prev <-> next
[2020-05-12 19:19:31] - a: But even if it's in a Phase 1/2 kind of situation, that may not be "open." Northam is not making this easy. -- Xpovos
[2020-05-12 19:17:13] - a: Yeah, but if things worked like that, we should've seen inflation back in 2008 and by most accounts we didn't, so I don't know if we'll be seeing crazy hyperinflation now. -Paul
[2020-05-12 19:17:00] - a: Agreed. If it gets opened by the 10th state-wide, then it's not a push anymore. -- Xpovos
[2020-05-12 19:14:38] - xpovos: i don't have a strong opinion. if i look at it in an unbiased way, i'd say we should probably "push". it might end up being moot though, if a bigger revocation is coming before the 10th. ~a
[2020-05-12 19:13:11] - paul: i understand what you mean, that increasing the m2 (slowly) could increase inflation which would increase the (nominal) value of the s&p500. otoh, increasing the m2 (quickly) creates chaos. chaos doesn't help equity valuation. i think it'll "hurt" more than it'll "help". but i could be wrong. ~a
[2020-05-12 19:10:58] - a: What do you think the M2 change has to do with it? I would think that would be a positive to the S&P... -Paul
[2020-05-12 19:08:56] - paul: i dunno. look at the current m2 change. and the unemployment rate. i won't discount the (SMALL) chance that i win the s&p500 bet. ~a
[2020-05-12 19:08:38] - a: Yup, and you could get treasuries that paid like 10%.
-Paul[2020-05-12 19:08:12] - a: At least there shouldn't be any question about our side bet regarding the S&P (*furiously knocks on wood*). -Paul
[2020-05-12 19:07:54] - paul: still, i think it's very low. looking at mortgage rates in the 80s. rates were around 15%/year *and* people paid tons of points too (today most people don't pay any points). ~a
[2020-05-12 19:06:26] - paul: yeah, that's fair. ~a
[2020-05-12 19:05:02] - a: I guess it depends on how you look at it. It's a lot higher than any CD rates I can get. -Paul
[2020-05-12 19:02:53] - paul: 4.25% interest is not high imo. is only like 2% over inflation (most years anyways) or less. ~a
[2020-05-12 19:01:00] - xpovos: i think a partial revocation counts as a revocation, but i'll hear an argument if you disagree. ~a
[2020-05-12 19:00:21] - xpovos: i was wondering the same thing. i think we need to go back to the text of the bet. my wording was "adrian picks the governor of virginia will revoke, or rescind, or otherwise oficially end his executive order on or before 2020-06-09. current va eo 55: https://www.governor.virginia.gov/media/governorvirginiagov/executive-actions/EO-55-Temporary-Stay-at-Home-Order-Due-to-Novel-Coronavirus-(COVID-19).pdf " ~a
[2020-05-12 18:59:22] - a: If Northam opens up the state but keeps NOVA on lockdown, what does that mean for our sidebet? -- Xpovos
[2020-05-12 18:59:10] - a: Maybe a negative mortgage (which I am still holding out for), but my 4.25% interest rate is still a little high for my liking.
-Paul[2020-05-12 17:38:17] - paul: owning (another) individual detached home sounds like hell on earth though. double the maintenance? double the stress/heartache with all that fucking risk? no thanks. fixing up a space sounds like exactly what i want to avoid, not take on more of. though imo, reit is probably dumb too for different reasons. ~a
[2020-05-12 17:36:03] - paul: i see the fed punishing savers and rewarding borrows like you do, and conclude having a mortgage is a good thing. ~a
[2020-05-12 17:35:38] - paul: which is why i'm always arguing here that paying off your mortgage early is dumb. ~a
[2020-05-12 17:32:18] - a: I'm honestly giving some consideration to the idea of investment properties. Mortgage rates are low, there's rumblings of AirBNB properties being liquidated because the owners can't afford them, and the Fed has made it obvious that they want to punish savers and reward borrowers. -Paul
[2020-05-12 17:28:54] - yah equities are probably the best. followed by real estate and . . . debt? debt is probably the "best" because you're shorting (almost literally) the usd. it's even like actual shorting, because you pay a lease price on the shorted thing. commodities and currencies are probably arguably bad because they aren't really "useful"? i dunno, i'm just rambling! ~a
[2020-05-12 17:26:13] - a: I'm trying to think of the best hedges for inflation. I guess keeping as little usd as possible and having net worth in stuff like equities and real estate (and maybe gold or bitcoin) should kinda work? -Paul
[2020-05-12 17:21:29] - paul: yes. 2020 is crazy land. how are we not seeing a million percent inflation? craziness, that's how. ~a
[2020-05-12 17:13:53] - a: https://paulvsthemarket.com/the-freedom-portfolio-april-2020/ Really happy with my buy from back in March (LVGO, if you don't want to click and scroll). -Paul
[2020-05-12 17:02:15] - a: A joke in how small it is compared to 2020? -Paul
[2020-05-12 16:31:18] - yeah . . . https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/M2 . . . holy hell, wtf! 2008 is a fucking joke. (edit graph -> format, lets you add logarithms, but 2008 is still a fucking joke). ~a
[2020-05-12 14:29:30] - a: Yeah, it's incredibly.... poignant? Ironic? Something... that the same day the halving happens the Fed is taking some historically unprecedented inflationary actions. -Paul
[2020-05-11 20:57:42] - paul: the last coinbase before the block halving ("coinbase data") is a nice reference to the first block: "nytimes 09/apr/2020 with $2.3t injection, fed's plan far exceeds 2008 rescue" (the first block was a reference to the fed plan during the 2008 crisis). ~a
[2020-05-11 19:34:36] -
of course. ~a[2020-05-11 19:34:10] - a: Happy halvening! I guess people wanted to squeeze in one more full payment by upping their mining at the last second? -Paul
[2020-05-11 19:26:17] - looks, like it happened. two blocks in a row?! i think it'll not change by that much by tonight. (historically!) halving price changes are small in the short term, but large in the long term. ~a
[2020-05-11 19:24:55] - a: Bitcoin to $100k! Seriously, though, think it will be +/- $1k from current price by the time we play SC2 tonight? -Paul
[2020-05-11 19:21:00] - paul: two blocks. that could be as short as like 5 minutes. usually around ~10-30m. ~a
[2020-05-11 18:47:37] - paul: yep, that's fair. i think the numbers will change a lot, but also our testing will change a lot, so things remain to be seen. i'd love a graph like this norwegian one for the united states. it fascinates me that the curve is so obvious. (it's a bit off topic i know and i'll admit that some deaths are going to be indirect . . . due to general shit caused by covid). ~a
[2020-05-11 18:40:23] - a: Sounds good. I know 6 months is a long time, but it just looks like nobody cares about calculating that number anymore for whatever reason. Hopefully somebody is and the media just doesn't care about it right now. -Paul
[2020-05-11 18:33:27] - paul: meh, things will change a lot in the next 6 months. i'm fine deferring this decision. (seemingly) daily tests are increasing linearly, so the total is exponentially increasing. hell by december we might all have been tested (in one form or another). ~a
[2020-05-11 18:31:30] - a: How are we going to figure out what the CFR is on December 31st? Is there some sort of official source we can use? Most news articles I see are old and still quote the ~5% number that I think we both can agree is probably wrong on the high side, right? -Paul
[2020-05-11 18:23:35] - Daniel: Makes sense. Thanks! -Paul
[2020-05-11 18:01:26] - -Daniel
[2020-05-11 18:01:24] - Paul: Money stays in the same account unless you specifically move it between accounts. So if you have a tradIRA and you sell a fund it will stay in the tradIRA. You could then move it to your rollover IRA (probably maybe unless there is some rule I don't know) since they share the same tax status but that would be an explicit operation on your part. Otherwise you would then just use the $ to buy some other thing(etf) as part of your tradIRA
[2020-05-11 17:53:14] - Daniel: Although, if I sold some VFIAX from one account to buy TMFC.. would that money stay in that same account? It wouldn't get pulled into a new non tax advantaged account, right? -Paul
[2020-05-11 17:52:30] - Daniel: Thanks. That makes sense. I believe I have two accounts (the aforementioned rollover and traditional IRAs) under the same login. -Paul
[2020-05-11 17:51:12] - Paul: I have several different accounts across several different types (tax advantaged and not) and I log into their website once and can see all my different accounts. -Daniel
[2020-05-11 17:46:57] - Paul: To be slightly more clear I think that each different type of bucket at vanguard is considered an "account" by vanguard. So to your question "two pots in the same account" - the answer is it depends on your definition of account. Vanguard won't let you because each pot is an account. If you mean can I access all these different pots with via one login then the answer is yes. -Daniel
[2020-05-11 17:36:53] - a: Yeah, it seems like an important point, but I also saw a lot of sources which didn't seem to mention it. -Paul
[2020-05-11 17:21:43] - huh wow. i take it all back. the investopedia article did mention that as well but it's like in the fucking fine print. ~a
[2020-05-11 17:20:19] - a: https://money.cnn.com/retirement/guide/IRA_traditional.moneymag/index3.htm It sounds like if you don't have a retirement plan at work, then the income limits don't apply? -Paul
[2020-05-11 17:15:10] - paul: https://www.investopedia.com/retirement/ira-contribution-limits/ . . . this page has the salary limits. afaik, none of those numbers are *directly* affected by if you have a 401k or not (obviously a trad-401k will affect your agi, but that's pretty indirect). ~a
[2020-05-11 17:06:29] - paul: "I'm just assuming I can't contribute to a traditional IRA since I have a 401(k)" i don't think that's a thing! link. if your salary is too high, the rules for contributing to an IRA get harder (you have to do a backdoor), but that's the only rule i know about regarding when you can't use a tax fund at all. ~a
[2020-05-11 17:00:41] - a: Yeah, I get not mixing in the same pot. I guess I am wondering if I can have two pots in the same account? One tax-advantaged pot and one non? Also, I'm just assuming I can't contribute to a traditional IRA since I have a 401(k), but I guess I should look into that. -Paul
[2020-05-11 16:53:26] - paul: it seems like you're asking two questions, but i can't answer either of them because i don't have enough information. but the short version is vanguard wouldn't let you combine non-tax-avantaged funds with tax-advantaged funds into one pot. since, once they're combined you can't separate them. still, vanguard doesn't ever know your salary, so they *can't* tell you if you're "allowed" to do certain things. ~a
[2020-05-11 16:50:23] - paul: and poker, and machi koro, and super bowl, etc.
~a[2020-05-11 16:49:19] - a: Is that thanks to Charterstone?
-Paul[2020-05-11 16:48:40] - a: Hmmm, so my brokerage account has two tax-advantaged vehicles in it right now (a traditional IRA and a rollover IRA.... not sure why they are different considering I believe both were 401(k) rollovers). If I added a deposit, I guess I would have non-tax-advantaged funds in the same account? -Paul
[2020-05-11 16:40:50] - i don't know if you saw on the "map" but it's pretty clear i ride to your house pretty often.
~a[2020-05-11 16:35:24] - paul: yes . . . or add a deposit.
~a[2020-05-11 16:35:00] - a: I appear to have the option to "trade an ETF or stock", so that sounds like I have a brokerage account. I guess I just need to free up some cash by selling one of my Vanguard funds, then? -Paul
[2020-05-11 16:31:51] - paul: the flip side of all of my biking time is how much crazier a lot of people i hang out with are. i'm on a biking team, and many people double or triple that time per year. i know a few riders that ride over 16k km in a year. i can't even imagine that! i'm closer to 5k km in a year. ~a
[2020-05-11 16:23:23] - paul: to be clear, you probably already have a brokerage account. you'll know if you have one if you see something like this: "Vanguard Federal Money Market Fund (Settlement fund)" ~a
[2020-05-11 16:21:46] - a: Ah, okay. I guess I should look into that. Thanks. -Paul
[2020-05-11 16:15:30] - (afaik) the biggest difference is non-brokerage accounts can't have cash balances. so selling a vanguard fund to buy shares in a stock would be difficult (or more likely completely disallowed). ~a
[2020-05-11 16:14:45] - "if I can sell some Vanguard funds and use the proceeds to buy non-Vanguard funds" you *definitely* can if you have a "brokerage" account. this is a new (as of 2017ish) concept: you can "upgrade" your old vanguard accounts to "brokerage" accounts. they are free. you just have to do it. there might be downsides i don't know about, but i have some of both, and other than the brokerage account being more flexible, they seem the same. ~a
[2020-05-11 15:56:42] - a: It looks like TMFC and ARKK show up in Vanguard, but it's a little unclear if I can sell some Vanguard funds and use the proceeds to buy non-Vanguard funds. -Paul
[2020-05-11 15:55:56] - a: Yeah, luckily I don't have a TON of downtime when I exercise in terms of maintaining my equipment or anything, but that doesn't help me be more consistent.
-Paul[2020-05-11 15:23:56] - paul: thanks. not to toot my own trombone too much, but that is actually only the "moving time" (only time where i'm actually moving). in your podcast people, travis especially, were complaining about the "unrelated to working out" setup time. my biking is the worst about that. i "fix" my bike almost daily and often it takes hours. i have to wait at red-lights . . . and i stop at parks to stop and smell the flowers constantly. ~a
[2020-05-11 14:22:41] - it might also be the message board itself. i reinstalled my os last night and it caused a *lot* of problems. ~a
[2020-05-11 13:39:42] - Sorry for the multi-posts. Bad connection. -- Xpovos
[2020-05-11 13:39:14] - a: Thanks for all the info. -- Xpovos
[2020-05-11 02:53:51] - a: Impressive improvement for your bike riding. My exercising efforts are a lot more stop and go in general. -Paul
[2020-05-11 01:23:44] - a: Thanks for all the info. -- Xpovos
[2020-05-11 01:23:40] - a: Thanks for all the info.
[2020-05-10 17:40:14] - wikipedia ~a
[2020-05-10 17:39:08] - xpovos: also, stop me if i've ever talked about hashing, but you might like that too. hashing is like a running club that focuses on . . . running on paths and creeks and in non-typical locations. you probably don't want to checkout during corona though. it's also kinda set up like a social-club where they have chilling and chit-chat time. i did it for years. ~a
[2020-05-10 17:33:20] - xpovos: if you ever run with your phone, you might like it. they have a thing where you can run sections (segments) that other people have run and time yourself against them. you get "achievements" if you beat even your own-time on a segment (personal record). i also like that you can just look at the people you know (followers) and their times on specific segments. ~a
[2020-05-10 17:28:16] - i love strava. the free version does everything i care about. the paid features i can all live without. ~a
[2020-05-10 17:27:38] - xpovos: yeah, if you ever use strava, they have a paid / premium feature that lets you look at that heatmap stuff. or, if you're cheap like me, you can use this repo to do it yourself for free. ~a
[2020-05-10 17:20:51] - a: That's great! And an impressive spider visualization for your paths. -- Xpovos
[2020-05-10 17:18:48] - you can see where i broke my arm in 2017, hah. ~a
[2020-05-10 17:18:46] - it looks like a stacked graph. but it isn't! i just was fairly consistent in my improvement between years. ~a
[2020-05-10 17:15:19] - paul/xpovos: i listened to your third (final) fitness check-in and it inspired me to look at my progress for 2020. graph and map for 2015-2020. ~a
[2020-05-10 00:48:10] - they are exchanges yes. sorry that's about all I know. lmk if you learn more! ~a
[2020-05-09 19:35:12] - a: I'm not sure what that means in terms of if they're available in certain brokerages. Heck, I'm not even sure I understand what it means, period. Are those exchanges or something? -Paul
[2020-05-09 14:41:53] - looks like tmfc is sold on bats and arkk is traded on nyse arca. ~a
[2020-05-09 03:17:11] - a: I was looking at TMFC and/or ARKK. The money is currently with Vanguard (doesn't look like they have TMFC, but maybe ARKK?) or I also have an account with Merrill Lynch. -Paul
[2020-05-08 20:59:36] - i guess maybe certain exchanges aren't allowed from certain brokers. that's probably more relevant. which exchange and which broker? ~a
[2020-05-08 20:58:19] - if its a broker that lets you buy an arbitrary stock, then you should be able to buy all of the etfs. that's the point (one of them anyways). you go to an exchange, and get shares in the exchange traded fund. maybe i need more context . . . is this like a 401k or something? ~a
[2020-05-08 20:56:06] - Is there an easy way to find out what ETFs are available through which brokers? I am thinking about moving some money into some specific ETFs but I am having a hell of a time finding out where they are available. -Paul
[2020-05-08 20:40:27] - a: Undoubtedly who I am plays a role, but I like to think that's not the ONLY reason. There are plenty of issues I care about which don't affect me directly. -Paul
[2020-05-08 20:40:06] - paul: that's fair. police conduct is pretty bad all around. they are in a really shitty situation, but i think we can all do better. ~a
[2020-05-08 20:39:12] - a: Although, police conduct probably is. I just don't like how sometimes it is viewed exclusively through the prism of race. -Paul
[2020-05-08 20:38:46] - paul: it wouldn't be in my top 50 either if i wasn't the one getting pulled over. ~a
[2020-05-08 20:38:10] - a: Sure. I have plenty of broken things I want fixed. The racial disparity of people getting pulled over during nighttime is probably not top 50.
-Paul[2020-05-08 20:36:57] - a: I don't think all racial inequalities are necessarily inherently bad and need to be remedied, and on the flip side, I think often times racial inequalities are because of a different underlying factor (like economic status). -Paul
[2020-05-08 20:36:42] - ah. ok. i agree. at a certain point, though, you gotta start fixing broken things. but its not like we're really in a position to fix shit anyways. ~a
[2020-05-08 20:35:59] - a: I think it's something that needs more investigation (either by me, or society in general). -Paul
[2020-05-08 20:28:04] - ok, well lets focus on the white officers then. i'll assume this is not only happening to black officers. you agree this is something that should be fixed/changed/remedied, right? ~a
[2020-05-08 20:15:51] - a: Particularly if we're talking about a statistically significant set of data. -paul
[2020-05-08 20:15:08] - a: I think so. Rightly or wrongly, if a white officer does it, then it is considered racist. If a black officer does it, then it's probably considered "complicated" at worst. -Paul
[2020-05-08 20:13:01] - is it though? ~a
[2020-05-08 20:12:39] - a: I don't necessarily have a point. I'm just curious. I think the narrative is very different if the officer is white vs the officer is being black. -Paul
[2020-05-08 19:39:53] - if your point is that only certain kinds of officers pull over black drivers probably doesn't help anything though. ~a
[2020-05-08 19:38:13] - paul: i didn't see that either. probably either random sampling of the study group, or normalized for the population as a whole? ~a
[2020-05-08 19:31:57] - a: I didn't see it in the article, but does it mention the race of the officer at all? -Paul
[2020-05-08 18:37:25] - hmmm. i mean, i don't like that they put all that in the title, but the underlying data/study does seem interesting. ~a
[2020-05-08 18:26:24] - a: Yeah, I think I'm in the same boat. Past performance doesn't equal future results. International has sucked for a long time. Yet I still keep ~50% of my Vanguard funds in it (which, it should be noted, are NOT 50% of my retirement funds). -Paul
[2020-05-08 18:12:56] - i've been burned by the international sector as well. the past . . . 20 years? it pains me to keep putting money into vtiax even though it keeps under-performing. but . . . i do it. ~a
[2020-05-08 17:54:21] - and i'll agree the past might be the only data we have, but . . . really it's probably very-wrong to use a short 5-year segment of time to determine what a whole sector (like china, or small companies) will do in the 5-year future. ~a
[2020-05-08 17:52:58] - "rebound" this is the wrong metric and the wrong way of thinking. what matters is what they'll do in the future. worded differently, if they have a statistically real possibility of beating the s&p500 over some future timespan, then it matters not what happened to them in the past. ~a
[2020-05-08 17:49:04] - a: There's some pretty big under-performance for some of those over 5 years... -Paul
[2020-05-08 17:48:05] - a: Or a similar argument for international stocks. -Paul
[2020-05-08 17:47:51] - a: Yeah, kinda. I tend to think that EVENTUALLY they will rebound, but maybe there are fundamental shifts in companies staying private longer which means that small caps might "permanently" (or for the near future) underperform. -Paul
[2020-05-08 17:46:57] - a: I understand that point, but the in the larger sense, if small caps "always" under-perform the S&P, then shouldn't I just always own the S&P fund instead of small cap funds? -Paul
[2020-05-08 17:46:42] - i guess your point is that those sectors are bad sectors. nm. ~a
[2020-05-08 17:45:13] - you shouldn't be comparing them to s&p500, man. you should compare vsmax to crsp us small cap index. you should compare vemax to ftse emerging markets index. ~a
[2020-05-08 17:42:22] - paul: 30. ~a
[2020-05-08 17:42:02] - aDaniel: I just took a look at my Vanguard funds and man, it's been a rough 5 years for VEMAX (Emerging Markets), VTIAX (International), and VSMAX (Small Cap) relative to the S&P 500. How long would you all give those sectors to rebound before writing them off as serial under-performers? -Paul
[2020-05-08 17:28:17] - there is no good or bad ~a
[2020-05-07 20:25:06] - lol guidelines. ~a
[2020-05-07 19:25:31] - a: Also feel free to remove that if it violates spam guidelines. lol -Daniel
[2020-05-07 19:25:14] - a: If you'd like to know more about the depth of wells drilled here in Texas feel free to sign up for my reports! www.gibsonreports.com ! WOOO SHILLING. -Daniel
[2020-05-07 18:50:09] - huh from this diagram it looks like we can drill from oil wells deeper than the deepest ocean. yikes. ~a
[2020-05-07 02:08:10] - Genres are so messy, they depend a lot on who's doing the defining. I do know people who classify Borderlands as ARPG. Also as "Dungeon Crawler." -- Xpovos
[2020-05-06 22:57:32] - mig: I would have said FPS with rpg elements but ARPG is kind of a broad genre. I think of ARPG as either Zelda style or Diablo style. -Daniel
[2020-05-06 21:28:12] - Is Borderlands considered an ARPG? - mig
[2020-05-06 18:23:33] - the "better" option gets kinda complicated, so you might want to stick with what you have. but the overall-concept is you should use a weighted-average. alternatively, consider what the portfolio is worth today, divided by what the portfolio is worth yesterday. ~a
[2020-05-06 18:14:26] - a: I don't think that average is being used for anything except to give people an idea of how things are going right now, so it should be fine, but I can change it if you have a better option. -Paul
[2020-05-06 18:13:36] - a: Ah, thanks. Fixed. I still don't know if I am counting RUBI right. It's annoying that I can't figure out how to handle this situation. Seems like there should be an easy solution. -Paul
[2020-05-06 18:12:37] - also, there's a second problem with that cell. you can't use "average" there if you want the exact answer . . . but what you have will get you close. ~a
[2020-05-06 18:10:50] - re fantasy investing, i noticed a problem in cell e46 you might want to fix ("change today" total). you had included tlra in that cell, you probably want to fix that. ~a
[2020-05-06 18:08:28] - a: Not in Fantasy Investing, but certainly for the personal portfolios. Freedom Portfolio is up almost 5% on a flat day for the market. -Paul
[2020-05-06 18:07:42] - aDaniel: Since May 1st, 2017: S&P500 ~20%, GBTC ~600%, SHOP ~850% !! -Paul
[2020-05-06 18:06:34] - paul: meli +19%. bynd +23%. good day for us, no? ~a
[2020-05-06 00:51:08] - a: I think interceptors used to not be quite as plentiful, maybe, in that it was easier to actually kill them and have a carrier run out? That never seems to happen in SC2 anymore. -Paul
[2020-05-06 00:50:34] - a: I don't think that's changed recently. I think focus firing on carriers has been a thing for as long as I can remember.... maybe even going back to SC1? -Paul
[2020-05-05 21:42:23] - like, for instance, maybe that it used to be units were smart enough to move closer to the carriers? like units often "know" when they need to move before attacking, and maybe something was changed regarding that? ~a
[2020-05-05 21:40:54] - so . . . i feel like we've talked about this, but why is focus-firing the carriers something you've only had to worry about recently? like something changed, right? ~a
[2020-05-05 20:29:22] - Daniel: You betcha! Focus fire the carriers! -paul
[2020-05-05 20:25:01] - paul: Starcraft tonight right? -Daniel
[2020-05-05 18:53:31] - a: I probably would sell and buy something I liked more, but I don't know how telling that is. In this exercise, I don't know why I bought it in the first place. There IS a chance I would just hold, because inertia does have a hold on me when it comes to investing where I try not to make too many moves. -paul
[2020-05-05 18:08:09] - paul: so . . . worded differently then. what if you *currently* held airline stock. would you sell today? i assume daniel would sell and rebuy vtsax. would you consider selling and buying up some other equity? ~a
[2020-05-05 16:45:17] - I don't know where I would stand on airlines either. I'm not usually that into buying mediocre businesses just because they look cheap and might rebound short term. It's not something I would want to take a chance on either way. Do I suspect they'll be up 2 years from now? Yeah. Do I think they'll be market beaters 10+ years out? Probably not? -Paul
[2020-05-05 16:43:02] - a: "being wrong all the time" Didn't your study absolutely disprove that he is wrong all the time?
-Paul[2020-05-05 16:42:33] - a: Okay, so 47% is about as close to a coin flip as possible, and I wonder what the measurement was. How long of a holding period? Versus the S&P? Besides, accuracy isn't everything. You can easily be "wrong" more often than right and still beat the market. -Paul
[2020-05-05 16:33:41] - a: Northam is making some noise that he might loosen restrictions on 5/15. We'll have to see what he does, and if he does do it. That might be a win for you. -- Xpovos
[2020-05-05 15:40:05] - daniel: i wouldn't be so sure how paul will answer. long-term, airlines will be fine, but how they'll weather 2020 is to be seen. ~a
[2020-05-05 15:37:47] - a: For the three of us I imagine perhaps not because I'm fine holding them as part of an index fund but would imagine Paul is not ok holding them. -Daniel
[2020-05-05 15:37:10] - aside from the three of us every stock transaction is by defintion someone who disagrees with your future assessment. If you are selling - someone is buying and disagrees with your assessment to sell at this price (same for buying). So getting everyone to agree is quite a challenge. -Daniel
[2020-05-05 15:33:16] - oops missed a word. add in "agree" somewhere in there. ~a
[2020-05-05 15:32:38] - daniel/paul: can we even all, between the three of us, if you should be holding airline stocks *today*? like, i feel like you'll probably get them at a nice discount, so i could see it going either way, really. ~a
[2020-05-05 15:15:38] - Like maybe holding onto airline stocks today isn't a good idea, but when is it a good idea to buy again? And will it be as obvious? Or will it happen over a two day period that suddenly they boom up again? If you weren't holding them already and you loose out on that then that can be a pretty big yikes. Then that concept applies to EVERY SINGLE STOCK. So instead of dealign with all that I just go yeah lets get an index fund. -Daniel
[2020-05-05 15:14:11] - Paul: If you knew the future then yes you would be better off not holding them (and every other stock that isn't going to do well) but since we don't know which ones won't do well and which ones will then you are reduced to predicting the future which I think isn't a great game to play. -Daniel
[2020-05-05 15:07:30] - how the hell cramer got to a net worth of 100m being wrong all the time is beyond me. "cramer claims to have sold all of his stocks on the friday before black monday (1987)" jesus. ~a
[2020-05-05 15:04:20] - by "nobody cares if he's wrong" i didn't mean literally. steve lecompte cares.
~a[2020-05-05 15:03:24] - "Mad Money host Jim Cramer posted a 47% accuracy rate (LeCompte focused on Cramer's written calls by tracking a column he used to write for New York magazine)." ~a
[2020-05-05 15:02:50] - dude, google it. there are a ton of studies. it's so easy to check his work, and tons of people have. he's wrong more often than he's right. here's one ~a
[2020-05-05 15:01:51] - a: "he is wrong more often than he's right" Sure, I believe it, although I haven't seen any solid data either way. -Paul
[2020-05-05 15:01:20] - Daniel: I get what you're saying, and I don't even necessarily disagree, but what about the specific example here: airlines? Index funds have to keep holding them, but if you think airlines are going to be permanently impaired for the near and maybe long term future... wouldn't you be better off not holding them? -Paul
[2020-05-05 15:00:46] - "he might be wrong as often as he is right" close! he is wrong more often than he's right. ~a
[2020-05-05 15:00:11] - Daniel: I think I agree with you on your opinion of Cramer. I think he's mostly entertainment, but I also think he's pretty smart and knowledgeable and yeah, maybe nobody keeps track of his calls and he might be wrong as often as he is right, but if he's getting more people invested that seems like a noble goal. -Paul
[2020-05-05 14:56:02] - paul: the full story is i'm a moderate on this topic. unlike daniel, i think you can sometimes find where the market is constantly undervaluing or overvaluing certain information. like, what is the market systemically undervaluing? the tech industry for one: vitax/vgt beats the s&p500 out of the water almost every year. old people don't understand tech and that's a systemic problem. ~a
[2020-05-05 14:55:09] - I guess even actual clowns put time and effort into their jobs and trying to achieve their goal. So maybe clown is more fair but in a less derogatory kind of way. -Daniel
[2020-05-05 14:48:48] - paul: (tldr, i agree with daniel, like usual) "the market" is already deciding what is bad and what is good. kramer and buffet think you should sell all your airline holdings? well in that case, that advice is already priced in! so now . . . i *should* hold my airline holdings. (which i would already be doing, if i was 100% vtsax). ~a
[2020-05-05 14:48:06] - So in particular to the opinion of Cramer - mostly entertainment. I'm sure he's trying on some level and someone out there takes him super serious so clown somehow seems to far to me. -Daniel
[2020-05-05 14:46:11] - paul: i'm impressed by buffet. still, i think 100% in brkb might be a bad idea. even 10% in brkb might be a bad idea. ~a
[2020-05-05 14:46:07] - I think beating the market is possible and given enough players even probably that some will over time have a good track record. Its just not a game I want to play and I'm content to accept the "regular" returns of index funds for the tradeoff of not having to pay attention to individual stocks and attempt to do the good / bad judgement (which I think takes time & effort and I that I don't totally believe I can do well anyway). -Daniel
[2020-05-05 14:43:53] - "holding the bad with the good" - This statement sheds a lot of light I think on the concept at play here. I'm not interested in attempting to make this value judgement because in general my position is that I don't think people are good at that. Some do for awhile but I don't know who will in a given future time period. If you don't all of them then when the TDOC's of the world go up because of pandemics you miss out on that too. -Daniel
[2020-05-05 14:17:48] - a: Hmmm, so it sounds like you're not impressed by Buffett either? -Paul
[2020-05-05 13:54:00] - why would i use a source of information that is incorrect more than half of the time? ~a
[2020-05-05 12:46:42] - cramer is a clown. in this case he's saying what you want to hear. nobody cares if he's wrong. nobody cares if he has no sources to back up his claims. is his source warren buffet this time? brkb has been underperforming the s&p500 since the pandemic started (also in general). ~a
[2020-05-05 12:33:42] - Daniel: For the record, I think he's somewhere in the middle in terms of absolute clown and respected sage of investing. I also think he MIGHT (heavy stress on might) have a point about index investing and things like airlines. -Paul
[2020-05-05 12:30:16] - Daniel: https://www.cnbc.com/2020/05/04/jim-cramer-warren-buffett-exit-from-airline-stocks-was-a-big-deal.html Curious if you have any thoughts on this (and Cramer in general). Do you see him as an absolute clown? Mostly entertainment? Or actually respectable? -Paul
[2020-05-04 22:31:21] - found this tweet from a few weeks ago. it's kinda funny too, that he mentions "the wuhan lab" in china. *the* is a weird word to put there. "the wuhan lab" is like saying "the berkeley lab", except wuhan is ~100x the population of berkeley. there are probably thousands of labs in that huge fucking city. ~a
[2020-05-04 22:28:42] - yah. ~a
[2020-05-04 16:56:33] - s/on/one (*sigh*)
[2020-05-04 16:56:20] - a: Based on the lawsuit I saw, there was on plaintiff, who was an individual. If there are other lawsuits out there and I misread, they might still have a chance. -- Xpovos
[2020-05-04 16:44:40] - xpovos: ok. i guess i tentatively agree. "The party can claim injury" . . . isn't that what happened here? "three voters and six organizations" sued. don't at least one of those groups/individuals have injury and standing (even individually) according to your specifics defined here? ~a
[2020-05-04 16:18:22] - That ANOTHER voter may vote in a different manner has no impact on the first voter personally. -- Xpovos
[2020-05-04 16:18:04] - The party can claim injury because their candidate might be disadvantaged, that's a fair point and worthy of some debate. They can have standing, because their chances of winning have decreased. Similarly, if the party doesn't want to bring the suit, an individual candidate can. Because he similarly has had a potential negative impact. -- Xpovos
[2020-05-04 16:17:01] - a: OK, let me see if I can explain, simply, why the citizen doesn't hold standing in this case. Is the citizen prohibited from voting for the candidate of his choice? No? Then the citizen has suffered no injury. -- Xpovos
[2020-05-04 15:26:30] - xpovos: the appeals court didn't even address that the "Republicans hold an advantage due to ballot order" (from mig's original article) ~a
[2020-05-04 15:25:01] - xpovos: no. but, i think the original lawsuit was correctly made by citizens of florida in the courts of florida. and i disagree with the finding of the appeals court (in neighboring georgia): they said there was no injury. i think there is injury as we've discussed here. ~a
[2020-05-04 14:50:59] - a: I can agree with you that randomization or rotation, as used in other states (more than 12 if you include rotation, I think, but I can't find current data, so I might be wrong. I've seen the number 12 several times) is a better choice. However, should a legislature be [b]required[/b] to change their process to one that you and I, not citizens of that state even, feel is better? -- Xpovos
[2020-05-04 14:27:54] - mig: regardless its at an interesting starting point. it is at least some data that begins to back up the "a proven[ish] bias resulting from ballot order", right? i mean, 12 states randomize their ballot orders because of this effect. those 12 states are doing the right thing, imo. ~a
[2020-05-03 15:45:21] - mig: sure, that's fair. i'm having trouble thinking of some confounding factors though. at least confounding factors that aren't already negated by the study. for instance, "ohio rotates the name order of the candidates on its ballots" so a lot of confounding factors i can think of wouldn't apply here. ~a
[2020-05-03 15:41:57] - a: Kind of, but a lot of this is reading like "correlation = causation." - mig
[2020-05-02 21:56:35] - a: https://www.tesla.com/en_GB/VehicleSafetyReport?redirect=no "In the 1st quarter, we registered one accident for every 4.68 million miles driven in which drivers had Autopilot engaged." -Paul
[2020-05-02 14:44:15] - regardless of what all the studies all say, it makes sense, right? i consider myself pretty educated on ballots and such, and i often find myself caught off-guard by down-ballot questions. i imagine that's true for lots of people less educated than us. ~a
[2020-05-02 14:42:14] - mig: author of a houston state university study, "lots of voters weren't aware of who was running for school board, but how the order of names on the ballot made a big difference" ~a
[2020-05-02 14:40:08] - mig: university of vermont, "name order effects were shown in forty-eight percent of 118 races studied". sam houston state university "the ballot order effect is large, especially in down-ballot races and judicial positions". ~a
[2020-05-02 14:24:51] - "a proven bias resulting from ballot order" I would contest that statement. - mig
[2020-05-02 01:58:15] - There are thousands of stupid, democratically passed laws in this country. Hardly any of them are unconstitutional. -- Xpovos
[2020-05-02 01:57:23] - the lawsuit. The law is the very definition of bipartisan. It helps both parties. As long as they're the party in power. That's institutionalism, not partisanship. -- Xpovos
[2020-05-02 01:56:45] - pierce: Voter identity aside, because there's some validity there, but it's really not an issue. If the law benefits one party now, it benefits the other party when they win. And both parties have and will. I can (and do) agree that it's a stupid law and that the system used by most other states of rotation or lots is better. But this method isn't wrong. It's hard for me to see it as unconstitutional even if the Democratic Party brings
[2020-05-02 01:21:24] - also, if you're considering a law in florida that biased votes towards democrats in 1951 and towards republicans in 2020... it's possible that law mostly benefited the same group of voters over the years. the parties aren't the same as they were back then, "Party of Lincoln" be damned. - pierce
[2020-05-02 01:17:18] - okay, dammit this is what I get for not actually going down the rabbit hole and reading the case for once. nevertheless: a proven bias resulting from ballot order, combined with a clear law that establishes that ballot order. haggling over who currently benefits from an unfair law that has historically benefitted different parties shouldn't prevent us from ruling it an unjust law. - pierce
[2020-05-02 00:54:06] - On newer points, this "short-term (and short-sighted)" law establishing which party is first on the ballot has been the law in Florida since 1951, nearly 70 years. The law as originally passed gave the advantage to Democrats, who were in power at the time, but over the intervening decades has helped both parties. -- Xpovos
[2020-05-02 00:50:04] - Further, I think you missed out on my sarcasm on the democracy bit. This is not a democracy. If it were the opinions might matter more than they do. I think we have the same understanding of the issue; we just approach it differently. -- Xpovos
[2020-05-02 00:48:42] - pierce: the party might have standing, but Nancy Jacobsen is at best a Democrat. Not the Democratic party. Note, she also claims a mantle of bipartisanship and refuses to identify as a Democrat for most things--while working for Democrats exclusively, but that's a different story.The party approves of this lawsuit she's brought because it stands to gain from it, but it didn't bring the lawsuit itself. If it had, they might have standing.
[2020-05-01 22:33:16] - ...and that has its own problems, but those can be debated some other time. - pierce
[2020-05-01 22:30:18] - and so what I'm asking is what remedies would be reasonable, given our current system, and given that our current system is partially defined by the outcomes of dumb laws like this. things like lifetime appointments to the courts have historically served as a check on short-term (and short-sighted) trends and strategies in the legislative and executive branches. - pierce
[2020-05-01 22:27:21] - I'm being annoyingly specific but I want to avoid debating the merits of different vote counting methodologies, or whether the people filing the lawsuit actually had "zero" impact just because they weren't listed first, etc. We live in a world where Democrats and Republicans are the viable parties most of the time. A law that gives one of them any advantage based on something unrelated to their merits is (as mig pointed out) dumb. - pierce
[2020-05-01 22:20:31] - (zero impact, or artificially diluted impact) - pierce
[2020-05-01 22:19:24] - I'd challenge your statement that "in a democracy your opinion doesn't always matter on every issue". in a pure democracy, your opinion does matter on every issue, just that (by definition) your opinion doesn't dominate any issue. representative democracy complicates what it means for your opinion to "matter", but it's not supposed to result in anyone having zero impact (potentially indirect) on an issue. - pierce
[2020-05-01 22:09:51] - I mean "second" in the sense that they're one of the two mainstream parties, but statutorily listed later on the ballot than the candidate(s) of the other mainstream party. - pierce
[2020-05-01 22:05:57] - xpovos: this isn't the first time the "standing" issue has allowed courts to avoid dealing with an obvious conflict. given FPtP voting (which intrinsically gravitates towards a system with two "main" parties), who exactly would have standing to challenge laws that create biased ballot placement if it's not the "second" party? - pierce
[2020-05-01 20:37:25] - a: Except there's no standing, which was the ruling, correctly. Yes, it sucks that in a democracy your opinion doesn't always matter on every issue. -- Xpovos
[2020-05-01 18:57:18] - xpovos: well to pierce's point, this is the correct way for a citizen to pursue a remedy for a bad law. settling things in the courts isn't *always* incorrect. other than voting for a different lawmaker, it's really your only option as a private citizen. ~a
[2020-05-01 16:40:02] - Paul: Of course there are. It's not a big percentage, but it might move a closely contested election. So, yes it matters. But the lawsuit was still stupid. The rules are the rules. Follow them. Or write better ones. -- Xpovos
[2020-05-01 10:42:50] - mig: I kinda agree with you that it is silly to fight over who is first and yet.... I wouldn't be surprised if there are studies showing the candidate listed first gets more votes. -Paul
[2020-05-01 02:45:39] - pierce: it's a dumb law, but IMO hardly some sort of grave injustice. It's really a stretch to claim any sort of injury or disenfranchisement because your candidate is not on the top of ballot. Those resources spent fighting this in court were probably better spent elsewhere. - mig
[2020-04-30 23:47:06] - mig: I'm not saying they're mutually exclusive, but isn't there a tension to saying that both are stupid? if there's a stupid law that creates a biased ballot order, does it make it stupid to try to pursue a remedy in one of the forums that might be able to do so? - pierce
[2020-04-30 19:15:35] - a: both? - mig
[2020-04-30 15:21:35] - paul: https://aporter.org/tmp/biggest-changes-up.txt https://aporter.org/tmp/biggest-changes-down.txt ~a
[2020-04-30 15:02:58] - paul: 15% in a day? sure.
~a[2020-04-30 14:49:16] - mig: is it dumb that we have these court cases or is it dumb that we had laws changing the order in the first place? ~a
[2020-04-30 14:00:10] - https://www.politico.com/states/florida/story/2020/04/29/trumps-name-can-be-first-on-florida-ballot-court-says-1281167 we're having federal court cases over who gets to be listed first on a voting ballot because of course we are. - mig
[2020-04-30 12:14:38] - a: btc has had quite the past few days, eh? -Paul
[2020-04-30 12:14:26] - a: I dunno. I guess so?
-Paul[2020-04-29 20:44:26] - paul: neither. each fund is different, right? ~a
[2020-04-29 20:42:44] - a: Hmmm, I guess that's a good point. Do they handle the dividends on a company by company basis? Or is it just one giant dividend for the entire index that gets paid out at less consistent times? -Paul
[2020-04-29 20:23:46] - paul: i agree with the reverse dollar cost averaging for this purpose. this is not that because they're picking when and how much to do. you aren't. ~a
[2020-04-29 20:22:58] - a: Hmmm, I think I understand. I guess part of the way I thought of it was kinda a reverse dollar cost averaging. Instead of selling a big chunk of stocks all at once (which might lead to some poor timing), it would be more like selling a few shares every day to even things out. -Paul
[2020-04-29 20:17:04] - paul: also i think when you're talking about things that aren't stocks, this difference becomes more pronounced (since the volatility of the underlying asset is greatly decreased). ~a
[2020-04-29 20:16:31] - paul: this difference in quantity and date could mean like millions of dollars in the long run. ~a
[2020-04-29 20:16:16] - paul: effective differences: 1. quantity. when you sell shares, it'll be of a drastically different amount than dividends pay out (much greater or much smaller). 2. date. when you sell shares, it'll be when you want it to be sold. i know you don't want to have stuff to be invested right before you need it, but dividends will pay out when they want to be paid out, not when you want it to be out of the market. ~a
[2020-04-29 20:14:29] - the effective difference is HUGE, the question is which is better . . . i have no idea. i'll describe the effective difference in a different msg. ~a
[2020-04-29 20:13:29] - a: You think it should be kept at reinvest and instead sell shares? What is the effective difference? -Paul
[2020-04-29 19:55:44] - daniel: they are counted differently, but you're taxed the same whether you reinvest or not. ~a
[2020-04-29 19:54:57] - I'm not sure either but I thought there were people who didn't sell stocks but tried to get pull out dividends because those counted differently somehow? -Daniel
[2020-04-29 19:39:17] - paul: "I am in retirement and want to start building up a cash balance to withdraw" i'm not sure i agree with this plan. i think even in retirement you want to leave those as "reinvest". google it, though. there's a lot of grey-area here, and i'm not sure i'm sold yet on either plan. ~a
[2020-04-29 19:26:05] - I'll put it on my calendar! -Daniel
prev <-> next