simo7

Tax loss harvesting only makes sense if you keep on buying and selling multiple funds/products.

Hold only one index fund, hold it long-term and the problem vanishes: all the gains are not taxed until you sell the fund and they are always net of losses.

Not to mention the massive benefit of deferring taxes in a compounding context.

This is one of those statements that end up being understood in slightly (but significant) different ways based on one's own experience.

Advertisers do run unprofitable ads and marketing campaigns all the times.

And they are fine with that too. That's the case of VC-backed startups: they accept a negative ROI to get the chance to start making money one day.

Then you have the less consciuous ones, which might be big brands who want to experiment a bit with new media/ad formats.

In any case, if you think about it, the real losers are...the honest publishers. Because the money on the table is not increased by fraud, it's just shared in a way that takes something away from good publishers to bad/fake ones.

It's a far-reaching interpretation in my opinion.

The author is talking about product innovation, all the examples are on people who invented famous products.

When he says : "Twenty years before Henry Ford convinced..".

Well the congress's statement is from 1875, 20 years later the first cars appeared. Ford came 10 years later. The event he's referring to is clearly the car invention

It's quite obvious that he's presenting Ford as the inventor of the car.

I am referring to "Twenty years before Henry Ford convinced the world he was onto something".

No need to convince anybody since Ford started manufacturing and commercializing cars roughly 10 years after his peers in Europe.

On top of all these mistakes...there is also the very American mistake of believing Ford invented the car.

When I've read it I knew I had to take all the rest with a big grain of salt :|

Except that the loss in not calculated on 1 transaction.

If you go exactly even before transaction fees, on a big enough number of transaction you loose everything....exactly because of transaction fees.

Man it's not about coming from Windows, quite the opposite...using the mouse (trackpad) is too slow, many try to avoid it if possible, it's a liberating feeling really.

Personally I have 7 global shortcuts for the 7 major apps I use on Cmd+Shift+Number. And for frequent switching between only 2 apps Cmd+Tab. I'd be 10 times slower with the mission control, no doubt.

You are missing the time in the formula, should be: (1+r)^t.

When t --> inf, it becomes r.

Right just replied the same. It's about the interest rates prevailing in the market.

But I do believe that there was and still is a lot of overvaluation in tech even after discounting at low interest rates.

The point which everybody seems to be missing (Thiel included) is that "overvalued" or "undervalued" is never in absolute but should always be relative to interests rates.

If you have low interests rates like now many crazy valuations are actually not so crazy (well in tech they are crazy anyway but outside of tech not so much).

That's because the cost opportunity of employing 1€ in equity is very low since debt is giving you little. All the future cash flows therefore get just a small discounting factor.

I love your counter-argument: "this guy landed rockets, so he will make happen whatever" :D

Oook...look I'm cheering for this but then there is this thing called "reality".

And I'm not even say it won't happen, but I'm doubting whether it will be sustainable in terms of the obligation a company has with its shareholders.

Producing so many cars requires crazy amount of capital and that capital will yield very little on this model...and yes on top of it competition will come...can Tesla be a sustainably profitable company pursuing this strategy? That's my question.

The author shows a poor understanding of car making business.

He tackles the whole topic from the demand side (how to have people liking and buying the product), but the real issue with the model 3 will be: can they PRODUCE it right?.

All the comparisons with Apple the iphone clearly show he's approaching this business as it was just consumer tech, which is really not.

Just think about the effects that shifting from a low volume-high margin business to a high volume-low margin one can have on return on capital... And that's happening in a very capital intensive business, so tons of money re/invested at low ROE..

I wish Tesla can really make it happen but if I was a shareholder I would be quite reasonably scared.

About giving it back to shareholders instead? They are the ones to which that money is entitled too.

Well you just turned the point from a financial to a semantic one.

What really is the market?

We could discuss it for hours, but the reality is that (US )"market" in finance does refer to the S&P500. So "beating the market" always means beating the S&P500.

The argument makes sense.

Yet, if so, we should see unreasonably high PEs for big companies (particularly the ones in the Dow).

Why isn't that the case?

> an index fund does beat the market

market = index fund (S&P 500 based).

How can an index fund beat the market, if an index fund IS the market?

Yeah I see your point, but what I mean is that when so much of the current value of a company is based on future events, fear unfortunately is never irrational.

And for New Relic the expectations are really high, could still turn out to be a great business story (and I also think it will) but not necessarily a good investment because so much of this future success is already embedded in the price.

Just looked at it. No profit and trading at 10x revenues.

You might be right who knows, but can't realy say the fear on this stock is irrational at the moment, imho

I see. I've also found myself in a situation where the company was using it and I had them drop it.

For reporting the idea of transforming & moving the data around really doesn't make much sense when compared to solutions which directly leverage your db or at least create an unique consistent datasource instead of many so-called extracts scattered around.

Simple analysis usually answer recurrent questions, for this there is reporting and Tableau is not a good tool for reporting (too slow).

For ad hoc analysis instead, there is really nothing more powerful than R or python and it's plenty of tools & libraries that give you the speed you need.

What do you use it for?

If it's for analysis why not use python or R, way more powerful and full of tools & libraries that give you speed you need?

If it's for reporting, why not to use chartio, looker or anything that connects directly to your db?

My opinion: If you know some python or R, you might still need chartio, looker and similar but Tableau doesn't make sense anymore.

Reporting --> Chartio, Sisense, Looker etc. (anything web focused without a desktop version pretty much)

Analysis --> Ipython

No room for Tableau and similar.

I suspect it's a taxation thing.

Better to give back the money as capital gains than as dividends.

Currencies have two functions: mean of payment and storing value. A currency like bitcoin can only be the second one in an effective way, that's what I think he meant. And that's a big problem cause we really don't particularly need a better way to store value, but something that makes commerce more effective from a structural point of view not just a technological one.

True that, "La Grande Bellezza" was awful, yet it managed to win an oscar for what is worth.

This wouldn't explain why it used to be so good in the past though.

The amount of trading done by machines decreases as your investing timeframe increases.

So at the extreme (high frequency trading), all trading is indeed done by machines.

So is SPICE an actual data warehouse or is it more a query engine such as Presto, Hive or Spark?