41–50 of 72 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
AUM. Oversee: to be in charge of how an amount of money is invested or spent.
> Oversee: to be in charge of how an amount of money is invested or spent No. "Oversee" can refer to the gross or net position. If I raise $10bn and use that to buy $100bn in assets, I absolutely control and thus oversee the latter.
I don't understand the point of this piece. There is nothing breaking or remotely interesting which we didn't already know. Mind you I don't particularly care about Aschenbrenner or his fund but it feels to me like typical journalists reporting on hindsight without any sort of skin in the game. "Hhm, how could you be so dumb so as to trust your money to a 22 year old". Peter Thiel did the same with Zuck and like him…
> don't understand the point of this piece >> What, then, to make of Situational Awareness’s plunge? ...Mr Aschenbrenner was hardly alone in such bets; over 80% of fund managers responding to Bank of America’s latest monthly survey named “long global semiconductors” as the most crowded trade. The big worry is that this trade’s whiplash-inducing reversal will have set other investment firms teetering, too. If Citadel…
I don't understand the point of this piece. There is nothing breaking or remotely interesting which we didn't already know. Mind you I don't particularly care about Aschenbrenner or his fund but it feels to me like typical journalists reporting on hindsight without any sort of skin in the game. "Hhm, how could you be so dumb so as to trust your money to a 22 year old". Peter Thiel did the same with Zuck and like him…
> By July this year he was said to be overseeing as much as $45bn Does anyone know if this refers to AUM or the gross size of his positions after leverage?
The leverage was 4x or 5x of that and highly concentrated. Citadel bought $16 billion public portfolio with 10% discount.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> don't understand the point of this piece >> What, then, to make of Situational Awareness’s plunge? ...Mr Aschenbrenner was hardly alone in such bets; over 80% of fund managers responding to Bank of America’s latest monthly survey named “long global semiconductors” as the most crowded trade. The big worry is that this trade’s whiplash-inducing reversal will have set other investment firms teetering, too. If Citadel…
Is this firm big enough to cause a financial crisis on its own? Has the leverage situation gotten so dire? Is this just postponing the inevitable at this point?
I'm still trying to figure out what their gross and net positions were. But taking reported figures at face value, yes, $45bn is more than enough to start a credit crisis, particularly if everyone is crowded into a small set of leveraged positions that begin fire selling.
> By July this year he was said to be overseeing as much as $45bn Does anyone know if this refers to AUM or the gross size of his positions after leverage?
$45 billion was AUM. The leverage was 4x or 5x of that and highly concentrated. Citadel bought $16 billion public portfolio with 10% discount.
Do you have a credible source specifically claiming this? I want to know whose data they're looking at. (Specifically, I want to unpack how they're marking their private positions.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
why does involvement with EA imply being ethically challenged? i’m personally not involved, but on its face it seems better than not doing any kind of charitable work.
> why does involvement with EA imply being ethically challenged? Because almost everyone prominent in the movement has had some combination of lack of judgment and morals. There various terms for rationally pursuing philanthropy; associating with effective altruism involves embracing its ideas, people and culture.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> why does involvement with EA imply being ethically challenged? Because almost everyone prominent in the movement has had some combination of lack of judgment and morals. There various terms for rationally pursuing philanthropy; associating with effective altruism involves embracing its ideas, people and culture.
I think the central finding in EA is donating money while earning good is better than donating time directly for charity. To me it seems correct but controversial for many people(likely because you are maximizing your personal income)
EA has many tenets, some of make sense per se, but collectively–particulalry when taking into account that EA isn't just an idea but a movement of people with a distinct culture and track record–probably do more harm than good.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How is effective altruism related? I skimmed their wiki page [1], but didn't find anything endorsing such actions. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effective_altruism
Sam Bankman-Fried is an effective altruist (or was anyways, not sure what he is after they denounced him). The list of effective altruists reads like a who's who of scummy people. https://www.wired.com/story/deaths-of-effective-altruism/
This is a joke of an article. It shows a few incidental deaths while ignoring the total number of saved lives due to EA. It literally points to ~2 incidental deaths while Give Well saves ~300k lives. Its remarkably ignorant.
Is there a word for this kind of fallacy? Cherry picking sounds too Reddit-coded.