CapriciousCptl

Well, I'm not sure what you think you see or where you see it in that 45-page pdf. The S&P 1500 criteria are, for instance, on page 8 and refute what you're saying. On a quick glance I couldn't find the S&P 500 criteria in that, again, 45-page pdf without a page reference. Or you can look here[1] on page 2.

[1] https://www.spglobal.com/spdji/en/documents/additional-mater...

Nothing worth being upset about here; stocks aren't eligible for inclusion to the S&P500 until they have a trailing 4 quarters of profit.

In the US, it's legal to advertise drugs directly to patients. There's not a lot of places in the world where it happens, I'm assuming Scandinavia is one of them.

You can go to the meeting with BRK.B. Buffett prefers long-term holders, and the feeling was a higher share price makes things a little less liquid. With fractional share ownership it's kind of a wash now.

Even BRK.B would be 50x more its current price but it had to be split when they bought Burlington Northern with stock to accomodate BNSF shareholders.

The major difference is voting power. Economic interest is pro rata, but voting is much different (not that it matters in the current environment). That, and BRK issues direct tender offers to BRK.A holders.

This is terrible, not to mention the UK was already the setting of the archetypical example of "prosecutor's fallacy" and flawed statistics-- Meadow's Law.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meadow%27s_law

Since these chips presumably don’t need 5nm does this mean Intel can use its old lithography machines? That might otherwise be collecting dust or something?

Well this completely deprecates my personal react/tailwindui library starting on tax day. I guess that’s good!

Archegos was at 15% equity / gross positions and had stakes as large as 25% in their investees. Their positions were enormous, concentrated and not reported on a 13F because Archegos was a set up as a family office. All according to WSJ. What they were thinking, who knows, but I bet it involves lots of talk about beta, other greek letters and VaR.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/inside-archegoss-epic-meltdown-...

> From what I could gather he was pretty please with the outcome.

Yes! This is, quite literally, survivorship bias. If the dice rolled on "debilitating postoperative stroke," he would have been less pleased. Based on the NYT article, he actually preferred no operation. But it seems there was enough ambiguity that the decision fell on his wife.

Charlie Munger summarized capitalism in China at the Daily Journal annual meeting last month--

"A lot of people assume that since England led the industrial revolution and it always had free speech that free speech is required to have a booming economy as prescribed by Adam Smith. But the Chinese have proved you don't need free speech to have a wonderful economy. They just copied Adam Smith and left out the free speech and it worked fine for them."

around the 46 minute mark-- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pp4CvjNw-9Y

I think most people would equate "not meeting collateral requirements" to being undercapitalized.

My bet is the latter. GME exposed how undercapitalized they were given their customers’ leverage and existing investors probably aren’t interested in/can’t agree on terms for injecting more cash themselves.

Probably, you wouldn’t intentionally IPO immediately after a PR disaster unless you had too.

I really really hope the SEC makes them disclose all the gory details of their “payment for order flow” stuff. I mean, basically, smart people who write about it (Levine, patio11), say it’s harmless/helpful. But I don’t think it sits right with anyone. Certainly not with me .

These sorts of bonds used to be more common and in the US. The closest more common semi-equivalent thing today is perpetual preferred stock. Most of it is callable, meaning the issuer can pay it off after a designated period. As for what is used for— it’s cheap capital to run your business with.

Looking at the spreadsheet subsidies make up fully half of the revenues. I suspect those are adjusted as needed to zero out the metro budget, which explains why, after subsidies, the bottom line is “barely profitable.”

I'd love to sit on that board---

Chairman: WHAT THE #$%$ happened to our gross margins?

CEO: Let me tell you how we saved $600 on our new accounting platform...

And 104*C without overclocking! Sounds like they’re pushing the envelope.

Very cool. I'm curious--

1. How do you vet the lenders? Anything keeping them on a leash so they don't go too hard on past-due accounts?

2. Is the financing generally recourse to the owners?

3. Who's your biggest competitor?

I’ll add one: you don’t need much data to make important insights. I’m taking N < 100. Focus on starting with a good sample and building up a priori domain knowledge instead. Get the data when it’s time to build out complex models/ML IF that time ever comes.

> An issue I ran into with the amd64 version was that I did not realize that the terminal was also an amd64 process...

Wow! That’s a huge gotcha that for some reason I didn’t even consider when I was having package issues with numpy among others.

Here’s cupy’s postmortem— https://github.com/cupy/cupy/issues/4787

Salient points being that cupy releases a new named package for each cuda version, so future package names are of course predictable. Since PyPi doesn’t allow namespacing, cupy’s plan is to register new names ASAP when cuda releases a new version and monitor and report other packages purporting to be cupy that get uploaded.

It’s like the big brother who says, “nobody can tease my sister except me.” There’s less teasing— he’s the only one doing it.

But I’m with you, on balance wmds are terrible things. One use of them could outweigh all the violence they prevented.

At the very end they speculate it was a social engineering attack at their registrar that started last year and affected multiple domains. Oddly, the author says they weren’t ”the injured party” and therefore didn’t ask the registrar to verify that. I’m not stating the registrar because there’s no supporting evidence that they were at fault but the author gave it in the article.

In 2008 an app charging $1,000 that told people you were rich was censored. In 2021 we celebrate non-fungible tokens, 6-figure digital basketball cards and million dollar memes.

Well, no. From Warren himself: "I made the bet... (2) to publicize my conviction that my pick – a virtually cost-free investment in an unmanaged S&P 500 index fund – would, over time, deliver better results than those achieved by most investment professionals, however well-regarded and incentivized those “helpers” may be." [1] https://www.berkshirehathaway.com/letters/2017ltr.pdf.

And, regarding being skeptical of things like "hedging risks" and "complex portfolios," I don't know. I'm just not sure enough hedge funds really do a great job handling tail risks to not be skeptical of all of them as a group. And, surely sophisticated investors can target specific sectors and build arbitrarily complex portfolios (if they're into that sort of thing) with passive things like ETFs for much lower fees on their own.

The lesson Warren's making isn't that you can't beat the market. Of course, Warren himself is an example you can. It's also not a statement about any individual hedge fund, which may have "different goals only for sophisticated investors."* Instead, it's that on balance, by far most managers don't beat the S&P 500 on an after-fee basis.

And if you include taxes in those fees and the benefit of deferred tax liabilities it's even harder to beat an index fund.

* It's reasonable to be skeptical about any fund having a goal that's anything other then maximizing long-term returns.

Ironically Buffett started with exactly this over half a century ago-- setting a cumulative hurdle rate of 6%-- meaning he wouldn't take fees unless investors made at least 6%. He beat the Dow (S&P 500 wasn't really a thing during the Buffet Partnerships) every single year.

Only rebalancing by using new contributions would be preferred. My use case is re-creating the s and p 500 exclusive of some issues and with regular contributions for retirement.

How is this for tax efficiency? Is rebalancing a taxable event? Or can you rebalance without selling by just redirecting new contributions to the underrepresented issues? Over time a buy-and-hold strategy with etfs gives a large compounding bonus since taxes are deferred.

As someone who basically sticks everything possible into Postgres, this is interesting! Streaming tools don't automatically cache things you need? I guess it's about time they do! Postgres, for instance, has a robust LRU mechanism that deals with OLTP quite competently. OLAP too if your indices are thought-out.

Also, although built-in materialized views don't allow partial updates in Postgres, you can get a similar thing with normal tables and triggers. Hashrocket discussed that strategy here-- https://hashrocket.com/blog/posts/materialized-view-strategi... .

That’s interesting! I wonder how big a problem it really was. Vi kind of took the opposite approach I guess.