lended out. i've definitely read the opposite (that everybody's shares in a brokerage are available for lending). so take it with a grain of salt i guess. ~a
[2019-03-19 16:16:56] - xpovos: because of stadia? ~a
[2019-03-19 16:15:50] - paul: merrill lynch lends it out *for* you and pockets the money. your tesla shares are already available for lease (or already leased and sold). it's in the fine print you sign away when you get a brokerage account. it's why they gave you all of those free trades
(it's also one of the ways that robinhood is able to be "free") ~a[2019-03-19 16:14:43] - Xpo's stock recommendation of the day. Buy GOOGL. -- Xpovos
[2019-03-19 16:07:10] - a: I've always wondered how you arrange that. I wouldn't mind lending somebody my Tesla shares, since I know they're in high demand for shorting. Presumably I would get some money out of it and maybe less flexibility on when I could sell? Seems like a win/win for a long term investor like me. -Paul
[2019-03-19 16:05:55] - a: Yeah, I'm sure that with options and other stuff, the simulation wouldn't accurately reflect real life. Still, it's crazy to think about these big picture things. -Paul
[2019-03-19 16:02:40] - paul: correct the share count doesn't change. (without naked shorting) you have to get someone to lend you their share. ~a
[2019-03-19 16:01:21] - paul: once we include the details for how etfs work into the mix, i think it could get weird/difficult to simulate: "authorized participants" are weird. so are baskets. ~a
[2019-03-19 15:58:22] - a: I couldn't make such a simulation. I don't know enough about the technicalities of index funds or even how things like shorting work in terms of does it technically create an "extra" share like fractional reserve banking does? I'm guessing not since the share count likely doesn't change. -Paul
[2019-03-19 15:57:02] - paul: if the passive funds are big enough, they'll probably be buyers on most days (but the amount of buying would probably fluctuate, and the re-balancing would make them sellers of many individual stocks). ~a
[2019-03-19 15:55:27] - paul: a stock market simulation would be better
we could test out the theories. ~a[2019-03-19 15:54:00] - a: Ugh, I guess part of it depends on if passive funds are net buyers or sellers on a given day, which could change. Why is this so complicated?
-Paul[2019-03-19 15:52:57] - a: I feel like we need to try this sometime when we have a few friends over. We pick like 4 "stocks" that have a set market cap at the beginning and some "passive" investor which is always trying to buy at that set price while a few of us (outnumbered) try to affect things to see how it works. -Paul
[2019-03-19 15:52:04] - paul: that's right. a market can go down in price with literally zero *market* sellers. (for the "last" price to go down, you have to have either a buyer or a seller fill an open market order) ~a
[2019-03-19 15:48:13] - paul: markets are fine if there are no shares for sale. you have bid prices, an "unset" ask price, and the "last" price wouldn't move. once the bid prices get high enough, someone will figure out how to get some shares (short sellers if anything). ~a
[2019-03-19 15:47:07] - So when markets drop, it's not because more people are selling, it's just that... I dunno, everybody suddenly agrees that things are worth less than they were before? -Paul
[2019-03-19 15:46:29] - Daniel: "poorly" Right! Sometimes just the simple idea that every trade in the market has a buyer AND seller (and needs both) makes it hard for me to conceptualize things. Like, there can literally never be more buyers than sellers, right? Or does shorting allow that? -Paul
[2019-03-19 15:45:09] - Right, I could be completely wrong about all of this, but I guess I see passive funds as somewhat operating as a force which would mostly maintain the status quo and slow down drastic changes because I envision them kinda being a lagging indicator. -Paul
[2019-03-19 15:44:43] - paul: poorly. -Daniel
[2019-03-19 15:43:35] - a: Hmmm, okay. I guess I'm not taking into account the fact that the passive funds wouldn't be selling? Honestly, it's kinda hard to imagine a world where there are literally no shares left to buy.... how would that even work? -Paul
[2019-03-19 15:42:41] - Daniel: Would they have to sell or would their holding already match the shrinking footprint because the value of their shares halved? -Paul
[2019-03-19 15:42:35] - Paul: I guess its a technical question of how often do passive funds buy and sell. I'm not sure if they rebalance during the day but I don't have a source for that other than what I think. So then the two investors would have all day to do transactions and set prices without interference. -Daniel
[2019-03-19 15:42:34] - "wouldn't the passive fund be buying" i think it only buys and sells at the end of the day. i'm not 100% sure of that though. ~a
[2019-03-19 15:41:52] - daniel: it probably depends on the market. you're assuming the market doesn't let you sell to yourself, and though it's probably true about american stock exchanges, i don't think it's universally true. ~a
[2019-03-19 15:41:13] - a: So I think you would need at least two investors not one. two to make a transaction (one buy one sell). -Daniel
[2019-03-19 15:40:44] - a: But wouldn't the passive fund be buying because of new money coming into the market via 401(k)s and other stuff? -Paul
[2019-03-19 15:40:27] - "If the passive funds hold 99.9% of the market then the active investor can't do much." this is false and i think it's based on a misunderstanding of how prices are set. if the passive fund holds all the shares but one, the investors fighting over that LAST SHARE are deciding the price. ~a
[2019-03-19 15:39:33] - If all the active investors leave why wouldn't the passive funds sell as well to match the shrinking footprint of the company? -Daniel
[2019-03-19 15:39:28] - a: I think that's an oversimplification. If the passive funds hold 99.9% of the market then the active investor can't do much. Those passive funds are basically solidifying the status quo and it makes it harder for active investors to move anything. -Paul
[2019-03-19 15:39:16] - paul: it's that simple, yes. the passive investor doesn't set the price of a stock. ~a
[2019-03-19 15:38:37] - paul: it doesn't matter how many people are invested in a security: if a passive fund is neither buying nor selling, they have zero say in the price. ~a
[2019-03-19 15:38:21] - Daniel: Is it that simple, though? The passive funds (which hold half of the shares, at least) wouldn't sell the next day, I don't think. And new money would keep coming in, right? -Paul
[2019-03-19 15:36:55] - Daniel: I guess it drops by half the next day as all "active" investors sell, but wouldn't the passive funds hold? Would the ETFs need to re-balance and sell or would it already be re-balanced by virtue of their positions being smaller? -Paul
[2019-03-19 15:36:48] - paul: the active investors are deciding where the passive investors should invest. nothing about 50/50 is a meaningful line. if there's one active investor left, he can have a total say in where all the passive money goes: that's a ridiculous extreme that we should avoid. i'm not sure how many active investors we need for the stock market to be "efficient". 100% active might not be enough to make it "efficient"
~a[2019-03-19 15:36:35] - Paul: Active investors leave, market cap falls, index funds notice and sell, market cap falls more. COMPANY EXPLODES. -Daniel
[2019-03-19 15:35:12] - Daniel: How does a mega cap company meaningfully lose value? Microsoft is the biggest company by market cap, right? Well, let's say tomorrow we find out their finances have been a complete scam and the company is bankrupt and worthless. Everybody knows it and agrees on it, but passive index funds are still buying... what happens to the stock? -Paul
[2019-03-19 15:33:22] - Daniel: Yeah, I don't know either. Although... and I'm having trouble visualizing this in my mind, but once 50% of invested funds are passive... isn't that some kind of meaningful threshold that changes the calculus on things? If more than half of new money is going into the same companies (according to current market cap) with minimal to no though put into it other than if it is in an index... -Paul
[2019-03-19 15:25:36] - I guess the follow up to that is "how do you know when the market is longer efficient?" To which I don't currently have a good answer. Maybe when active investors start doing a better job on average would indicate an inefficient market to me? -Daniel
[2019-03-19 14:42:03] - Paul: I don't know the percent answer but my answer would be when there isn't enough active investing to sustain to ensure a (relatively) efficient market. -Daniel
[2019-03-19 14:18:23] - https://www.cnbc.com/2019/03/19/passive-investing-now-controls-nearly-half-the-us-stock-market.html At what point did we say that if passive funds controlled X% of the market it would be cause for concern? -Paul
[2019-03-19 13:41:25] - xpovos: yeah i have a lot of free time. also that's just tv watching time! if you count total free time it's probably closer to 7-9 hours on a weekday. ~a
[2019-03-19 11:44:15] - I definitely don't fall in the 4-8 window of free time. We generally get our kids to bed around 8:30 give or take some. Andrea generally goes to bed between 10 and 11:30. I go to bed generally between 11:30 and 1. So max free time would be 8:30 to 1 if I ignored Andrea. Generally get a couple of hours together to do w/e and a few to myself after she goes to bed. -Daniel
[2019-03-19 11:09:30] - It's just easier to not watch than to make an effort to spend our mutually limited free time arranging to watch television. -- Xpovos
[2019-03-19 11:08:59] - Preacher and American Gods are interesting show choices because those are shows I was also interested in, more fully than most television. Preacher we stopped watching because the season ended and the inertia to start again with the second season was too great for her--so I stopped, because I wasn't going to watch it solo. With American Gods we hit a roadblock in the first season, and again inertia set in quickly. -- Xpovos
[2019-03-19 11:06:49] - I could see how, lacking kids, how I could have 4-8 hours of free time a day. The social aspect is a good point. I guess I DO watch a fair amount of TV, but 95% of it is whatever kids show the kids are obsessed with. So in a given week I might watch a few hours of Octonauts or Dino Dana. -Paul
[2019-03-19 11:06:24] - Now she doesn't watch much TV at all either. We rarely watch movies either. The television is for the kids and kids' shows, and for gaming. Gaming is something I do solo, though, and always have, so it works well as my "time filler." -- Xpovos
[2019-03-19 11:05:21] - Kids is fairly obvious, these are adult TV programs, by and large. Wife is less obvious. She's not interested is the simple answer. The TV we have watched over the past ~10 years has almost exclusively been shows she's interested in. E.g. Three Musketeers, American Gods, Preacher, Dr. Who. She used to watch a lot more shows, even without me, Mentalist, NCIS, Burn Notice. I found those shows to be largely unappealing so I stopped watching.
[2019-03-19 11:03:17] - It tended to be sports, or just something on while I did laundry or cooked. Not really programmed TV. West Wing, e.g., the only show on that list that I actually watched, I watched with my father. So, the question is: why aren't I watching these shows with my kids/wife? -- Xpovos
[2019-03-19 11:02:15] - As for how we chose to spend our free time, I definitely don't see television as a "solo" activity. I watch TV with my kids, or with my wife. Previously I'd watch it with my parents, or at Harper/communally. I did watch more TV solo in college, but even that was rarer. -- Xpovos
[2019-03-19 11:01:14] - a: I guess I'm stunned that you have "4-8 hours ... per *weekday*" of free time, let alone that you're choosing to use it to watch television. I definitely feel like I have half of that or less. I have a more significant commute, but there are likely other issues as well. -- Xpovos
[2019-03-18 14:55:09] - ronald reagan? the actor?!
[2019-03-18 13:57:27] - a: If you told 2010 me (when SC2 came out) that 9 years from then the last game of the trilogy has been out for years and I still haven't beaten it, I would've called you a liar. -Paul
[2019-03-18 13:56:17] - a: Maybe the best way to put it is that previously, I had time to play a lot of games and watch a lot of TV and watch a lot of movies. Now, I pretty much only play the video games I am super excited about and the same with movies and TV shows. Even then, I don't always get to everything. I still haven't finished SC2: Legacy of the Void... -Paul
[2019-03-18 13:54:17] - gotcha, understood.
~a[2019-03-18 13:53:28] - a: Your video game queue is empty? There are a finite number of games that I really want to play each year and those 2-3 games have a higher priority than watching TV. If I play those and am now looking at the mid-tier games that I am only somewhat interested in.... maybe that's when I slip in a few TV shows. -Paul
[2019-03-18 13:48:06] - paul: using that argument, why watch tv ever? ~a
[2019-03-18 13:23:43] - Daniel: Yeah, I think that's the underrated thing: The competition for free time increases. Why would I watch the Shield when I've got like 3 video games in my queue to play? -Paul
[2019-03-18 13:23:01] - On a different note its interesting to see things like this (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MUiYglgGbos) where its an indirect response to "Fake News" and all that goes along with it. I've definitely talked with people who struggle with telling what is real because its to much work. So while this helps give people pointers if people aren't willing to do the work will the "Fake News" problem ever get solved. Hmmm. -Daniel
[2019-03-18 13:20:57] - If you dont have as much free time then there is increased competition as well. So once they are asleep do I play God of War or watch the wire? Harder to do both now. -Daniel
[2019-03-18 13:20:24] - a: Andrea and I watch way less TV than we used to. Kids are a big part I think for several reasons. Chore magnitude increases. More laundry, more dishes, more poop, etc to clean. Also when they are awake I would not watch the Wire. Its a great show but my five year old isn't ready for the intracies of the Baltimore drug wars circa 2001. So the window to watch TV shrinks a lot. -Daniel
[2019-03-18 11:22:49] - paul: "You likely get a lot more free time then". maybe on average, but maybe not. i feel like most weekends i watch far less tv that weekdays. weekends i don't have to work, and i'm not tired from working all day, so i often fill the weekend with fun stuff. ~a
[2019-03-18 11:10:08] - a: I'm guessing the big difference is the weekend. You likely get a lot more free time then, whereas I have the same amount as I do on weekdays (except maybe less since sometimes we're having friends over for stuff or we're going on trips out of town or something. -Paul
[2019-03-18 11:08:34] - a: One or two times might be games with Gurkie. One or two times might be doing laundry / dishes / prepping food / other adulting stuff. -Paul
[2019-03-18 11:07:47] - a: It really depends. Weekdays I typically have around 2-3 hours where the kids are sleeping and I am not. Maybe around once a week that's for board games with friends. Maybe one other time a week it's either video games with friends or video games on my own. One or two times a week might be writing for RD/PvtM or editing a podcast... -Paul
[2019-03-18 10:19:14] - paul: so, tell me, do you watch much tv anymore?
i know this is going to be a stupid question, but because it's a question often on my mind, and because you prompted me twice, i'm going to ask anyways. what do you do with your time? i feel like i do a lot of activities, and still have time for . . . something like 4-8 hours of tv per *weekday*. if i replaced all of my biking time with "kid stuff", i think i could still watch tv. ~a[2019-03-18 10:15:58] - But seems more beloved. -Paul
[2019-03-18 10:15:46] - mig: He rides a skateboard and is "cool"? I dunno. On one hand I somewhat sympathize with the other candidates mentioned in that article before because there's some good point about how Warren has been putting out a bunch of policy recommendations (most of which I think are terrible, but still....) whereas Beto doesn't have nearly as much substance... -Paul
[2019-03-18 10:12:47] - I'm still stumped as to what is driving the Betomania thing? - mig
[2019-03-18 09:13:38] - Xpovos: Yeah, I know AOC can't run, but my point was more that she is a female and a minority and seems to be getting a lot of airtime, so that's a bit of a counter point to people upset about Beto. As for Yang, I saw his numbers were rising and Kmele interviewed him on The Fifth Column podcast. He seems better than most Democratic candidates, but that UBI is scary. -Paul
[2019-03-18 09:12:01] - a: Yeah, I frankly just don't watch a lot of TV anymore, and haven't watched much for years. I also haven't seen Rick and Morty (which I hear is all the rage). -Paul
[2019-03-17 20:24:28] - Paul: AOC can't run for President, yet, due to Constitutional age limits. That said, watch out for Andrew Yang. He's under the radar and pissing off all the right people to make a big push at some point. -- Xpovos
[2019-03-17 10:25:26] - The only one of those shows I actually watched much of was The West Wing, which is the item on the list that two of the writers would knock off, if they could have, for one of their honorable mentions. I figure that means something. At the least, it means my TV viewing habits are closer to Paul's than to a's. But that's unsurprising. -- Xpovos
[2019-03-16 20:39:41] - paul: i watched 8/20 (most of them in their entirety). adventure time is the one i'm most surprised by. ~a
[2019-03-15 23:08:53] - https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/arts/television/best-drama-series.html?smid=tw-nytimes&smtyp=cur I know I don't watch a lot of TV anymore, but it seems telling that I have watched NONE of the shows on this list. In fact, the number of episodes of the shows on this list that I have watched might be... 1? If we count honorable mentions? -Paul
[2019-03-15 14:14:57] - https://www.cnet.com/news/james-gunn-reportedly-returns-to-guardians-of-the-galaxy-3-as-director/ I think this was the right decision and as a fan I'm glad Gunn will be back. -Paul
[2019-03-15 13:53:00] - https://www.politico.com/story/2019/03/15/beto-orourke-backlash-women-1223073 I'm curious, so people here think Beto has gotten a lot more coverage than other Democratic candidates? I feel like it's about the same as Harris and Warren and Bernie. Frankly, AOC seems to top them all. -Paul
[2019-03-15 11:01:10] - it's a little hard to believe this is a real video. filmed from the international space station. it's sped up, but couldn't find many details on by how much. ~a
[2019-03-15 10:58:21] - a: That seems like a curious stance for you to take.
-Paul[2019-03-15 10:46:11] - paul: yes, and i guess that means stratego has no luck in it at all. ~a
[2019-03-15 10:42:53] - a: Good call. I could totally play stratego to lose.
-Paul[2019-03-15 10:38:24] - paul: uh oh i hear a stratego argument coming. ~a
[2019-03-15 10:27:57] - And maybe some of them work out or maybe it even all works out for a few days, but I'm almost certainly going to lose everything (and more, in the case of shorting and margin) pretty soon. -Paul
[2019-03-15 10:27:23] - a: It's an interesting way to think about it, though. I can try to lose at poker pretty easily by playing 2-7 off-suit and going all-in on hands where I just am playing the board. Yeah, it could work out for a hand or two, but pretty soon I'll almost certainly flame out. Investing seems similar. I could short something like Amazon or use margin to buy a bunch of penny stocks... -Paul
[2019-03-15 10:23:07] - paul: yeah, good point haha. ~a
[2019-03-15 10:02:35] - a: If you want to "win"...
-Paul[2019-03-15 09:35:54] - paul: the expected return for everything are the same: 5.3% loss on every bet except the "top line or basket" (7.9% loss). link. so based on that, if you want to lose, just bet on "top line or basket". if you want to win, bet on literally anything else?
~a[2019-03-15 09:28:00] - I get that not everybody loves those companies and they sometimes do some shady things, but even the least beloved (Facebook?) is probably much better thought of than companies like Microsoft or Exxon were in their "biggest companies in the world" prime. -Paul
[2019-03-15 09:27:07] - https://tech.co/news/elizabeth-warren-break-tech-companies-2019-03 While I understand it on some level, it's still mind-boggling to me that a Democratic presidential candidate is advocating for breaking up 3 of the most generally beloved large companies in America that overwhelmingly donate to Democratic candidates. -Paul
[2019-03-15 09:21:48] - Obviously it kinda depends on the definition of "lose", since I think there are certain payouts that make some roulette bets better than others, but it was an interesting way to think about things. -Paul
[2019-03-15 09:20:13] - I saw an interesting theory on how to try to differentiate skill from luck when it comes to something. The idea is, if you wanted to try to lose, could you? If you can, then there is at least an element of skill involved. If not, then it's mostly (entirely?) luck. -Paul
[2019-03-14 16:22:41] - Xpovos: I opened the link in a new tab. I'll let you know when I get around to reading it. -Daniel
[2019-03-14 15:48:12] - a: http://wondermark.com/c/2019-03-12-1465tabs.png -- Xpovos
[2019-03-14 15:10:50] - PSA: Don't drink beer in a car. but if you do . . . ~a
[2019-03-14 13:26:19] - Xpovos: One of these days, we'll have to record a podcast to dig into your deep and irrational hatred of all social media.
-Paul[2019-03-14 13:25:47] - xpovos: the number of google-sheets tabs in chrome i have open right now is too damn high. ~a
[2019-03-14 13:23:40] - Nearly three year old tweet I've found and like. I'm still not going to be a Twit. https://twitter.com/RemyPorter/status/752913168624746497 -- Xpovos
[2019-03-13 11:53:18] - a: Like for 2018, two of my positions have basically been acquired and a third I sold because I no longer believe in it. And honestly? I'm considering selling another one of them. I apparently had some bad picks that challenge. Still beat Daniel, though.
-Paul[2019-03-13 11:51:29] - a: Yeah, it's interesting because a lot of these positions I still own and want to see how they perform over the longer term (since most of these companies I want to own for more than 1 year), but on the other hand there's a few positions which have been bought out which doesn't seem fair to compare anymore. -Paul
[2019-03-13 11:45:53] - paul: yeah?! i didn't see that. man, the meta tab needs a "today" section too. i think i'll add that. ~a
[2019-03-13 11:34:30] - a: At least I overtook you in the 2017 challenge again. -Paul
[2019-03-13 11:21:30] - paul: yep. i think you were winning for like a month before and a couple weeks after december 31st. ~a
[2019-03-13 11:10:10] - a: Yeah, looks like that challenge ended at just the right time.
-Paul[2019-03-13 11:01:42] - paul: have you seen the 2y returns for acb? +390%
(up 10% today) ~a[2019-03-13 10:44:02] - a: Difference in degree of difficulty moving to be clear. -Daniel
[2019-03-13 10:43:49] - daniel: "like it or leave it" doesn't require the thing you like to be large or the place you're leaving to be large. ~a
[2019-03-13 10:43:38] - a: Sure a difference in degree but a large and significant one in my head. -Daniel
[2019-03-13 10:43:21] - Hundreds of thousands of people over the course of DC's history have made the choice to live there or not. Part of that choice was their legal status and representation status. It didn't come out of nowhere or surprise them. I'm not arguing its "good" but I also don't see it as a huge problem for the citizens of DC that they have been unjustly subjected to. -Daniel
[2019-03-13 10:42:39] - daniel: there's a difference in degree only. ~a
[2019-03-13 10:41:41] - a: Leaving the US is way harder than moving to a new city in the US. There is a difference between systemic racism or slavery across giant swaths of the country vs one city that doesn't have federal representation. -Daniel
[2019-03-13 10:40:33] - daniel: "its still true that no one is forced to live there" this argument needs to go to bed. you aren't forced to live in the united states either. i guess unjust treatment doesn't matter if you are technically (but not in practice) able to leave a region/country? "like it or leave it" seems to be your argument? ~a
[2019-03-13 10:39:52] - a: "give the republicans something huge to offset it" - I would definitely be against that. -Daniel
[2019-03-13 10:38:59] - daniel: i understand #1 and #2, but i guess i'm more of a #1 person than a #2 person. i don't care if you make dc part of md or va: i just don't think it'll work out that way. it's most likely to pass (imo) if you turn dc into a normal state, and give the republicans something huge to offset it. ~a
[2019-03-13 10:34:39] - a: My main confusion I think is two fold 1) The passion that some seem to exhibit for DC statehood since it doesn't seem like a major issue to me 2) How against joining MD (or VA) most (all?) the proponents of DC statehood seem to be. It seems like it solves the stated goals so I get confused why they are so opposed to it. -Daniel
[2019-03-13 10:32:18] - a: I picked 200 because the most powerful vote that DC is missing out on is Senator. There are 100 of them, and the Senate represents half of the legislative branch, so even if you solely got to determine your Senator with your vote, that vote still only represents 1 out of 100 Senators which is in turn half of the legislative branch. Math. -Paul
[2019-03-13 10:31:49] - a: Poverty is definitely a thing and I get that not everyone can up and move like tomorrow. But its still true that no one is forced to live there. Also even the people on the other side of anacostia probably have a lower degree of separation between them and a member of congress than your average US citizen. -Daniel
[2019-03-13 10:31:14] - a: You're conflating two different things here. Are we talking about the percent chance that I will get what I want? Or how important it is? My point was more about how likely it is that I get what I want, but your points were all about how important it is. Totally different things. -Paul
[2019-03-13 10:27:12] - daniel: yes, that's true, they say it's really easy for people under the poverty line to move. also, i bet most everybody on the other side of the anacostia river totally has a friend who's a clerk in the supreme court. ~a
[2019-03-13 10:25:49] - paul: i'm also not sure where 200 comes from. you vote for state representatives and us representatives. and there's only 100 senators. those senators sit in committees with like, what, a dozen other people? it's crazy how wrong you are. ~a
[2019-03-13 10:24:54] - paul: i hate to get all math on you, but 1% is like infinity better than 0%. what's more, it's not just math: think about it. would you rather have no say at all, and let your views get trampled upon, or would you rather have a 1% chance at getting what you want? it seems like a no-brainer to me. ~a
[2019-03-13 10:15:13] - Daniel: And I think that is part of the "DC doesn't need a vote" crowd's point. DC was supposed to be the seat of the federal government and, as such, likely already has a ton of power. -Paul
[2019-03-13 09:46:48] - I guess as an additional thought it would be interesting to try and compare if DC residents end up being MORE represented in government simply by proximity to DC. The likelihood of being a congressional staffer, or knowing someone who works as Supreme court clerk, or does whatever might mean you could actually express an idea that could directly make it to a decision maker more easily than say Joe Bob who lives in Miami FL. -Daniel
[2019-03-13 09:43:56] - I guess also part of my thought process is that the lack of representation is self selected. People are not required to live in DC. If representation is an important thing to you, feel free to move literally anywhere else in the country. -Daniel
[2019-03-12 19:12:53] - a: But sure, if you want to move it to 1% that's fine. The point is more that I don't really feel like my representatives represent me any more than some random representative from another state just because I'm allowed to vote for (or against) them. -Paul
[2019-03-12 19:10:02] - a: Even then, it's one vote among hundreds of thousands to decide on somebody who might have, at most, 1/200th of the power necessary to do any of those horrible things. -Paul
[2019-03-12 19:08:21] - a: Heh, I love how you somehow turned this into a white privilege discussion. That's a nice hypothetical, but our elections aren't between Hitler and Jesus. It's usually between somebody who is 90% bad and somebody who is 85% bad. -Paul
[2019-03-12 17:36:58] - paul: if your representative was deciding whether they were going to force-relocate you, i'm thinking who your representative was would matter. in short, you say 0.0000001% vs 0%, only because you have it so good. ~a
[2019-03-12 17:35:40] - paul: to borrow from our own countries history, if your representative decided that you were to sit at the back of the bus, and only use certain water fountains, and certain pools, i mean, wouldn't you be for getting a new representative? wouldn't you change your 0.0000001% number to at least like 1%? ~a
[2019-03-12 17:34:11] - yah. i guess. though honestly, if someone proposed putting DC as part of maryland, i'd probably be for that as well. anything is better than what we have. ~a
[2019-03-12 17:31:46] - a: I mean the argument that it would be hard to govern the space controlling where the gov convenes was the original argument for not making DC a state in the first place. -Daniel
[2019-03-12 17:29:49] - a: Thats at least a new and different argument that I haven't heard yet... -Daniel
[2019-03-12 17:29:28] - a: So your position is that DC being a small state would be good because it would better be able to handle the problems presented by controlling the space where all the branches of government govern? -Daniel
[2019-03-12 17:25:57] - paul: your numbers 0% vs 0.0000001% are because you're concerned with only some of what your representation is doing. let's say (deliciously) your representative (local or federal) was considering removing your right to vote (yes, this kind of thing happens), wouldn't you consider getting new representation that wasn't trying to remove your right to vote? wouldn't who is representing you then matter? ~a
[2019-03-12 17:22:37] - daniel: maybe if maryland or virginia had similar population to wyoming, your argument would make more sense. but that's not the case. virginia and maryland both have a fucking huge number of people. so the representation of the seat of the nation (controlling the space where all three branches of governments govern) and representation of a huge state with tons of people. the biases of managing both are going to be too much. ~a
[2019-03-12 17:10:26] - a: I'm not sure I understand "because it gives MD too much power". What power is MD going to get that the newly created state of DC wouldn't get? -Daniel
[2019-03-12 17:04:39] - Which is why I'm not overly concerned about a lack of representation. Yeah, it's not right, and they probably should have somebody they can vote for to feel better about themselves.... but I don't think it's some great injustice that urgently needs solving. I think things like ranked choice voting or easier ballot access laws are like 10x more important. -Paul
[2019-03-12 17:02:45] - a: Right, but realistically, I'm never going to get what I want. I understand that technically I have a higher chance than somebody without a vote, but it's like 0% vs 0.0000001% -Paul
[2019-03-12 17:01:39] - in DC they don't have that (except in presidential elections, thank god). ~a
[2019-03-12 17:01:31] - a: I think there are things worse than having them join Maryland. Having DC sink into the ocean, for example, would be worse. Hmmmm...... actually.... maybe not? -Paul
[2019-03-12 17:01:09] - "I don't think that just because I voted against my representatives that... uh... gives me some sort of representation" i do argue that it does. mostly not because you get what you want, but because if you can get on-board with enough OTHER people, you can get what you want. ~a
[2019-03-12 17:00:20] -
~a[2019-03-12 17:00:09] - a: This probably goes back to the whole idea behind the importance of voting, though. I don't think that just because I voted against my representatives that... uh... gives me some sort of representation. I don't want to put words in your mouth, but I guess you would argue that it does? -Paul
[2019-03-12 17:00:00] - paul: yes, i'm against them joining MD (because it gives MD too much power). but, the only thing worse than having DC join maryland, is not having DC join maryland  ~a
[2019-03-12 16:58:44] - a: I'm not necessarily saying they shouldn't get the right to vote for some member of congress, but I just find the idea of "representation" to be a weird one. I don't feel particularly represented in the US government and I especially don't feel represented by the delegation from VA. -Paul
[2019-03-12 16:57:44] - a: Heh, that's the second time today I've pointed out that something doesn't work and your response has been: "The only thing worse than X is no X".
-Paul[2019-03-12 16:57:33] - a: So I'm not against them having representation but I'm against making DC a state as a solution. Is there a reason you are against them joining MD? -Daniel
[2019-03-12 16:54:19] - paul: the only thing worse than having a representative that doesn't embody your beliefs is having zero representatives. at least with the first case, you and your brothers-in-beliefs have the option to vote. ~a
[2019-03-12 16:51:25] - a: But I don't believe any of those people represent my interests much at all. Representative Amash from Michigan probably comes closest to representing my beliefs and interests, but I obviously do not live in Michigan and cannot vote for him. -Paul
[2019-03-12 16:50:32] - a: Like, I guess you would say my representation is Senator Kaine and Senator Warner and... Representative Wexton? Not sure who my representative is... -Paul
[2019-03-12 16:49:51] - a: Hmmm, that brings up an interesting philosophical point... we tie representation to geographic area, which strikes me as a bit odd... -Paul
[2019-03-12 16:46:01] - i'm generally for statehood largely because these people need representation and i don't see a compelling argument against it. ~a
[2019-03-12 16:43:49] - I'm generally against statehood largely because I don't see a compelling argument for it. DC is a city. It was never a state. I'm not sure there's much evidence it was ever intended to be a state. It doesn't make much sense to me to make a city a state. I'm fine with giving them some seats in the House, but making DC a state seems like overkill. -Paul
[2019-03-12 16:43:25] - daniel: (from reddit) let's make wyoming a territory.
[2019-03-12 16:42:09] - a: Its still a city, even with its population. -Daniel
[2019-03-12 16:41:46] - a: What are the reasons for statehood? Because any citizens without federal representation are to many? Why not merge back to MD? -Daniel
[2019-03-12 16:41:14] - daniel: don't think of it as a single city. think of it as a small state that has more population than wyoming and vermont. (and less than puerto rico). ~a
[2019-03-12 16:39:22] - daniel: i'm for statehood, but i know it won't pass unless there's something to give to republicans as a trade. the current bill has all kinds of bullshit in it, but i heard of an interesting strategy: get senate republicans to go on the record saying that they "hate blah blah" in the current bill, then the house can re-propose it without the bullshit. ~a
[2019-03-12 16:38:15] - https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/b0ai1q/democrats_push_to_make_washington_dc_the/
[2019-03-12 16:37:26] - daniel: r/washingtondc ? i see one link but i don't think that's you. ~a
[2019-03-12 16:27:42] - I would support it merging into MD or VA but apparently people on reddit thinks that throws out the last ~200 years of legal history and governance that DC has sort of had. I think thats the price they have to pay but apparently that isn't popular currently. -Daniel
[2019-03-12 16:26:47] - I'm against it but that seems to pit me against reddit / current D thought. It seems a very big solution to a small (in my head) problem of a single city not having federal representation. -Daniel
[2019-03-12 16:23:55] - Change of subject but I got sucked into a reddit debate so I'm curious about it here. Thoughts on DC statehood for or against? -Daniel
[2019-03-12 16:12:28] - Less relevant but I'm not sure I would say irrelevant. -Daniel
[2019-03-12 16:11:58] - Paul: I would agree that the older data is less relevant but I think even if you limit it to the last 50 years or last 20 its still going to be more illustrative than a single investor for 5 years. -Daniel
[2019-03-12 15:57:05] - a: Ugh, that's a good point. *Sigh* you're going to make me check every statement for deposits now?
-Paul[2019-03-12 15:43:02] - paul: you didn't make any deposits during that time? it's weird, i'll have to check-out why, but i lost money in 2011. good on you! ~a
[2019-03-12 15:36:26] - Daniel: But I'm not sure that adding the data from 1901 to 1950 or whatever really helps improve predictive ability versus just looking at the data from 2000 onward. In some ways, that most recent data is much more relevant (IMHO). -Paul
[2019-03-12 15:35:31] - Daniel: I would analogize it to looking at the past 100 years of baseball history to try to predict the World Series winners over the next 30 years. The models would probably predict betting on the Yankees is a good idea, and that strikes me as good of a bet as any... -Paul
[2019-03-12 15:33:21] - Daniel: Sure, and I understand the point about more data points generally meaning more accuracy, but I also think we're talking about something different from a coin flip. There's nothing that changes from flip #1 to flip #9999999999 that should affect the outcome. Lots of stuff has changed in the past 100 years in investing. -Paul
[2019-03-12 15:31:45] - a: Looks like the S&P 500 was up around 15% during that time, so I trailed by about 1 percentage point? -Paul
[2019-03-12 15:30:21] - a: Between Jan 2011 and Dec 2012, I believe my portfolio went up 14%. -Paul
[2019-03-12 14:16:47] - Paul: I think I look at the data question like I do statistics. If you flip a coin five times and they all come up heads three times out of five and you then conclude that you have a 60% chance of getting heads that would be flawed. If you flipped the coin for 150 years then you would have a much better understanding of the true odds (though it still could be off from some form of "truth"). -Daniel
[2019-03-12 14:06:44] - paul: january 1st - december 31st?
can't you just look at your starting and ending balances and how much you deposited (less withdrew)? returns ≈ (end-depositied/2)/(beginning+depositied/2) [if abs(deposited) ≲ beginning/3] ~a[2019-03-12 13:59:32] - a: If you have specific months in 2010/2011, I could tell you what stocks I owned at the beginning and at the end so we could estimate my returns. -Paul
[2019-03-12 13:58:12] - a: Oh, sorry, yeah, my numbers only ran up to Q3 of 2018 (which, obviously, leaves out that important drop in Q4). -Paul
[2019-03-12 13:52:54] - yeah, in 2016-2018 my individual funds also averaged 25.4%/year. not sure where the 12% came from though. s&p500 even with dividends only got 9%/year in those three years. ~a
[2019-03-12 13:49:51] - a: Oh, but I do have statements going back that far. Would be a pain to reconstruct my portfolio from those, though. I can try to do it, but maybe not now. -Paul
[2019-03-12 13:49:34] - oh no! i saved my scottrade history before their webpages went down. ~a
[2019-03-12 13:48:05] - a: I only have my transactions recorded with my Fool account from 2013 onward. -Paul
[2019-03-12 13:47:34] - a: I don't know if I could tell you. Scottrade got bought out by TD Ameritrade and I lost a lot of my transaction history in the move. -Paul
[2019-03-12 13:45:08] - a: In 2016, 2017 and 2018 I averaged around 25% return a year and the market averaged around 12% per year by my calculations. -Paul
[2019-03-12 13:44:55] - paul: how did you do compared to the market in 2011 and 2012. those were two years that i lost compared to sp500tr (tr = total return, which includes dividends). not sure exactly why, but i'm just looking at the numbers. ~a
[2019-03-12 13:41:22] - 10% per year?! yikes, that i want to see. ~a
[2019-03-12 13:40:28] - a: We can argue back and forth about stuff like back-testing or how many years of data or if it's a 75% chance I'll beat the market by 10% or a 70% chance I'll beat it by 5% but it all pales hugely in comparison to the fact that nobody really can know. In the end, we're all just guessing to different degrees. -Paul
[2019-03-12 13:37:38] - a: What it comes down to is a circular argument. I think that you and Daniel are looking for me to "prove" that I can beat the market, and I fully admit that's never something I will be able to prove because nobody knows where the market is going, no matter how often they backtest on how much data. -Paul
[2019-03-12 13:36:42] - paul: yes i thought you were going to mention that. so my thought is this: back-testing is bad. *not* back-testing is worse. ~a
[2019-03-12 13:36:00] - a: Sure, but again, this all comes back to "past performance is no guarantee of future results", which gets thrown at me all the time as a criticism but for some reason you and Daniel get to conveniently ignore by waving your hands and saying "100 years of data!".
-Paul[2019-03-12 13:35:10] - paul: you could back-test your theories. though, it would require you to turn your strategy into an algorithm. ~a
[2019-03-12 13:34:51] - a: Although honestly, I do wonder if market data from 100 years ago is particularly relevant to the market today. Society was different. Technology is different. The rules are different. The number of people investing and the vehicles they use (index funds and options and whatnot) are different. -Paul
[2019-03-12 13:34:01] - also your way of looking at the last 5 years is very different. if i were to use 5 years of data, i'd look at it in (say) four different scenarios: 2014-2016, 2015-2017, 2016-2018, and 2017-2019. a downside is there is a lot of overlap in these four scenarios, but the big upside is you aren't looking at *JUST ONE* scenario like you currently are: 2014-2019. when i looked at 1871-2016, i split that up into thousands of secanarios. ~a
[2019-03-12 13:33:47] - a: I'm looking at pretty much all the data that is available for what I am trying to do. Because I am not as old as the stock market, you will always have more years of data to work with than I do, which basically means I can never "win" on the amount of data front. -Paul
[2019-03-12 13:30:08] - paul: "Historically, I have beaten the market by investing in individual stocks so it makes sense to do that...I don't see why what I am doing is different?" you're looking at 5 years of history and i'm looking at 150 years of history.
yep, same thing. ~a[2019-03-12 13:28:41] - a: Okay, sure. So you are using historical data to make predictions on how best to invest your money in the future? That's what I am doing. Historically, I have beaten the market by investing in individual stocks so it makes sense to do that. I don't see why what I am doing is different? You asked me how high my chances were for beating the market. Well, what are your chances for matching your models? -Paul
[2019-03-12 13:24:08] - paul: example of a 5th percentile graph: here (i've posted this before). it uses 1871-2016, and i made this graph. ~a
[2019-03-12 13:21:09] - paul: no. (let's say we can predict the future, but in reality back-testing is usually used to do this) given: a specific strategy. to find the outcomes, you run through a few thousand simulations (again, back-testing usually) and sort by the money made. the 5th percentile outcome: look at the bottom 5% of amounts of money made. ~a
[2019-03-12 13:20:57] - a: (All fractions are estimates). I have to imagine you're doing something similar (unless, I guess, you're just 100% in some total market fund). I mean, what's the difference between you having some money in bitcoin at some point and me having some money in individual stocks? Aren't they both bets on the likeliness that one will outperform an index fund? -Paul
[2019-03-12 13:19:28] - a: I'm making a number of "bets" based on kinda arbitrary probabilities that I came up with in my own head. Half of money in individual stocks because I think I can beat an index fund. Half of my index funds in international markets because I think they will outperform the US. Half of my US money in mid and small caps because I think they will outperform too. -Paul
[2019-03-12 13:18:00] - a: Or if I thought small caps might outperform large caps or whatever else. You called me a hardliner, but remember I have half my retirement money in passive index funds so in some ways, you and Daniel are hard liners and I'm a moderate. -Paul
[2019-03-12 13:16:48] - a: By definition, I guess we can safely say that there's a 100% chance that index funds are going to be within a certain percentage of their index, but what index are we going on? S&P 500? Total market? Large caps? Small caps? International? If I thought there was a 75% chance that emerging markets would beat the US market over the next 20 years I would feel good putting half my money there. -Paul
[2019-03-12 13:14:20] - a: Hmmm, okay. I guess I just feel like pretty much all retirement decisions are kinda based guessing on arbitrary predictions on what is likely to happen in the future based on what has happened in the past. You spoke about "95% of the time i'll beat this number", but what is "this number"? -Paul
[2019-03-12 13:09:33] - paul: no, i would not take that deal if i could only play it once. ~a
[2019-03-12 13:06:12] - a: Granted, it's kinda a silly question since the 75% number was pulled from out of nowhere and the amount of under-performance and over-performance is even more made up... -Paul
[2019-03-12 13:05:46] - paul: nah not good enough. i like to focus on the 5th percentile (i.e. 95% of the time i'll beat this number) and try to improve that for the long term. ~a
[2019-03-12 13:05:41] - a: If I gave you a one time chance to spin a roulette wheel with 3 winning slots and 1 losing slot and it cost you... $500k to spin the wheel. Winning means you end up with $750k and losing means you get $250k, you don't think you would do it? -Paul
[2019-03-12 13:04:35] - a: I guess I'm a little surprised you would still go with the "safe" route even though (in our scenario) there's a 75% chance of being able to beat it. 75% is pretty good odds. -Paul
[2019-03-12 12:43:19] - Like if there are a million individual investors then by like it would a normal distrubition. So maybe Paul is more knowledgeable, smarter, and better able to control his emotion so shifts his personal curve to the right for the likelihood of outcomes. It still would be most likely to be near the middle. -Daniel
[2019-03-12 12:42:08] - daniel: yeah, you and paul seem to be hard-liners about your own way. i'm more of a moderate, so i think i have something to gain by talking to either of you. ~a
[2019-03-12 12:41:34] - think its probably like (don't know how you would assign numbers to these) Most likely that Paul is somewhere near the average market return. Some chance he significantly beats the market. Some chance he underperforms significantly. But also that its impossible to say ahead of time which it is. -Daniel
[2019-03-12 12:38:42] - I mostly disagree with Paul's premise but he and I have gone around that enough times that I'm not sure there is much to gain. Though I doubt that will prevent it from ever happening again
-Daniel[2019-03-12 12:37:34] - i'm totally fine losing money in the short term. i'm not fine with there being a (significant) chance that i'll lose money in the long term. ~a
[2019-03-12 12:36:02] - ok in that case, i'd probably still pick the "safe" route. i'm thinking daniel might too. maybe it's why we disagree about strategy so often. ~a
[2019-03-12 11:58:24] - a: Oh, sorry, that's 25% chance to retire at 50 was supposed to be 60. I messed up that number. -Paul
[2019-03-12 11:54:35] - paul: your scenario is much more unfair because you're ignoring the 25% chance where you underperform the market.
~a[2019-03-12 11:37:26] - a: Obviously that's a pretty small sample size (just based on the past 5-10 years or so) and I actually fully expect that to go down over time since I tend to underperform in down markets (and I still consider us in a really long bull market), but if that does keep up that could make a huge difference in retirement age. -Paul
prev <-> next