501–510 of 532 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have never met anyone who does this. Have you?
I have 10 years in cash/short term bonds, and 40 years of expenses in stocks. It’s basically roughly a 80/20 portfolio, nothing unheard of, especially for retirees (though I’m still working).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Guessing: Bachelor of Science (degree) in Computer Science, 4 years of experience... The other 2, no idea. As a counterpoint, I have a BSCS, and closer to 35 YOE, and I have never, nor will ever in my lifetime see $800K/year. To date, not even a quarter that.
Download the Blind app and read some of the posts, you'll get a kick out of it. I'm honestly not sure what to make of all the 25 year olds claiming >$500K TC. Near as I can tell 1) it's largely a FAANG/SV echo chamber 2) 80% of the TC claimed consists of an initial grant of RSUs divided over a 4 year vesting period with an assumption that "refreshers" are coming and 3) people include price appreciation in unvested st…
I have browsed the app and don't recall many 25 year olds claiming >$500K TC (except those who were part of particularly lucky IPOs). 30+ year olds, definitely.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Autonomous/remote weapons let you take the human out of the weapon system, which lets you drastically shrink the weapon system. We haven't really seen the full effect of this yet, because we haven't expanded along the dimensions of freedom this allows: cost, quantity, expendability, scalability, and taking the human out of the kill loop. So far our remote weapons look basically like our piloted weapons, just with a c…
> But imagine that you make your remote weapons 1/100th the size, 1/100,000th the cost, and build 100,000x more of them. The transistor is the only physical process that I know of that has improved at that pace. What makes you think drones can improve to that magnitude?
We seem to have an entire generation of people who think "stonks can only go up". Similar views were expressed about houses/real estate in 2007. At 47, I'm probably substantially older than the average HN poster, but having lived through the 2001 dotcom implosion and the 2008 financial crisis has given me some perspective. I'm getting some really bad vibes about the sustainability of the the economy and asset markets…
> Similar views were expressed about houses/real estate in 2007. Don't they always go up on average though? Even the much hyped 'housing crash' of 2008 only last for all of 3 yrs till 2011 after which they went zooming past the previous highs.
It's not too far off to say that, in the long term, their real value does not go up, they just track inflation. Of course in recent years we live in Weird Times financially.
https://www.multpl.com/case-shiller-home-price-index-inflati...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well in the cases of number 3, 5, 6 and 7 in these cases the Feds will just print the money - technically it is just a flip in their computer system and also in practice the difference is not that big - it changes a fixed term debt to a on-demand debt. The only thing stopping it can be a political will - but I think the stigma of not paying debts is higher than the stigma of inflation - so most probably it will be do…
> I think the stigma of not paying debts is higher than the stigma of inflation This would depend on the level of inflation. Higher than normal, probably. Extremely high, like ~30%+ its reset time I would suspect. With the printing money, there has to be a limit. Were in the middle of something far beyond normal at any other time. Maybe we'll get through it cleanly but I also suspect todays debt fuelled can kicking e…
Banks do it every time they lend, so that can't be the limiting factor can it.
You're looking at the system incorrectly. Try it this way.
To spend you have to have two things - liquidity to complete the purchase and something available to buy.
Which gives you the obvious limit - spending stops when you run out of things to buy available for sale in the denomination at a price worth paying.
So it stops automatically - largely because the pejorative "printing money" line has nothing to do with the control mechanism in the system. Money is a dynamic thing. Systemically it pops into being and disappears as required.
"printing money" is just the accounting counterparty of "saving money". If you want to stop it or reduce it, simply delete everybody's monetary savings. That will cause all national debt to disappear by accounting identity.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
a.) Jamie Dimon had nothing to do with JPMorgan's strong financial position in 2008. He just lucked into the fact that JPM was not exposed to MBSs as heavily as the others. JPM did get exposed mightily in the flash crash of 2012 though, and that was under his watch. 2.) Where do you get this info that he was "brow-beaten" into accepting Fed money? Many of the banks, including others such as Wells Fargo and Boa didn't…
1) Jamie Dimon had been COO for four years, and CEO for over two years, if he wasn’t responsible for the banks capital position, who was? 2) if JP Morgan Chase wasn’t as exposed to the MBS meltdown as other banks, how is that not to his credit? 3) The $6B in trading losses in 2012 didn’t stop JPMorgan from posting a record profit of $21B for the year. Anyone looks bad if you attribute all their accomplishments to luc…
2.) Different banks had different focus areas, and not everyone jumped into the MBS bandwagon. If you notice, all investment-banking oriented banks got rekted while all the consumer banks stayed afloat, bar some exceptional risky bets by the likes of Wachovia and Chase. All the survivors were consumer banks eating up investment banks.
3.) A profit that can be attributed from the consumer banking side.
4.) Most of the annualized return you mentioned comes from 2017 on, when the tax cuts came. Not the 15 years you mention. Before that, it was lagging at 50$ per share.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The idea that Dalio published this in order to move markets in his favor is patently absurd if you know anything at all about the markets in question. The markets that would have to move here are the world's most liquid by a mile. Retail investors reading this blog post are not going to move them at all . And institutional managers are not getting their market takes from blogs like this. The only purpose of this essa…
The ideas and narratives put forth by Bridgewater/Dalio over the past 1-3 years are permeating markets and shaping investor sentiment more than you think. Both retail and institutional.
This sort of thing does actually happen in other domains, like short selling, and maybe you're reasoning by analogy with that activity. But that logic simply does not apply here. The amounts involved are too large, the liquidity moves too slowly, and the people involved have too much expertise. All the stuff Dalio is saying here is already known to them, and far more.
His articles and books are not innovative. They are not designed to educate experts. They are designed to popularize his ideas, among the general public.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
1) Jamie Dimon had been COO for four years, and CEO for over two years, if he wasn’t responsible for the banks capital position, who was? 2) if JP Morgan Chase wasn’t as exposed to the MBS meltdown as other banks, how is that not to his credit? 3) The $6B in trading losses in 2012 didn’t stop JPMorgan from posting a record profit of $21B for the year. Anyone looks bad if you attribute all their accomplishments to luc…
1.) It's standard practice for COOs to take over when CEOs leave. Jamie Dimon's COO position was a result of the merger between Bank One and JPMorgan. Nothing unique. 2.) Different banks had different focus areas, and not everyone jumped into the MBS bandwagon. If you notice, all investment-banking oriented banks got rekted while all the consumer banks stayed afloat, bar some exceptional risky bets by the likes of Wa…
2) So for 6 years he could have had his team chase bigger profits like Wachovia, Bear Stearns, et al by making risky bets on MBS but didn’t.
3) he’s not responsible for the consumer banking side?
4) Everyone in the S&P 500 all got the same tax cuts, yet he finished over 50% ahead of the average. And they are all up big since 2017, but he’s still way ahead.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
1.) It's standard practice for COOs to take over when CEOs leave. Jamie Dimon's COO position was a result of the merger between Bank One and JPMorgan. Nothing unique. 2.) Different banks had different focus areas, and not everyone jumped into the MBS bandwagon. If you notice, all investment-banking oriented banks got rekted while all the consumer banks stayed afloat, bar some exceptional risky bets by the likes of Wa…
1) yes he was second in command got 4 years, and in total control for two more, how is that not give him huge influence on the banks capital structure? 2) So for 6 years he could have had his team chase bigger profits like Wachovia, Bear Stearns, et al by making risky bets on MBS but didn’t. 3) he’s not responsible for the consumer banking side? 4) Everyone in the S&P 500 all got the same tax cuts, yet he finished ov…
2.) Who knows, if 2008 hadn't happened, he might have joined the bandwagon too. Not to mention that JPMorgan's S&T was nothing compared to those players in 2008, so obviously their "risky bets" were minimal.
3.) You're going to attribute consumer side banking to him? Consumer banking is literally a safe-side cash cow for most banks, and you can literally see a number of institutions engaging in it continue to stay safe. He cannot be credited for that.
5.) There are n other companies that have grown even more than JPM. If you're going to use stock prices as a proxy for your argument (which is flawed in itself), GS is currently at 350, almost half of which was gained in the past month. Compared to GS, JPM does seem like a crapper here.
I don't know what's your motivation behind defending Dimon or something, but I'm just echoing the common sentiment in the industry, that he plays it too safe, his cautiousness (often attributed to his ignorance of newer tech) has made JPM a laggard before, and that he was lucky to be loyal dog at Bank One. There are far more brilliant bankers in the industry, for instance Kovacevich who actually changed the face of consumer finance (worse for the consumer eventually, but still changed the face of the industry) or the Blankfein-Solomon duo who brought tech from the backburner and made it one of the most elite teams in the world banking scene (cue Strats and Marcus). Dimon is just like Stumpf (pre-WF scandal) in that he was given one of the biggest banks to play with. I agree, it's not an easy task in itself, but it's certainly not a hard enough one to call him a "brilliant" banker for that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
See this massive list of countries where this has occurred: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_reforms_by_country This is not even to mention the prospect of “constructive” land reform, e.g. squeezing landowners (or certain disfavored types of landowners) with policy and then increasing property or income taxes to the point where they have no choice but to sell at a loss.
That doesn't answer my question: > In what area of the world do you live in that these scenarios are actually keeping you up at night? Canada is on that list. I live in Canada. This is not something anyone I know is losing sleep over. They may be buying gold for other reasons, but it is not for the possibility of losing their land. This HN thread is about Ray Dalio and bonds, and the sub-thread is about the S&P 500 v…
I'm not invested in gold, and I mostly agree with Buffett here. I just want to point out that the argument ain't watertight.
(I try to be especially critical of arguments that support positions I agree with. Have to be careful not to bullshit yourself too much.)
I mostly agree with the conclusions of the Dalio piece, too. But I don't agree with all the arguments.
My main takeaway was to get inspired to look into how to short US bonds.