HFguy

I think you do a good job of high-lighting the underlying problem.

Which is not being discussed enough.

And that the current situation can go on a long time but not forever.

"And as for your second paragraph, it has that thing I don't understand that so many people seem to have in their brains that if you explain why a thing is true, it is no longer true. I do not understand it."

This is an interesting observation. I've seen the same thing.

I think the clue is in the "it is a choice"...perhaps they are perceiving seeing some sort of judgement being made of Atari implicit in your argument???

In other words, it can be true at the same time that (1) The are not moving on and (2) It is a choice.

And #2 does not invalidate #1.

How exactly do you think JPM would benefit from fake customers???

Growth isn’t necessary for high returns on equity. And it isn’t necessary for the investment to provide a return.

Equity returns ultimately come from risk premiums. (Which are small now in US equities BTW).

I’m invested in a microcap private equity fund that has returned >20-25% for years. They have high returns because they buy firms at 3-4x cashflow. You will get the high returns even with no growth. And with no increase in valuation. The returns are a function of an illiquidity premium.

With Apple explicitly, growth is expected given the valuation level. If it doesn’t grow, the share price will decline. So yes, in their case, firm is certainly under pressure to grow.

I also don’t agree with your “best interest for wages to be high and everyone else’s lower”. That is one aspect. It is more complicated. Consider Baumol Effect for starters.

Think this was posted in the wrong thread?

The account was created 3 months ago. Might be actual person. But also might be troll or bot.

I do know real people that hold views like this, but they also apply similar lens to other large countries with global footprint. So at least a consistent approach.

I worked for a "start-up" in 1994. I was employee number 600. And it had just gone public. The firm eventually had something in the range of 30,000 employees.

Anyway, at that point in 1994, the first 30-50 employees all made $$$. That included the secretaries and receptionists. They were all millionaires.

Something has changed and that is the terms that VCs and Executives have negotiated for themselves. I have not heard of any secretaries getting $$$ in a long time. There is a lot less sharing in the spoils than there used to be.

My experience at HFs is you will get fired immediately if you are a low performer. Immediately.

There are yearly policies you can get if you just rent cars. GEICO has them for example

"That's why almost all European/Japanese brand cars are 30+ years old over there"

This is just completely incorrect. Most of European and Japanese cars are not 30+ years old in the US.

Love that!!!

Those are particular people. Not the US government's actual policy.

But how practical is this? If the next village over is planning on attacking your village. Is creating a weapon for defense still "treason against humanity"?

Navy thought the same thing. And they already have this (e.g., mine that has a torpedo).

A version of this already exists (for awhile). It is a mine that sits at the bottom of the ocean and then launches a torpedo.

Looks like a Fallout Vault

These facilities were not cheap to design and build. Obsolete now.

There is a similar but different product (without the downside protection).

A fund manager can replicate the index with derivatives and overlay their alpha on top of it.

Google “alpha overlay” or “portable alpha” for more info.

These types of products were more popular about 10-15 years ago.

Firms typically charge just for the alpha for these strategies.

You are asking for the manager to sell you an option.

SP500 had not returned 10% a year historically. And really would want to look at returns above the cash rate.

And the SP500 has had unusually good performance relative to other equity indexes. Would not count on that forever.

You would make money because the other tools in use at the time were much worse and people were pricing options poorly. So plenty of opportunities. Hence why Ed thorp did well.

It will not work today. For starters, it makes a bunch of simplifying assumptions. And there are better models. It also misses a number of important dynamics.

I don't think this has to be incorrect. Or that your "unless the age distribution...." needs to be true either.

Everyone eventually dies. When that happens, as things currently stand, it will be a 2.5% chance the cause will be the flu.

You might die young or old. Across those possibilities, it is 2.5%

That can be consistent with the idea that if you were to die next year, it probably (i.e., much less than 2.5%) won't be the flu because you are a young person.

"I have my fingers crossed that they can learn to target yachts specifically."

"Yachts" here look like moderately sized sail boats. Doesn't look like this is rich people's super yachts if that is what you are getting at.

This is good work. Are there examples of sites that have used your library? There weren't any links on your website.

Or he didn't die and is off hiding somewhere.

Also, reasonable chance this entire story is fabricated and this was done a different way.

Aegis is a particular system. Not a generic term for these systems. I don't believe UK ships used it.

I would put aside statistics and whether we completely understand how the economy works (we don't).

Just ask...are there are very fundamental differences between the finances of an individual and the government? There are. For starters, the government can simply print money and pay off debts. They can also choose, by their actions, to inflate away nominal liabilities.

So then it is reasonable to consider that "being in debt" may have different ramifications for the government than for an individual.

Stanford is a big place. Would not disregard all the work from anyone connected just because of something the president did.

What’s the name of the firm?

They are mostly not where people want to live

"Purely conjecture, but somehow I suspect that private equity has crunched the numbers and decided it's time to milk this one dry."

They are a public company at this point. Not a fan of PE but no need to blame them for everything.

"every generation does not need to learn the ravages of war."

Would not be so sure of that. I suspect the "great generation" has a lot better understanding about the value of peace than more recent generations.