626 karma · joined April 16, 2008
Furthermore, if the transfer is from one bank to another, the sender wants to hold onto the funds for as long as possible to earn more interest.
Lastly, most retail banks probably still run ancient code that is not as conducive to innovation.
No one may explicitly choose to trade with HFT firms, but that doesn't mean they don't value their presence
"Although Vanguard does not engage in "high frequency trading" and does not operate a "dark pool," we believe much of the public concern over "high frequency trading" is misplaced and believes such activity, appropriately examined, contributes to a more efficient market that benefits all investors."
Repackaging and selling things is foundational to creating value. The insurance industry is perhaps the quintessential example. They create no direct expected value, and yet they create societal benefit by creating risk-adjusted expected value.
What is manufacturing but repackaging?
I would call this a negotiation that they are winning. Just like startup founders win in their negotiation with employees for equity.
"People generally won't use your site unless it helps them in some way."
And people generally won't trade with you unless it helps them in some way. Again, how is this different?
How are internet startups any different?
Also, even the bankers and sales traders are providing a service that apparently people want. If you can judge them as not creating societal value, why can't I say that the Nth photo sharing website is not creating value?
They're NOT serving you recommendations of others' products. They're NOT serving you ads.
http://www.sigmar-gabriel.de/Nachrichten/details/20110313_at...
This gives his statement about Merkel's move just being politics more weight
My comment was not meant to start a conversation about the meaning of efficient markets, but to get wheaties to explain his reasoning.
They had decided to extend the life of the reactors just last year. No new risk inherent to their design has been exposed. No new tsunami or earthquake risk in Germany has been exposed.
I agree with the person quote in TFA (despite the fact that his statement may be a political play as well) :
"She just wants to get through the provincial assembly elections," said Social Democrat leader Sigmar Gabriel, accusing her of playing political tactics with people's fears.
Can you explain why this is time to start buying?
If you can explain why people are selling so much so fast right now, that might help your argument.
1) "Tembo Trunks don’t use batteries"
2) "Tembo Trunks amplify the music from your iPod’s earbuds to 80dB of clarity-enhanced Stereo Sound (3x the sound)"
Powerless sound amplification!
Additionally, "clarity-enhanced"? Fur realz? Lets hook N of these bad boys up in series and get N times the clarity!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Francisco_Fire_Department_A...
If they were used for drinking in the case of an emergency, I think you'd have to treat it a little bit unless they flush them regularly.
http://lean.mit.edu/about/lai-structure/faculty-researchers-...
Where does he get his expertise in nuclear reactors? According to the article, his father.
"He is a PhD Scientist, whose father has extensive experience in Germany’s nuclear industry"
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/328/5986/1712.abstract?sid...
I don't have access to the article itself, but I assume the writer didn't mangle the conclusions that badly. Can anyone with access help out here?
What's more important to me than how this might/should effect product design, is how it should effect our concept of free will.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-Ship_1
It looks like it takes advantage of the fact that conventional ship propulsion still needs fuel and HAS wind if under way (and not travelling such that its velocity relative to its surrounding airmass is zero).
The article suggests that combining standard ship propulsion with the Flettner rotors saves fuel : "The Flettner drive allows for projected fuel savings of 30-40% at a speed of 16 knots."
However, assume for a second we can take different vintage years and say that return(t-20 to t-0) = return(t-20 to t-15)*return(t-15 to t-0).
Then all the money was made from t-15 to t-10 since the t-10 vintage class has basically zero returns and the t-20 returns are approximately the t-15 returns annualized over 20 years instead of 15
B) We have data for vintage years, but not necessarily firms. I don't think its a terrible generalization to say that the last 10 or 15 vintage years represents VC firms now in business, else there are funds that have been open for 15 years and I believe they usually have a fixed lifetime of less than that.
C) Given points A and B, do you still believe they are drawing their conclusion (and poorly so) only from 10 year returns?
"The median net return to VC fund investors has not been positive for any vintage year since 1998."
I'm curious, did you read the article and miss all the talk about vintage years? Or did you only skim it? Or did you only read the comment? Or did I misinterpret your comment?
I can see the argument for patents in areas like biotech where there's a huge up front cost in development and testing. But if the cost is really all in testing, then I think patents should be removed.
Additionally, I think patents should be much shorter since I believe returns/earnings on monopoly power today can be much greater than it was back when the patent duration was established.
I would ask if there are moral implications of selling what you believe you can do (to employees/customers/investors) as if you actually can/have done it.
Also, someone doing it with their own money and doing it with someone else's money mean two different things.
This will probably seem like I'm throwing cold water on your founders, but that's not my direct intention. These are the issues that I think about when thinking about how to build a company.
To present it as steady state is misleading.
EDIT : as other people are pointing out, there seems to be lots of double counting (high insurance premium + full contribution to HSA) and assumptions about steady state costs (cars,clothing) that are either misleading or a lifestyle choice that the family is making.
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/print/2011/01/largest-cave...
The article you really want is the one linked to http://thenextweb.com/uk/2010/12/16/investment-fund-set-to-u...
I'm still pretty skeptical of this concept in general. That the fund doing this is a "family-owned investment boutique" sets off even more flags for me. I think this is just marketing for their asset management business.
It seems clear to me that the pricing mechanism is not readily understood by anyone, hence the ability for quantitative models to make money and yet still not be pure money printing machines (with the exception of HFT which does not claim to understand the general pricing mechanism, only short time span deviations from prior prices regardless of whether the prior prices are "wrong" or "right"). Further, the quantitative models I'm aware of price things on a relative basis : "given that we derive these general market parameters, things should be priced like f(x)", as opposed to "this company is worth X dollars". That fundamental analysts have jobs while still differing widely in their opinions suggests to me that the way to price things on an absolute basis is not well understood.
The underlying aggregation function may be simple, but we can't know that since its not transparent. My vote there goes towards not simple though.
Its most certainly democratic in some ways, though its unclear how votes are allocated. One per individual? One per trade? One per dollar? One per unit of influence?
I think the idea of crowdsourcing from a subset of the market could provide some edge, but think this is the wrong subset.
There are actually a few different analogies you can make between electrical/mechanical devices. See the top table "Key Concept: Analogous Quantities". This is part of the reason why I don't feel like thinking too hard about what the inventor means when he says the analogy "breaks down" with ungrounded capacitors. http://www.swarthmore.edu/NatSci/echeeve1/Ref/LPSA/Analogs/E...
The inventor has created a "new analogy" where the inerter is a capacitor. I read your post as saying the old analogies don't work. Is that correct?
When I learned systems modelling, we studied spring-mass-damper systems right next to electrical circuits and I have ever since thought of a capacitor as equivalent to potential energy, an inductor as equivalent to inertia and a resistor as equivalent to friction.