james22

Low T.

Corrected for you.

And can't work when it is.

Most retirement research assumes that retirees spending from a portfolio will seek to maintain a "real" inflation-adjusted standard of living throughout their retirement, just as they implicitly would have if their portfolio had been paid out as a steady pension with an annual cost-of-living adjustment. However, despite the simplicity of this assumption, retirement research has increasingly shown that retirees actually experience a decline in real spending through their retirement, as the early "go-go" years transition to less active "slow-go" years and then finally wind down in a series of "no-go" years with little discretionary spending. https://www.kitces.com/blog/estimating-changes-in-retirement-expenditures-and-the-retirement-spending-smile/

Florida Man and Bad Monkey

Real world example? How many portfolios are all equity in retirement? And how is ending even with only $400k after withdrawing $40k/year for 25 years in any way a failure? The 4% SWR assumes a 30 year retirement. You should even be able to double your withdrawals to ~$80k your final 5 years. The 4% SWR is based on the historically worst-case scenario. Assuming you have an average sequence of returns, you should end up with something like $2.8M after 30 years. Though again, in the real world retirees adjust their spending as they go. No better discussion of SWR than: https://earlyretirementnow.com/safe-withdrawal-rate-series/

Nah, the very point of the 4% SWR is that it has survived starting points of high valuation.

I like to imagine SBF coming across this in his prison's library.

Increased my MSTR position by 60% when pulled back.

Sam Bankman-Fried, a personal verdict His crime was of a piece with his character. The character wasn’t the character of a thief. It was the character of a person numb to risk. Unable to feel risk himself, he can’t really imagine other people feeling much at all about the risk he has subjected them to. It’s this absence in him that leads him, when cast in a certain light, to seem vulnerable. Easy to kidnap, easy to steal from. It’s this absence that, cast in a different light, makes him seem like a danger to society. I could be wrong: Mine is just one more theory of a case complicated enough to support many theories. And even if I’m right, it’s no excuse. In the end, some coins should never be flipped. https://archive.is/Lj2bI#selection-413.144-413.157

Time for techno-optimism: My long read Q&A with venture capitalist Marc Andreessen https://fasterplease.substack.com/p/time-for-techno-optimism-my-long

See Florida Man (Netflix) for how it should have been played.

Ha. Me too. I actually liked Colin Farrell (per Mann, he was Don Johnson's choice). Yeah, wholly unconvincing. Foxx (and his hairline) didn't work for me: https://getyarn.io/yarn-clip/345d8b15-1ace-4af1-a42e-7e0cb70c8942 Yeesh. This wasn't Bad Boys. Maybe, but not a difference maker. Sure, but there's something fun about spending years thinking about it.

In a world with fingers of instability that may be connected in ways we have not seen in the past, caution is the order of the day. https://www.mauldineconomics.com/frontlinethoughts/fingers-of-instability-mwo040706

Normal Accident Theory suggests investment dangers might be unavoidable?

And the flip side (the Region Alpha Paradox?):

Fantastic.

Maybe for custody, but who knows? Zero transparency.

Exactly.