prev <-> next
[2019-08-29 09:20:19] - At the same time, we're seeing some clarification in the presidential candidate draft. 4 candidates drafted have now dropped out (2 for Adrian, 1 for Andrew, 1 for me) and another one of mine is probably missing the next debate and the next to drop out. -Paul
[2019-08-29 09:18:53] - a: And sometimes we can or do pay stuff in advance in a lump sum. *Shrug* It's all I've got. -Paul
[2019-08-29 09:18:14] - a: So it sounds like our (speaking for Gurkie and me, not for Daniel) expenses are just a lot less predictable and consistent than yours. I don't know why that is, but it might be because of kids. Stuff like swimming lessons and TKD and little league can be expensive, and they are sometimes cyclical or seasonal... -Paul
[2019-08-29 09:16:49] - a: I wonder if kids (or something else?) are underrated in this exchange. Because I would say that over the course of 3+ years, our incomes exceed our expenses, but on a month to month basis it almost seems like a coin flip. It's not at all uncommon for us to go 3-4 months where we spend thousands more than we earn. -Paul
[2019-08-28 23:36:14] - paul: mortgage is set to coincide with my paycheck. i like it that way because it means i don't have to have much of a buffer. ~a
[2019-08-28 23:35:14] - daniel: if i can't pay my cc off, i take out money of vtsax. that only happens a couple of times per year. i.e. most of the time my expenses are less than my income. ~a
[2019-08-28 12:17:51] - a: You have to pay off your CC though - do you pull out of vstax to do that every month? -Daniel
[2019-08-28 12:04:44] - a: I put as many things on my CC as I can as well, but I've got some big bills (many thousands of dollars worth) like car payment and mortgage which can't be put on CCs. -Paul
[2019-08-28 11:07:49] - daniel: instead of a cash-cushion, i have a vtsax-cushion.
~a[2019-08-28 11:07:01] - daniel/paul: "I feel uncomfortable when our checking account dips below $10k" yeah, i like to avoid over-drafting too. so i usually put stuff (especially big stuff) on my cc. i feel uncomfortable if my checking account drops below $1k, because sometimes (rarely) small utility bills don't go on my cc. i do definitely pull stuff out of vtsax on occasion. like usually once or twice per year. ~a
[2019-08-28 10:59:33] - I think Adrian is in the minority when it comes to savings accounts but if he is able to make it work for him. /shrug I don't think you are crazy for having a cash cushion. -Daniel
[2019-08-28 10:53:24] - a: That's fair. I guess considering our recurring bills and how other expenses sometimes vary a lot (random multi-hundred $$ medical bills or whatnot), I feel uncomfortable when our checking account dips below $10k. Always worried about being able to pull money out in time to avoid overdrafting. -Paul
[2019-08-28 10:50:24] - (we've talked about this one before, but) yeah if i need to replace a roof or an hvac i'll usually dip into vtsax. if vtsax is undervalued at the time, so be it. ~a
[2019-08-28 10:48:44] - a: Uh, well 2% (which is pretty easy to get with online savings accounts) of $10k (which I think is a reasonable amount to keep liquid and out of things like the market or CDs) is $200. Maybe I'm overly conservative on things, but over the past few years we've had to replace things like roofs and HVAC systems which cost a pretty penny. -Paul
[2019-08-28 10:46:45] - "hundreds of dollars a year"? you have a lot of money in usd if a percent would turn into hundreds of dollars per year? part of me would consider something like vmmxx before a savings account. but maybe vmmxx doesn't compare on interest rates? (is 2.3% low?) . . . even vmmxx i probably wouldn't consider until i was like about to start retirement. ~a
[2019-08-28 10:39:15] - a: And Shopify can strengthen their grip on people if their fulfillment service gets popular. -Paul
[2019-08-28 10:38:44] - a: Also worth noting that SQ does have some things that DO tie their merchants more to them, like small business loans that they offer and the Square Cash App certainly has more of a network effect type thing going for it too. -Paul
[2019-08-28 10:20:47] - a: Agreed it's different, but SHOP and SQ tend to appeal more to smaller businesses that might operate more like humans than big companies. I also think the kind of integration they offer probably is larger than "just" the direct deposit and bill pay that I have integrated with my life. -Paul
[2019-08-28 10:18:22] - yeah, ok, that's fair. maybe inertia switching could be a bigger problem than i considered. but companies do switch to better things more often than humans. humans don't usually weigh the pros-and-cons of stuff whereas companies often do. there's (very little to) no chicken-and-egg issue though, or network effects. unlike, say, facebook or reddit, where you have to bootstrap a network before it becomes useful. ~a
[2019-08-28 09:46:01] - a: And that's nothing compared to the hassle it would be to switch a whole company from, say, Shopify to Wix or whatever. -Paul
[2019-08-28 09:45:32] - a: I mean, BoA doesn't have a checking account that offers interest and their savings accounts have pathetic rates. I am probably losing out on hundreds of dollars a year by sticking with BoA instead of switching to Citi or Capital One or an online bank or something. And yet I stick with BoA because I don't want to deal with the hassle of switching my direct deposit and online bill pay and other stuff. -Paul
[2019-08-28 09:43:32] - a: Huh, that's interesting. I kinda have the opposite view. I think the difficulty switching is one of their strengths. Yes, any company COULD switch to a different provider, but there's always going to be a cost involved and for most people the inertia of sticking with what they already have, especially as their business grows. -Paul
[2019-08-28 09:37:40] - one problem (with both companies) is it's very easy to supplant what they have. it won't cost too much (in billions) to have a competitor that basically does the same shit they do. there is less of a "network effect" with their business. ~a
[2019-08-28 09:05:11] - a: But I agree that it's a little weird how poorly SQ has been doing. Have been thinking of adding to my position some. -Paul
[2019-08-28 09:04:51] - a: SHOP and SQ have lots in common, but also lots different too. SHOP has a pretty strong online presence and has started pushing into brick-and-mortar merchants. SQ is a bit the opposite, with a strong presence among brick-and-mortar and starting to move online. SQ also has the cash app (digital payments play) and SHOP has their fulfillment network plans. -Paul
[2019-08-28 09:03:13] - a: I would hope you're "actually impressed with the gains". Not sure when you bought in 2017, but it's probably increased around 5X in value over just around 2 years. That's incredible. -Paul
[2019-08-28 09:01:00] - yeah i'm actually impressed with the gains of shopify honestly. i bought in 2017 and i'm pretty happy. though, i don't know exactly why shop is priced so much higher than sq. shopify has much less revenue than square. and their profit (loss) is similar. why is shopify worth almost double? ~a
[2019-08-27 19:42:20] - a: Well, 3.5 years is a good definition of "few", and I did qualify it with "starting to sneak up on", so I stand by my statement.
-Paul[2019-08-27 15:15:44] - . . . their ipo was 28? that's "only" 1300%
bitcoin does 1300% every 3.5 years (ln(406.66/28)/ln((10100/121)**(1/6))). ~a[2019-08-27 15:15:40] - paul: nah. ~a
[2019-08-27 13:52:54] - a: Shopify starting to sneak up on bitcoin in terms of ridiculous returns over the past few years... -Paul
[2019-08-26 08:58:13] - i do like the idea of finding out when pon promotions happen in dark chess. that's pretty sweet because it's interesting information, but you often really can't . . . do much about it. ~a
[2019-08-26 08:56:46] - aaron: i think kriegspiel and/or dark chess would be fun to play. since being a kid, i always wanted to try out dark chess. would you like to play? (we'll first have to find an online version . . . i'm not sure how easy that will be.) ~a
[2019-08-25 12:01:11] - a: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DpXy041BIlA 30 weird chess algorithms -- duking it out between some severely, severely handicapped chess AIs - aaron
[2019-08-24 22:24:13] - a: https://venturebeat.com/2018/02/08/jack-dorsey-finally-made-twitter-profitable-by-curing-its-addiction-to-stock-based-compensation/ Twitter was an example I was thinking of, since I used to own it. -Paul
[2019-08-24 22:23:04] - a: Issuing new shares? Yeah, I think it's VERY common. Often times it's from stock based compensation. Stock buybacks can be an attempt to help cancel out the issuing of new stock. I'm pretty sure you can look at almost any new-ish tech company and see that they issue new shares constantly. -Paul
[2019-08-24 00:53:38] - "our great american companies are hereby ordered to immediately start looking for an alternative to china" did he give private companies an order? ~a
[2019-08-23 13:09:11] - xpovos: yeah, sorry. market capitalization was the wrong word, thanks. i meant shares. so . . . do companies do this (often?)? do we have any examples of a company issuing new shares? like, in the last few years? is there a place where i can find out about new companies doing this? (worded differently, i can easily find out when new companies are going to publish earnings reports. i can't easily search for this thing, right?) ~a
[2019-08-23 12:44:06] - a: Companies can issue more stocks, not increase their market cap. Issuing more stocks *might* increase their market cap, but conceptually it doesn't, which is why you're thinking like you are. If the company issues more stocks, it devalues the ones you have, so a good time to be short. -- Xpovos
[2019-08-23 09:55:30] - paul: when and how is a company allowed to increase its market capitalization? do they need to get approval from the sec? if so, where is that information publicized? like, why wouldn't someone with this information not definitely sell (some of) their shares (or even sell short) before such an action? ~a
[2019-08-21 21:45:05] - a: Legal precedent. - mig
[2019-08-21 21:44:00] - a: drug laws are federal so i don't think state lines crossing is a requirement. - mig
[2019-08-21 17:12:18] - i guess. do the feds always have jurisdiction if the accused didn't cross state lines? ~a
[2019-08-21 15:15:15] - a: if they are that intent on stopping weed, its probably easier to just call the feds in. - mig
[2019-08-21 09:37:16] - i love the title of the url: texas-weed-laws-oops. i imagine they'll just enact a new law though, right? vote on a rider or something? ~a
[2019-08-18 16:14:47] - sweet subreddit i thought some here would like ("r/pixelart"). i like the visuals from some of these and it does make me nostalgic for gaming in the 90s. ~a
[2019-08-16 15:06:27] - Xpovos: Fair. -Paul
[2019-08-16 15:01:49] - Paul: (E) would be something like a very bizarre accidental death, or accident that got taken for a suicide attempt. A lot of them are just variations on your major themes, but it's partially because your themes are honestly almost too broad. -- Xpovos
[2019-08-16 14:50:14] - a: Oof. Making intentional neglect count as conspiracy really makes it close to 50/50 in my book. I guess I would still side with the incompetance/suicide (ie, non-conspiracy) side, but it's close. -Paul
[2019-08-16 14:48:58] - Xpovos: I guess you're going to make us ask what (E) is?
-Paul[2019-08-16 14:30:18] - a: If intentional neglect splits the line to conspiracy, then I'll put money on conspiracy. There's too many options on that side for it not to be a strong money play. -- Xpovos
[2019-08-16 14:04:32] - paul/xpovos: if you had to put even money on it (conspiracy or non-conspiracy), which would you pick? for the sake of argument: intentional neglect (i.e. suicide because they were intentionally negligent) *does* count as a conspiracy. ~a
[2019-08-16 12:27:20] - There's a lot of room for speculation here, and it's one of those scenarios that is bound to feed conspiracy theories, because there'll never bee conclusive evidence that it wasn't a conspiracy. I think the likeliest scenario is Paul's (A), but I could find some argument for each of (B), (C) and (D). As well as possibly an (E). -- Xpovos
[2019-08-16 11:30:04] - a: https://reason.com/2019/08/15/jeffrey-epstein-is-dead-because-his-jailers-neglected-him-hes-not-the-only-one/ Although, from everything I've read, neglect of prisoners is not at all unusual. Maybe it's a little unusual because of the high profile prisoner in this case, though. -Paul
[2019-08-16 11:11:26] - a: Sure, it's possible. If anything, all the possibilities feel like conspiracies, even probably the most likely that he just tried to kill himself twice (I guess tried once and succeeded once). I have no idea what to believe. -Paul
[2019-08-16 11:10:02] - paul: so you do think it's possible there was a conspiracy. ok, i missed that from your original post. ~a
[2019-08-16 11:04:40] - a: Actually, this is still a bad way of phrasing it, sorry. I guess in any of those situations, it seems really weird that the guards weren't keeping an eye out for something the 2nd time. They should've been looking out for another suicide attempt OR a murder attempt, regardless of what the first was. -Paul
[2019-08-16 11:02:55] - a: With (A), it seems odd that after a suicide attempt, the guards weren't watching for a second. With (C), it seems odd that they would try a murder attempt the same way twice. -Paul
[2019-08-16 11:01:10] - a: Sure. I guess I figure there are four possibilities: (A) 1st was suicide attempt, 2nd was successful suicide. (B) 1st was suicide attempt, 2nd was murder covered up as suicide. (C) 1st was murder attempt covered up as suicide, 2nd was murder covered up as suicide. (D) 1st was murder attempt covered up as suicide, 2nd was successful suicide. -Paul
[2019-08-16 10:55:59] - "it seems weird that the guards weren't watching him" i don't follow. you said "AND" which makes me think this is supposed to follow the first argument. can you reword? if the guards were watching him, how was he able to kill himself? i figure someone on suicide watch would have a hard time killing himself. ~a
[2019-08-15 13:21:13] - a: Honestly have no idea. I haven't followed the story much, but considering he (apparently) tried just like a week prior, it would seem weird to use that as a cover AND it seems weird that the guards weren't watching him (intentionally or otherwise). -Paul
[2019-08-15 13:14:52] - or . . . another possible (and reasonable) scenario was that he was intentionally given opportunity to kill himself? ~a
[2019-08-15 13:13:43] - do we all still think epstein committed suicide? i feel like there's been some recent (yesterday or today?) developments that make me less sure than i was this weekend that his death was definitely suicide. ~a
[2019-08-15 12:50:50] - paul: maybe. here are the details. specifically the paragraph that starts off with "It’s also important to note that this represents a tiny fraction (I’d estimate <1%) of the total amount of ocean traffic at the time" discusses how most of this shit has been lost (for many of reasons). ~a
[2019-08-15 11:17:07] - Are those just the logs from those 4 European countries? -Paul
[2019-08-15 11:16:29] - Maybe that's part of it, but the Pacific is also huge. I wouldn't be surprised if traffic across it way back then was a fraction (and not the way 1/1 is a fraction) of the traffic elsewhere. It's reasonable to assume that the difficulty traversing large bodies of water goes up geometrically as the size increases. -Paul
[2019-08-15 09:37:02] - yeah i was thinking that too. you're probably right. ~a
[2019-08-15 09:24:43] - a: Or we don't have log entries? There had to be ships from like China / Korea / Vietnam etc to Malaysia / Indonesia etc type stuff. -Daniel
[2019-08-14 19:29:20] - https://i.redd.it/9sl1gg6mrfg31.png i guess nobody liked the pacific ocean back then. ~a
[2019-08-14 16:25:55] - xpovos: some places allow for privately recorded video to be accepted by law enforcement. in my experience, many of these close calls usually break a "reckless driving" rule (which is actually fairly well defined in virginia). ~a
[2019-08-14 15:19:52] - a: In the two instances we've mentioned? I still think not. Because nothing "bad" happened. Or at least, nothing bad enough. The "best" outcome I could see is that somehow his insurance company gets ahold of my recording showing him being a terrible driver, and jacks his rates. -- Xpovos
[2019-08-14 13:15:46] - xpovos: "there's no comeuppance for bad behavior" my dream is that this slowly becomes a false statement in the future. lets say everybody has cameras filming from every car (very distopian, i know. please, for the sake of argument assume there are no downsides). won't comeuppance become a thing? ~a
[2019-08-14 13:03:03] - https://www.wired.com/story/null-license-plate-landed-one-hacker-ticket-hell/ The dangers of being too clever. -Paul
[2019-08-14 12:50:11] - a: If he had hit me, it would've been far less serious for me, as I'd have been buffered by steel and safety mechanisms. But it still would've sucked. And there's no comeuppance for bad behavior. It's one of the reasons why I'm hugely in favor of more automated vehicles--even knowing they aren't perfect. -- Xpovos
[2019-08-14 12:48:56] - my approach to the intersection to compensate for his reckless driving. -- Xpovos
[2019-08-14 12:48:42] - a: Yeah, unfortunately, near misses are a "no one cares" situation. The only positives to come out of it are maybe he's more cautious in the future? That's a stretch, though. I nearly had a head-on collision this morning driving through a residential district because as I approached a stop sign, a guy making a left turn at high speed (no stop sign his direction) took the turn very sharply and would have hit me if I hadn't slowed ...
[2019-08-14 11:25:11] - a: If there were witnesses I would maybe consider it. - mig
[2019-08-14 09:50:31] - a: I wasn't trying to convince you of anything. I was just trying to get clarification of what happened. "a car almost hit me in the crosswalk" can mean a lot of things. -Paul
[2019-08-14 09:49:25] - paul: i'm not a lawyer, but i doubt stopping is the only thing that's required. whatever, you've convinced me, nobody was hit, so nobody is going to care. ~a
[2019-08-14 09:38:18] - a: But... did they not yield? You said you almost got hit, and you had time to take down their license plate. Did they stop? -Paul
[2019-08-14 09:37:22] - it wasn't an intersection. yeah failure to yield is illegal in virginia. ~a
[2019-08-14 09:31:42] - a: Sorry you almost got hit. Was it like at an intersection or a crosswalk where they are just supposed to yield where you get to cross? Is there a thing to file a report for? Failure to yield or something? -Daniel
[2019-08-14 09:27:09] - a: A police report for what? -Paul
[2019-08-14 09:04:16] - i'm shaking right now . . . a car almost hit me in the crosswalk. kinda shitty how often crosswalks are ignored. seems like about once per month i have a guy come at me way too fast then slam on the brakes when i'm in the crosswalk. i took down his license plate this time. should . . . i make a police report or something? ~a
[2019-08-13 18:42:42] - https://paulvsthemarket.com/i-like-the-cut-of-this-jib/ Since I wrote this, the JIB is up 22% vs 12% for FAANG, -2% for BAT and 5% for S&P. -Paul
[2019-08-13 18:23:31] - a: That is a suspiciously straight line. Almost looks like somebody drew it on with a marker.
-Paul[2019-08-13 18:22:23] - https://www.cnbc.com/2019/08/13/2020-democratic-presidential-candidates-donations-from-tech-execs.html Not sure why, but I found this to be an interesting intersection of investing (I own shares in some of the companies these CEOs lead) and politics. -Paul
[2019-08-13 17:21:44] - a fun graph from forbes. that's just a smooth line, man. i was expecting to see at least a little bit of noise. ~a
[2019-08-13 16:36:28] - sure. ~a
[2019-08-13 16:35:52] - Sure? -Daniel
[2019-08-13 16:32:12] - aDaniel: Should we just plan for tomorrow in case Andrew can make it? -Paul
[2019-08-13 16:23:00] - Xpovos: You here and want to chime in on if you can make it tomorrow or not? Otherwise, might just aim for tonight. -Paul
[2019-08-13 16:21:59] - but please pick a night so i don't have to keep both blocked off. ~a
[2019-08-13 16:21:43] - i can do either night. ~a
[2019-08-13 16:19:18] - Paul: I think I can do tomorrow. -Daniel
[2019-08-13 16:18:46] - a: And does either night work for you? -Paul
[2019-08-13 16:18:33] - Daniel: Does tomorrow night work as well for you as tonight for SC? -Paul
[2019-08-13 16:14:22] - a: Yeah that makes sense. -Daniel
[2019-08-13 16:11:19] - daniel: "all your wealth in the cloud" well, i wouldn't say it that way at all. i think no matter what happens most of my wealth will be in equities and bonds. but the remaining . . . walking around money . . . could be held in a bank. or not. i'm "fine" with either system as long as i always have the *option* of *not* holding it in a (legacy) bank. ~a
[2019-08-13 16:10:27] - "user base by decree" but only for one country really. if and when we lose the reserve-currency thing, we probably will find we can't pull the usual bullshit we've been pulling. ~a
[2019-08-13 16:09:55] - Currencies are kind of weird for me to think about sometimes. -Daniel
[2019-08-13 16:09:34] - I guess somewhat those are just the somewhat self evident criteria of anything to be a currency. Got to have a sufficient user base and be exchangeable. So I guess I could have come up with those on my own. USD just has a built in user base by decree. -Daniel
[2019-08-13 16:07:47] - daniel: sure those definitions work for me. ~a
[2019-08-13 16:07:32] - Well I guess cold wallets and stuff aren't online. -Daniel
[2019-08-13 16:06:58] - a: "not have to hold any usd in my bank account" - You just wouldn't have a bank account at all right? Is that what you mean? You could just store all your wealth in 'the cloud' -Daniel
[2019-08-13 16:05:34] - a: So to summarize: failure would be user base shrinking past some point where it no longer held worth and wasn't easily exchangeable. Success is already but would be nice if you could spend it like a credit card. -Daniel
[2019-08-13 15:58:57] - daniel: that's fair. if 50% of the speculators left over the period of 6 months, i imagine my being able to "hold great wealth over a long period of time" would be perturbed. but the same could be said about the usd. if the usd stopped being a world-reserve currency, i think the usd exchange rates would be perturbed. we might see the m2 drop for the first time ever. ~a
[2019-08-13 15:52:04] - a: I don't know whether the user base will shrink or expand but I think I could agree that I don't see it disappearing certainly. I do wonder if the speculators gave up in mass how many users would be left though. -Daniel
[2019-08-13 15:49:28] - daniel: yes, agreed. and of course i can't tell you what the user-base needs to be. but i predict that the user base won't decrease drastically (compared with 2019-08-13). ~a
[2019-08-13 15:47:27] - daniel: i meant that you can't devalue it . . . intentionally? (and i mostly was referring to monetary inflation, which you literally can't do, as far as i know) ~a
[2019-08-13 15:47:06] - a: So success is drive by some "sufficient" level of userbase. As long as that level of userbase exists then its already successful. I think thats fair - again was just thinking about it. -Daniel
[2019-08-13 15:46:20] - a: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antifragile He's an author and prolific tweeter. Some people I follow are really into his ideas. I found his twitter stream hard to follow and his ideas hard to digest. -Paul
[2019-08-13 15:45:39] - a: Does that just mean the gov / a gov can't devalue my currency? -Daniel
[2019-08-13 15:45:32] - daniel: no it would not. it wouldn't be able to hold wealth if there were 10 other users, and i wouldn't be able to transfer (exchange) with all other major world currencies. i also wouldn't be able to do it without censorship, and without third parties. the whole system would break down with numbers that small. ~a
[2019-08-13 15:45:18] - a: "you can't devalue my currency," - doesn't that happen whenever the price of it drops? -Daniel
[2019-08-13 15:44:21] - daniel: i have other definitions of success that are more lofty. i'd like to A) be able to use it everywhere i use a credit card, or B) not have to hold any usd in my bank account. but i don't see either of those happening any time soon. ~a
[2019-08-13 15:44:18] - a: What if something cause only you and 10 other people to still value some crypto - would that still count? In slightly different words if you no longer thought you could "hold great wealth" in it would that remove its success status? Does it enter a grey middle zone or immediately flip to fail from success? -Daniel
[2019-08-13 15:43:37] - the latter. not sure what taleb is. i've heard it used in other contexts, sorry. ~a
[2019-08-13 15:43:12] - a: "and anti-fragile at times" is that a Taleb reference? Or does that term have wider usage than I thought? -Paul
[2019-08-13 15:42:24] - daniel: i'm often (somewhat) anonymous in my transactions, my holdings are private(ish), you can't censor me, there are no third parties, you can't devalue my currency, and it would require some doing to stop it completely. it's fragile at times, and anti-fragile at times, i'm pretty happy with it. ~a
[2019-08-13 15:39:59] - daniel: it's not set in stone. i have a lot of definitions of success (and failure) that are of varying degrees of ridiculousness. the biggest one is this though: i think it has already succeeded completely. the definition of success has happened. i can (and do) hold great wealth in it, over long periods of time, and can transfer to and from all major world currencies, over great distance, with ease, and without third parties. ~a
[2019-08-13 15:32:05] - a: Its possible the answer is nothing because you don't think it can fail. That could be an answer. Was just trying to think about the range of outcomes and what would qualify as "success" and what would qualify as "failure". -Daniel
[2019-08-13 15:31:15] - a: I was trying to make it somewhat vague on purpose. So either of those question? Maybe what would have to happen for you to think "This is sad, crypto has failed" -Daniel
[2019-08-13 14:48:07] - daniel: i don't understand the question at all (the first question, the second question i think i could answer pretty easily if i understood the first question). specifically the last part "what do you think that would mean?" maybe i'm trying to understand if you're trying to get a definition of success/failure from me? or are you trying to determine (imo) how or why bits will succeed or fail? ~a
[2019-08-13 14:22:59] - a: On the flip side if someone told you that crypto succeeded what do you think that would mean? -Daniel
[2019-08-13 14:22:23] - a: If you got put in a time machine and woke up 10 years from now and someone told you that crypto currency failed, what do you think that would mean? -Daniel
[2019-08-13 13:42:11] - a: Yeah, and even though I love my all-star 2017 line-up of SHOP and MELI crushing it, I think the "re-balanced" way is the right way. I actually only own one stock from my 2018 portfolio anymore (granted, two of them got bought out). -Paul
[2019-08-13 13:39:33] - regarding "rebalancing", rebalancing is much closer to the top section. basically, there we're rebalancing every year (but into a new portfolio). in that section i'm still winning. ~a
[2019-08-13 13:37:51] - since we aren't rebalancing at all, any changes to gbtc affect my results in a larger than usual way. and gbtc is already ridiculously volatile, so now it is doubly so. ~a
[2019-08-13 13:34:33] - probably a while ago. because yesterday, i actually made back a lot of ground. ~a
[2019-08-13 13:19:44] - a: Whoa, when did I pass you up in the meta ongoing stock market challenge? -Paul
[2019-08-13 12:46:08] - Daniel: I have seen that one, yes. I liked this one because it was more subtle. I honestly didn't even fully notice the first time (Watched it from twitter where it wasn't obvious what to expect and wasn't giving it my full attention). -Paul
[2019-08-13 12:44:28] - Paul: Yup. Its weird when its hard to tell when one face is fading into another but you can tell when it arrives fully. Have you seen the Peele / Obama one? That sums up my position on them pretty well. -Daniel
[2019-08-13 12:21:57] - https://mashable.com/video/bill-hader-tom-cruise-deepfake/ Have you guys seen this? -Paul
[2019-08-13 11:28:52] - i was wrong. it was a different episode. your quote is from '99, mine guess was from '97. ~a
[2019-08-13 11:24:20] - sorry, i was joking. that's obviously the simpsons. it's the little lisa slury episode probably. the one where she befriended mr burns? though i could be conflating it with a different episode. ~a
[2019-08-13 11:23:23] - a: The Simpsons? I couldn't tell you which episode. The one where Lisa goes to a newspaper company?
-Paul[2019-08-13 11:22:27] - what's that from? ~a
[2019-08-13 11:22:20] -
~a[2019-08-13 11:21:42] - a: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UfJljXugLA0 -Paul
[2019-08-13 11:18:41] - is zero a fraction? ~a
[2019-08-13 11:18:25] - paul: small banks are required to have a reserve percentage of 0%. i'm sure that's totally fine. ~a
[2019-08-13 11:00:59] - a: I suspect there are limits on what the fed can control. Even such an extreme measure as basically fully cutting off new money doesn't stop existing money from circulating, and fractional reserve banking can multiply the effect of that money circulating. -Paul
[2019-08-13 10:11:58] - paul: by "governments" i meant the fed. sorry i consider the fed to be part of the government, but i do respect that the fed is a fairly autonomous part. ~a
[2019-08-13 10:04:43] - a: Um... is it that simple of a relationship? I thought inflation had more to do with the federal reserve than it did with government treasuries. -Paul
[2019-08-13 09:54:56] - "hyper-increase their inflation rate" i meant interest rate here, oops. ~a
[2019-08-13 09:53:49] - paul: agreed. i think negative interest rates are dumb. but probably a product of shitty monetary policy? ~a
[2019-08-13 09:53:17] - during hyper-inflation, why don't governments hyper-increase their inflation rate (think like 30%/year or just stop loaning out their money entirely. in fact, they could start putting out bonds/loans at high interest rates to further decrease inflation, right? basically the opposite of quantitative easing?). i guess these things would also slow down the economy making the problem worse? ~a
[2019-08-13 09:53:10] - a: I suppose, but at that point I gotta feel like there's something better to put your money in. -Paul
[2019-08-13 09:48:58] - paul: you invest in something with a negative yield when it's LESS negative than keeping it in your negative yield bank account. ~a
[2019-08-13 09:48:25] - Daniel: https://www.cnbc.com/2019/08/07/bizarro-bonds-negative-yielding-debt-in-the-world-balloons-to-15-trillion.html Better question, why would anybody invest in something with a negative yield? -Paul
[2019-08-13 09:48:06] - daniel: they're getting cash from their government at a negative interest rate. ~a
[2019-08-13 09:47:22] - a: I haven't done a ton of research, but also like with comparing us to other countries with guns, it's always a tough comparison because so many things are different. We don't have quite the same social safety net as places like Greece or Argentina (I don't think), and we also have lots of countries lining up to buy our debt, unlike those. -Paul
[2019-08-13 09:47:02] - Why does a bank offer out a mortgage with a negative rate? Like why are they bothering? Do they still make enough in fees to offset the lost money on the loan? At some point they just stop offering mortgages right? -Daniel
[2019-08-13 09:45:07] - i think the best thing is to look at other countries and what's happened with them. i . . . haven't done this. and i think you probably have. argentina or something? zimbabwe? ~a
[2019-08-13 09:44:17] - a: It's my vision of hell. No cars. All bikes.
-Paul[2019-08-13 09:43:38] - bicycle gangs . . . (looks into the distance). huh! what? ~a
[2019-08-13 09:42:56] - a: What do you think is the most likely "apocalyptic" scenario? I actually think it's probably a major recession (depression?) with a complete monetary collapse due to hyper inflation or government defaulting on its debt or whatever, but society still functioning (ie, no roving bicycle gangs). -Paul
[2019-08-13 09:42:51] - like, why ever pay back your debts? take out more loans to pay back your first loans. it's a totally legal ponzi scheme. ~a
[2019-08-13 09:41:16] - a: You'll get no disagreement from me. I suspect were we any other country where our currency wasn't the reserve currency, we would have run into major issues already due to our monetary policy and debt. Eventually not even being the reserve currency will save us. -Paul
[2019-08-13 09:40:16] - one our next major crashes will be cased because interest rates are too low. when interest rates on your currency are 0, you are giving out your money for free. if you give out your money for free, your currency is worth nothing. ~a
[2019-08-13 09:38:05] - "Banks would be charging negative rates on deposits" so fucking dumb. why would anyone do this? keep your money in gold, or a bond, or literal-cash, or something, jesus christ. buy something large worth something. i don't understand why people keep money in cash, but this is so much worse, ffs. and the governments that are loaning out their currency at ~0% interest rates are so fucking moronic. they're begging for trouble. ~a
[2019-08-13 09:25:59] - https://www.marketwatch.com/story/a-danish-bank-is-offering-mortgages-with-negative-interest-rates-why-you-shouldnt-wish-for-that-to-happen-in-the-us-2019-08-12 So how do I arrange for taking out a mortgage from Denmark? -Paul
[2019-08-12 15:25:52] - https://www.cnbc.com/2019/08/12/argentina-election-macri-suffers-setback-as-analysts-warn-of-peso-depreciation.html Must be good for the self-esteem to know that the mere thought of you losing a future election can cause the stock market to plummet 30%. -Paul
[2019-08-12 10:05:15] - https://seekingalpha.com/news/3490605-mercadolibre-minus-8-percent-election-shocker Ugh, we were looking good for a nice gain in MELI this morning off raised targets, and then this happens.
Good place to load up on some if anybody's interested. -Paul[2019-08-12 09:59:56] - a: It was also a thing for the individual mandate of Obamacare. I think the commerce clause is supposed to put limits on what the federal government can do, although in reality it doesn't do much anymore. -Paul
[2019-08-12 09:59:05] - a: Uh... there's some limit to what the federal government can and cannot do, although I'm hazy on the specifics. For example, I'm pretty sure the federal government couldn't set limits on drinking age (only the states can do that), so what the federal government decided to do was to withhold federal highway funds from any state that had it lower than they wanted it. -Paul
[2019-08-12 09:55:45] - a: the basic gist of it is yes they are technically breaking the law but there’s not much will from the feds to go after them, at least since Sesions was booted from being AG. - mig
[2019-08-12 09:03:08] - most dispensaries are privately owned, but the states license them, right? in general are states allowed to license out illegal behavior? if there's a federal law banning trade of human organs, could states license out human organ traders? or if it's federally illegal to drive or own a tank, could states create drivers licenses for tanks? ~a
[2019-08-12 09:03:05] - why is it . . . so apparently it's "legal" to buy cannabis (without a medical need) in 11 states. but it's still illegal at the federal level. so far so good: you want to do this thing in one of those 11 states, the feds will lock you up (sort of, and sometimes) but the state law enforcement will not. here's my real question: how are the *states* not breaking federal law? ~a
[2019-08-09 16:05:47] - (i also hold equity in my house. i typically don't count that because it's not liquid enough to be counted for retirement) ~a
[2019-08-09 16:04:30] - paul: yeah, it's above where i sold, but you're right that it wasn't above where i sold yesterday
~a[2019-08-09 16:03:50] - daniel: mostly true. i have *plenty* in bonds. (my current target for every pool of money is 16% bond and 32% international). but i also hold some bitcoin. i hold almost nothing directly in literal usd. ~a
[2019-08-09 16:00:42] - a: Eh, depends on when you bought (and sold). It's not exactly a straight line up the past few years. -Paul
[2019-08-09 16:00:13] - a: I think we've gone around this before but the idea is you just save everything in the market regardless of purpose right? So you don't have an "emergency savings" fund - just more money in your taxable savings account? -Daniel
[2019-08-09 15:56:59] - paul: i guess i shouldn't have sold my ostk shares. ~a
[2019-08-09 15:55:28] - and in a destroyed economy, savings accounts and CDs aren't invulnerable. ~a
[2019-08-09 15:54:27] - it adds up so damn quickly. after 25 years, 2%/year is only 64%. whereas 10%/year is 1000% (11x). why would i even put a few pennies in a cd? i guess we could destroy the economy, but even then i think a destroyed economy (before or after a normal market) will often do better than a savings account. ~a
[2019-08-09 15:48:21] - of course i'm worried. but i will never pay down my mortgage at 4%/year. or a 12 month cd at 2%/year. or a savings account at 2%/year, when the market averages around 10%/year (before inflation). it's not even close. ~a
[2019-08-09 15:45:50] - a: Ugh, sorry. I re-ordered things and I guess missed that. You're not worried about Trump tweeting out tariff threats and tanking everything? -Paul
[2019-08-09 15:44:45] - Daniel: That's a good point, and gets to the heart of the problem. I don't know what the money will be used for, so the online savings account sounds good to me. -Paul
[2019-08-09 15:43:46] - did anyone else notice that paul had two B options? anyways, i want the second B option. B#2. ~a
[2019-08-09 15:25:36] - If you really can't decide what its for then I think default is short term savings so online bank account till you decide what you want it to be for. -Daniel
[2019-08-09 15:24:59] - Paul: In my head you have the cart ahead of the horse if you are trying to decide where you are putting the money without knowing what the money is for. Do you want it to be for girls college? Do you want it to add to your emergency savings? Do you want to go on a cool vacation next year? Can't know what to do with money unless you know what its for. -Daniel
[2019-08-09 15:15:20] - Xpovos: Right. The problem is that I can't predict the future, so it's hard to tell if I'll need the money in a year or won't need it for 15 years. That's what makes it a tough decision. -Paul
[2019-08-09 15:12:53] - Paul: Won't need it for a year+ isn't the same as not needing it for 15+ years. So that basically kills D, IMO, though percentage wise it seems like the best option. You just loose too much flexibility, unless you really don't need that money, essentially ever, and are just looking to invest it for good returns (eventually). -- Xpovos
[2019-08-09 15:07:12] - Poll: I've got some money that I don't think I'll need for a year+. What should I do with it? (A) Online savings account at around 2.15% (B) 12 month CD at 2.5% (B) Invest in the stock market at ?.??% (C) Buy a little more btc (D) Pay down mortgage at 4.25% (E) Something else? -Paul
[2019-08-09 13:28:22] - a: Why does it have to be a randomly chosen time frame? That doesn't seem fair. While I don't try to time the market, time is something worth considering. For example, I probably wouldn't choose SHOP for a challenge starting today. -Paul
[2019-08-09 13:26:41] - do all 4 of your 5-stock portfolios beat your 30 stock portfolio in a randomly-chosen time-frame? (if you use many typical (quarterly or yearly) time boundaries, that can somewhat help negate the selection bias and survivorship bias). if so, maybe i'm wrong. maybe you have some real data points. ~a
[2019-08-09 12:49:12] - a: I don't understand what you mean about data points, though. I have 4 five stock portfolios which I can compare with my overall portfolio. I haven't checked the performance by comparable time frames, but why wouldn't those count as data points? -Paul
[2019-08-09 12:48:07] - a: Oh, I wasn't necessarily advocating for 5 stocks, but I do think 30 is too many and I would be much better off fighting to get it down to < 20. -Paul
[2019-08-09 12:34:06] - basing conclusions on zero data points sounds like a weird plan. ~a
[2019-08-09 12:33:19] - if your 5 positions beat your portfolio one time, that is one data point. actually that is zero data points, because it wasn't taken randomly. ~a
[2019-08-09 12:31:43] - imo, 30 positions is fine (especially if at least half of them are large-cap, and less than half of your shit is in individual stocks). imo, 5 positions is not. ~a
[2019-08-09 12:18:34] - a: I'm not arguing against diversification necessarily, but arguing for less of it? Clearly there's a trade-off, and if I went ultimate diversification I'm at VTSAX (is that total market?). So my ~30 positions are already less diversified. Do you think my 30 positions are un-diversified or need to be more diversified? -Paul
[2019-08-09 12:16:21] - a: Well, if we carry the analogy forward, then higher conviction stocks are like pocket aces or pocket kings or suited AK. Lower conviction stocks would be maybe unsuited AK or AJ or pocket 10s. They're still hands I like, but wouldn't bet as much on them winning. -Paul
[2019-08-09 11:57:56] - i follow your logic so far, now how do we get to better conviction stocks will (much more often than not?) do better than lower conviction stocks. lower conviction stocks are still *not* stocks that you think will do bad. they're stocks that you think will do well, but are *not* your top 5. you're arguing against diversification and that crazy to me. ~a
[2019-08-09 10:10:09] - a: So, if we're going to use the poker analogy, if somebody is good at poker, then I think those people would tend to have a better history at poker than somebody who is bad. -Paul
[2019-08-09 10:09:16] - a: And if there is some level of skill, then I think that would be reflected in past performance of my investing. -Paul
[2019-08-09 10:08:36] - a: Heh, okay. Well, as you know, I think I can beat the market by investing in individual stocks. And I believe the reason why is because there is some level of skill. -Paul
[2019-08-09 10:07:59] - but keep going. i'll grant it, because i'm less sure of the rest. ~a
[2019-08-09 10:07:41] - paul: both. ~a
[2019-08-09 10:07:33] - a: You're not sure there is skill? Or that my "if A then B" logic is sound? -Paul
[2019-08-09 10:07:11] - paul: ok. (but i'm not positive even that is true) ~a
[2019-08-09 10:06:50] - a: Well, in order to think an individual investor can beat the market by picking individual stocks, you kinda have to assume there's some level of skill, right? -Paul
[2019-08-09 10:06:12] - how so? ~a
[2019-08-09 10:05:58] - a: Sure, but I'm not talking about specific stocks, I'm talking about levels of conviction. I think it's a tiny bit more justified using previous evidence for that. -Paul
[2019-08-09 10:05:45] - i.e. you got "lucky" (in your highest conviction stocks and "less lucky (?)" in your lower conviction stocks). ~a
[2019-08-09 10:05:02] - i'm not worried about the questionable causation. i'm worried that past results don't predict future blah blah blah. ~a
[2019-08-09 10:04:26] - a: There's a little bit of... uh... questionable causation? But my larger positions tend to be the best performing.
-Paul[2019-08-09 10:03:16] - paul: nope
~a[2019-08-09 10:02:20] - a: It's better than the performance of my entire portfolio.
This is an argument for sticking to my highest conviction stocks, huh? -Paul[2019-08-09 10:01:15] - you've "only" doubled your money.
~a[2019-08-09 10:00:36] - yep. i'll just sit up here on the final meta results. ~a
[2019-08-09 09:50:31] - a: In the non-final meta results, I'm within single digit percentage points of you in the stock market challenge... -Paul
[2019-08-09 09:48:17] - Xpovos: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/biden-says-poor-kids-are-just-bright-just-talented-white-n1040686?cid=sm_npd_ms_tw_ma Exhibit A why I think Biden cannot win the nomination. Eventually these will start counting against him. -Paul
[2019-08-08 15:33:41] - https://www.npr.org/2019/08/08/749412337/9-candidates-now-qualify-for-the-september-democratic-primary-debate I get the feeling we're going to get some clarity in our presidential draft soon in terms of the top of the ticket, at least. -Paul
[2019-08-08 12:21:40] - a: So... a competitor is doing the same thing but poorly.... and it reflects poorly on you? I kinda get why, but it still seems weird. -Paul
[2019-08-08 12:21:12] - a: Investing is weird sometimes. I couldn't figure out why Redfin was down big today... until I saw Zillow released earnings and was down around 20% because of concerns over their "house flipping" venture. Redfin was up big previously because their "house flipping" seemed to be going well. -Paul
[2019-08-08 11:55:31] - a: Does it matter if my stated goal is to beat the market? I think it still does. I want to beat the market, but I also want to make money. If the market drops 50% and I drop 40% I will take solace in "beating" the market, but still won't be too happy.
-Paul[2019-08-08 11:54:42] - a: I've thought about it some, and I honestly think that my... concern over the drop in my portfolio was less about the percentage drop and more about the absolute dollar amount. It was jarring seeing that big of a swing in like 3 days.
-Paul[2019-08-08 11:14:00] - *your. ~a
[2019-08-08 11:13:50] - which makes me think. does a 10% drop in your portfolio even matter if it's a 0% drop compared to the market? especially if you're (stated) goal is to literally beat the market? ~a
[2019-08-08 11:12:55] - paul: yeah i was thinking a lot about our conversation yesterday (offline). a 10% drop in my portfolio isn't something i consider a "big deal" (especially if it's ~0% compared to the market). usually it's around a 15% drop before i start to stress. ~a
[2019-08-08 10:22:07] - a: SHOP and MELI both hitting 52 week highs today. So strange considering my portfolio is down pretty big from the highs it hit last week. -Paul
[2019-08-07 17:26:16] - mig: Isn't that what they are doing by aruging for universal healthcare? That we should spend more? Then part two of this is to raise taxes to pay for it? -Daniel
[2019-08-07 17:18:10] - Arguing about raising or lowering taxes feels like a red herring. Spending levels (including what is really necessary spending) is really where the conversation should be. - mig
[2019-08-07 16:43:57] - Honestly it's in the same vein as Trump and the wall. "We'll give you all the ponies and unicorns and the best health care! And the rich people will pay for it!" - mig
[2019-08-07 16:43:28] - https://www.dailycaller.com/2018/11/06/ocasio-cortez-medicare-for-all-pay There's nothing about democrats today though that speaks to me that indicates any sort of embodiment of fiscal responsibility (Rep. Oscario-Cortez demands we "just pay for it"). - mig
[2019-08-07 16:40:47] - You'll get no argument from me that Clinton was probably the most fiscally responsible president in recent memory. - mig
[2019-08-07 15:58:03] - A fiscally responsible candidate or party wouldn't look at the finances of the United States federal government and say, "You know what it really needs right now? Another massive funding obligation that will require a hugely complicated bureaucracy". -Paul
[2019-08-07 15:20:30] - This is like me having maxed out all my credit cards after spending 50% more than I make every year and somebody coming and saying: I've got a great plan. You need to buy another, bigger house, and take up another job to pay for it. -Paul
[2019-08-07 15:19:26] - And, again, we're already spending far more than we take in, so if there is a magical plan to raise more money let's maybe use it to not rack up more deficits and maybe even pay down the debt instead of blowing up spending even more. -Paul
[2019-08-07 15:17:48] - So I'm not even convinced by Daniel's point that the Democrats have a plan to raise taxes to pay for it. Even if they do, though, government programs have an annoying tendency to go over budget. -Paul
[2019-08-07 15:16:52] - a: Obviously none of the candidates want to talk about costs. Bernie dodged the question as much as possible in one debate and I think it was derided as a "Republican talking point" in another debate. But even Vox points out how the policies would be expensive and the candidates don't have a lot of answers on how to pay (https://www.vox.com/2019/4/10/18304448/bernie-sanders-medicare-for-all). -Paul
[2019-08-07 15:14:59] - a: https://reason.com/2014/12/22/vermonts-single-payer-health-care-plan-f/ The same thing happened with Vermont. Their plan would basically require them to double the state budget. -Paul
[2019-08-07 15:14:38] - a: You mean literally saying that? I'm not sure any have, which is why I said "pretty much". When you advocate the type of generous health care plans that some of them have openly advocated, that's the natural progression, though. -Paul
[2019-08-07 15:09:16] - Daniel: And even if I grant that Democrats might be better than Republicans, it doesn't mean they're good. They can under-fund paying for stuff too. Paying for these programs would require massive tax increases on both the wealthy AND the middle class, and I just don't know if any politicians have the stomach for significantly raising taxes on the middle class. -Paul
[2019-08-07 15:09:06] - paul: "Democrats are pretty much openly admitting that they want to double federal spending". can you show me where they say this part? i'm not sure they aren't (maybe a pipe-dream) moving federal spending? i.e. the old tropes: less money to emergency rooms, more money to preventative medicine. less money to food stamp bureaucracy, more money to universal income. ~a
[2019-08-07 15:05:39] - Daniel: It's not about whether they have a plan or will raise taxes, it's about whether that will come close to covering it. I think most reasonable estimates (and obviously we'll probably disagree on what is a reasonable estimate) are like that California example, This one program would cost as much as the entire federal budget right now and then some. -Paul
[2019-08-07 14:53:32] - Paul: I'm not sure about doubling - but even if so - I think they have more plans to deal with that spending than R's do to deal with our current spending. If they increase taxes to pay for this stuff does that make it better or worse? -Daniel
[2019-08-07 14:50:29] - a: Right, and the fact that there is a big gap between them shows that the debt-to-gdp only went down a lot because gdp went up a lot. That's not a great sign of belt-tightening. -Paul
[2019-08-07 14:49:42] - Daniel: It seems like Democrats are pretty much openly admitting that they want to double federal spending, if not increase it even more than that. -Paul
[2019-08-07 14:48:34] - yes, there are two things. the inflation-adjusted-absolute debt stayed pretty stable, and the debt-to-gdp went down huge amounts. ~a
[2019-08-07 14:48:33] - Daniel: "I definitely see the D's as the more responsible fiscal party. R's talk a good game but mostly just actively make it worse" I get that, and probably even agree if we're looking at the past. My point is that what is being proposed now is fundamentally different than what was proposed in the past. -Paul
[2019-08-07 14:47:27] - a: "the debt-to-gdp ratio went down a lot" I'm confused. Are we back at this metric? I'm referring to your comment about how the debt went up 1%/year over inflation. -Paul
[2019-08-07 14:45:45] - Daniel: https://reason.org/commentary/california-single-payer-health-care-would-be-costly-risky/ "Analyses estimate that implementing a single-payer system would cost California between $330 billion and $400 billion per year, and there are reasons to believe that these estimates are too low. To put the potential costs in perspective, the entire California state budget for 2018-2019 is $201.4 billion." -Paul
[2019-08-07 14:45:25] - Daniel: "So shouldn't that help your fear?" No, because I'm not sure any amount of raising taxes will pay for what is being proposed, if similar attempts in Vermont and California are any indication. -Paul
prev <-> next