Funny to see this after all these years. I read this paper just before starting college in 2003 and it inspired me to spend most of the summer writing a rudimentary Lisp interpreter in rudimentary C++. That was my first piece of my code that actually worked, and was more than a dozen or so lines. Good memories.
Does anyone know what the apparently pocket-sized notebook computer is? The one in the picture about halfway through the post, with the watches draped over it.
It delivers what it promises -- an unbelievably small Windows PC -- but there are four annoying things about it.
First, the fan runs when it's charging. Every other device on Earth can charge silently when turned off.
Second, the keyboard is not just small but also oddly arranged. Maybe some people can adjust to it, but for me, dear lord do I despise the letter Q when I'm using it.
Third, there's something odd in the I/O that makes USB drives incredibly slow. The first thing I did was make a Windows 10 recovery drive on it (because I wanted to wipe it and run Linux). I kid you not, the operation took about 24 straight hours to complete. I haven't bothered profiling the system so I don't know where the bottleneck is. But it was a USB3 name-brand USB drive that I know is fast.
Fourth, they claim Ubuntu runs on it, but they took the typical Shenzhen approach of putting a modified binary on Mega -- in this case an Ubuntu ISO -- rather than upstreaming their changes or publishing source code. No way in hell am I installing a binary download like that as my OS. Maybe they are in the process of upstreaming and a future pristine Ubuntu distro will run on it. Meanwhile I'm stuck with Windows 10 (and no, I'm not happy with that, either -- I have no way of knowing it's not rooted, either).
> Fourth, they claim Ubuntu runs on it, but they took the typical Shenzhen approach of putting a modified binary on Mega -- in this case an Ubuntu ISO -- rather than upstreaming their changes or publishing source code.
Well, that makes this a no-go for me. Thanks for the info, seriously!
> No way in hell am I installing a binary download like that as my OS
Um, if you run windows 10 and install drivers from them, then you're running binary crap. (not to mention windows 10 is binary crap, but I digress)
Its a mighty fine device, my favourite Linux machine ever .. and all of the issues discussed are no longer an issue thanks to the GPD Pocket/Ubuntu community.
Thanks, I'll give it a look. Last time I looked at the subreddit, there were various people working on Ubuntu respins, but none of the projects looked like a frontrunner yet for a low-maintenance build.
Cool, thanks. I got the impression when I was first looking for distros that this project did create an initial ISO from source, but after that you couldn't apt upgrade without things getting weird. Maybe I am misremembering or maybe it's improved since then.
If the Efficient Markets Hypothesis (in its stronger forms) is false, there should be managers who are able to identify the cheapest stocks within the S&P 500 and thereby outperform the index. A disbeliever in EMH should look to identify these managers and pay them some fee, rather than simply investing in the index and trying to minimize fees.
I think it's plausible that these managers exist, but they're impossible to identify ex ante. Furthermore, a smart manager will charge fees that are equal to the alpha they generate. So even if the EMH is false in some broad sense, individual investors should act as if it were true and simply invest in low-cost diversified funds.
You say "A disbeliever in EMH should look to identify these managers and pay them some fee".
In the next breath you say that even if the EMH is false "individuals investors should act as if it were true".
This makes your post somewhat ambiguous; not so clear about which position you're advocating. How "plausible" is it that these managers are "impossible to identify ex ante."? Why is it plausible? "Impossible" seems like a pretty strict standard (akin to strong EMH), why not just say instead that identifying such managers before they outperform is "practically impossible" or just "really, really, damn hard and something that you're deluding yourself about if you think you can do it."
Also (assuming it is your position), it's important to clarify that you don't disagree with the assertion that many people do identify market-beating managers before they outperform. Probably millions of people have done it; it happens every day. What they don't do (in my opinion) is use skill or knowledge to identify the outperforming managers. If they do identify an outperforming manager (of which there are always many) it happens because of chance or luck. (Just as, IMO, the outperformance itself of almost all outperforming managers is due to luck or chance, not skill.)
Here's perhaps a better way to say what I'm getting at: identifying and investing with a manager that predictably outperforms a benchmark is just as difficult an intellectual challenge as constructing a portfolio that outperforms that same benchmark. Both of these tasks are so difficult as to be essentially impossible for an unsophisticated retail investor.
I'll throw you a better analogy, identifying and hiring an outperforming programmer should be much simpler than identifying and hiring outperforming investment managers because there is relatively little effect of chance on programming output and measurement of success is mostly objective.
Yet we know that hiring for programmers is utterly hopelessly broken beyond all belief, industry wide.
Therefore its very unlikely that people of a similar cognitive and training level that utterly failed at hiring programmers could possibly select outperforming investment managers given that being an even more difficult job. No one in HR or management is going to be selecting outperforming investment managers.
Its possible that someone outside HR and management is better at selecting the best programmers. Certainly plenty of advice from outsiders is given to hire more of coincidentally highly politically correct demographic group A or group B. Or perhaps ivy college admissions officers magically know how to pick future great programmers (LOL). Professors and college advisors might put forth a weak argument in their own favor. Still, money seems to talk and greed means management and HR, however awful they are at selecting programmers, none the less are the best skilled at it, regardless how low that skill level is.
Is it really worth saying that Lotto winners "Identified the correct lottery numbers"? It's true, I guess. But it doesn't really have any value, if that's all you mean.
(And yes, I understand that you agree with the conclusion there. But I'm saying what's the point of the verbal gymnastics in the first place?)
> I think it's plausible that these managers exist, but they're impossible to identify ex ante. Furthermore, a smart manager will charge fees that are equal to the alpha they generate.
I think this is the kernel of what Bogle was saying and Vanguard is now reaping the benefits of.
Old system: active traders beat the market, therefore they charge fees slightly less than the alpha they're supposed to generate
New system: customers are more aware that their active trader(s) may not be the winners, so the acceptable fee to pay the traders decreases to the product of the alpha AND the risk of not picking the right traders
> I think it's plausible that these managers exist, but they're impossible to identify ex ante. Furthermore, a smart manager will charge fees that are equal to the alpha they generate.
Why would they? Unless they're so rare that there are only a few of them, one would expect the market to encourage "fair" pricing of active management--yet a key dogma of passive investing is that the market is generally efficient, but the market for actively managed mutual funds isn't!
It seems more plausible to me that (handwavy):
1. People can, in fact, beat the market, with lots of effort (e.g. very large college endowment funds, which outperform smaller ones, presumably by spending more on management and research)
2. The barriers to entry are typically high (because most investors won't trust their money with someone with an unproven track record)
3. Those high barriers to entry both allow the few established genuinely successful fund managers to charge higher fees than otherwise (to your point, eating up the alpha they generate) and ensure that "managing a fund" requires good sales skills and not just good management skills (see, lots of hedge funds)
Or, in short, lots of markets are inefficient--both the stock market and the market for managed funds. But because the stock market is much bigger than the fund market, it's probably _less_ efficient. Or so we hope.
> If the Efficient Markets Hypothesis (in its stronger forms) is false, there should be managers who are able to identify the cheapest stocks
This isn't how causation works.
> A disbeliever in EMH should look to identify these managers and pay them some fee, rather than simply investing in the index and trying to minimize fees.
It is as much work to identify good fund managers as it is to identify good company managers. You might as well save some money if you go this route and invest in a portfolio of companies directly.
> Furthermore, a smart manager will charge fees that are equal to the alpha they generate.
Warren Buffett seems quite smart, I mean he made it to rank #1 on the world's rich list and I think he's one of the few on the top #100 that did it by investing in other companies rather than just building his own. Judging from his 40 year performance data he's generated rather more alpha than any other manager. He charges fees that are very close to 0.00001% for being a partner with him.
Logically even if the EMH is false that doesn't necessarily imply the existence of investment managers who can reliably identify mispriced securities. It's entirely possible that the EMH is false and yet no one is able to take advantage of that. But your recommendation makes sense either way.
Right, those anomalies could simply exist unexploited until the market is better understood. For example, you used to be able to earn money buy buying the 501st largest company in the US: if it happened to become the 500th largest, all the S&P 500 index funds would be forced to buy its stock, and it would outperform the other stocks that had already been in the index. Similarly, the 500th largest stock would be a good sale candidate: if it becomes the 501st largest company, the index funds will become forced sellers. Now this effect is very well known, and there's no more money to be made by exploiting it.
Are you running vim within tmux? Which terminal emulator are you using? Were you able to get full color support? I tried doing this a few months ago but was never able to get Vim set up to my satisfaction.
HP still makes RPN financial calculators. I recently switched to using an HP 12C at work, after holding out for a long time. It's amazing how quick it is once you get used to RPN, and I love the solid feel of the hardware. You can pick one up for around $50.
Very common, to the point of being nearly universal except in relatively recent construction. Many (perhaps most) NYC apartments don't have thermostats. Don't like the heat the landlord has chosen? Open the window or buy a space heater. Want to be cool in the summer? Buy a window air conditioner.
Any idea how that system got common? NYC used to have mainly heat based on steam radiators, which are perfectly easy to control per unit by just adjusting the radiator valve. Since the 1930s, there are even "automatic valves" that raise/lower the radiator inflow automatically to maintain a set temperature, like a thermostat (this is the invention that Danfoss was built on). That's exactly the system I had when I lived in Copenhagen, and it worked pretty well. But it seems to have been largely replaced in NYC with forced-air heating that has no individual controls? So yes, to "adjust the thermostat" downwards, people literally open their windows in January, blowing heat into the outdoors.
NYC landlords are a unique species of scum. If it's doesn't cost them anything, it's good.
There's a lot of history that got us here. One of the outcomes/legacies of this stuff is rent regulation, and the standards of operation there extend into unregulated apartments as well.
Fixing the steam heating valves will decrease their energy costs as tenants reduce the heat they demand, since they all seemed to be overheated. I wonder why they don't do it.
Because the tenant pays the bill, not the landlord so the landlord has no incentive to fix.
With a proper working housing market the landlord might have an incentive to fix (because people just won't rent from your wrecked place if they can get a better place for the same money) - but given the housing shortage in cities like NYC, even a run down shack is better than sleeping in the park.
There are two things. One, many of the steam units have a knob which doesn't actually work (landlords seal/paint it to the point that you cannot move it.) One of the apartments I grew up in in Brooklyn had one of these "units", and according to my grandmother, the knob hadn't worked in many decades (she started living in that apartment in ~1930.) How this came to be is definitely a mystery.
Two, some steam apartments don't have a unit at all, just a pipe from floor to ceiling. Older tenements feature these (the one I'm living in now has one, for example.) If you want to adjust the temperature with this, your only choices are A/C or the window. These apartments were just built this way, and this was likely the cheapest/only tech available at the time.
To agree with chmullig, NYC apartments I've seen are almost all steam heated, but I don't think I've ever heard of a working valve. Most people I know adjust temperature in the winter by opening windows (apartments are largely overheated, for some reason).
The reason we heat with full-apartment systems and cool individually is that landlords are required to pay for heating (and hot water) but don't want to pay for cooling.
