Jurgis

Put it all on red SPY same month calls. YOLO! 8) Seriously, IRL I'd probably do nothing. Even with special situations, there is no guarantee they'd work out in a month and they likely won't be big enough to put in $1B.

In Soviet Russia red notices you!

Great value investment though. You can buy the whole company for only ... $15M!

https://qz.com/1308730/modern-pandas-should-have-died-out-years-ago/

https://www.wired.com/story/tezos-blockchain-love-story-horror-story/

https://medium.com/swlh/definitive-list-of-50-books-to-understand-everything-in-the-universe-6d04f1a08533 Pretentious title, but the list has some (a lot of?) books mentioned here, so perhaps others might be interesting too... 8)

This is a witch hunt. Weak journalists with fake news trying to stop strong businesswoman from making America great again. Jeff Bezos did it to not pay taxes. The blood test was really great. And used on the biggest crowd. She should be immediately pardoned.

I think you guys are overconfident. BRK has fallen 50% top to bottom 2 or 3 times in its history. It can happen again. And if Warren was dead, there's no guarantee it would recover from 50% drop. ::) 0.6x (+/-) book would be AWESOME! I'd probably mortgage my home 4 that. You clearly forget that when stocks owned by BRK fall, book also falls.

Although I agree that WW2 was a war with really clear moral purpose, there were a bunch of past wars that were purposeless too. WW1, for example, seems to have been pretty pointless... although some people might disagree. With WW2 it's interesting how well the defeated nations picked themselves up. Germany, Japan, even Italy. I still think it's amazing that coming out of WW2 a lot of former enemies became mostly friends (minus Soviet camp) and were integrated into global community.

I think you guys are overconfident. BRK has fallen 50% top to bottom 2 or 3 times in its history. It can happen again. And if Warren was dead, there's no guarantee it would recover from 50% drop. ::)

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/jun/13/meet-erik-finman-the-teenage-bitcoin-millionaire

You mean Masa Son? Yeah, some of his investments are head scratchers. Then, Vision Fund is not (just) his (Softbank's) money. Then, Vision Fund structure is pretty funky and Softbank could be bag holder. Then, some of his exits are pretty great.

AFAIK, Scandinavian banks in Lithuania pretty much mint money. There's almost no competition and they can gouge customers as much as they want. But then Lithuania is a small market - and that's the reason there's no competition - so maybe it doesn't move the needle much.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/13/magazine/veterans-ptsd-drone-warrior-wounds.html

OT? Seems like a theme. If Ukraine had held onto their (Soviet Union's really) nukes instead of giving them up, they'd still have Crimea. Or we'd have a nuclear wasteland in the middle of Europe. Don't give up nukes. Ever. © Kim Jong Un.

I think you are right that the competition in this is growing exponentially (lol, I just love when someone says "exponentially" especially in bull case writeup ;D I need to do this exponentially more often ;D ). And that's definitely an issue, because backtesting will mostly test on data where there were way fewer competitors affecting the market. So you may get good historical results, but the future performance will be crap. Of course what really matters is if the real-money algos are saturating and killing the prediction edge or not. This is tough to measure. I'm sure the hardcore funds have some kind of metrics of noticing when algo gets "exhausted" to shut it off or whatever. But this is where basic theory is not sufficient I'd say. Anyway, thanks for input.

I find comments like this quite funny. Yes, go ahead and do it. It's easy to write a forum post saying "oh this is an old idea with no moat". It's not that easy to actually get it done and raise these $35B. So if you believe you can do it, go ahead. You'll get the $35B and we'll cheer your success. 8)

No. First, you can't - or you shouldn't - cross validate in conventional sense, since you should not apply algo trained on the future data to the past data. At least these guys don't do it and IMO that's a correct approach. I guess you can do limited cross validation with that restriction, but it limits your data amount possibly a lot, which means worse training and worse results I'd guess (see below too). They do something clever, but they don't explain it well, so it may be "really smart" or "really not helpful" . Well, first I assume you already split data into training/dev/test set, yes? So you should not overfit, otherwise you won't get good results on test data. Second, why you assume that you train/test on only rising markets? There's data for more than that... you can test on data that includes 2007-2009 crash, no? :) Though I agree that there are issues: 1. Depending on what you are training/etc. there might be not-much data. E.g. if you train on daily prices, and you have 10 years of data, that's ~3.5K data points, which is quite low when you think about NN training sets. 2. Even if you include times with crashes, there might be only 1-2 big crashes per training/test data, which is also quite sparse in terms of data... so yeah, there's a risk that a "different" downturn/crash/whatever may not be handled (well). I don't think this is the case, but as I said, I have other reservations. No, I don't have slack. 8) But if you guys want to move further discussion to a limited group, we can organize something. 8)

Buffett in red jacket... that's a first... 8)

Didn't https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Meriwether crash 3 times and reraised money every time afterwards?

Thanks. Done.

I agree with Viking. Mostly. 8) Though it's not about loyalty. It's about laziness. 8) Checking account - 18 years at Big US bank. Very unlikely to move. Like Viking said, moving would be a hassle. Resetup e-payments, etc. No thank you. I use the branch, but have no personal relationships there. Savings account - don't have one Line of credit - don't have one Credit card - some cards are long time, some over 20 years, but really no loyalty. It's all about who has best cash-back bonuses. Have Fido Visa (most used maybe 2% back on everything), Bank of America (3%/2% some cats), Chase Freedom (used for 5% back categories), Discover (5% back cats), Chase Amazon (5% on Amazon), Capital One (international no fees), Amex (used occasionally), some others used infrequently. Churn sign-up bonuses when not lazy. Nowadays has to be over $XXX or more for me not to be lazy. Mortgage - I have a mortgage broker I always use since I like him. He sells the mortgage immediately to random bank, then it gets resold. Over 10 banks over years over multiple refis. No loyalty to mortgage servicers, no consistency. Investment adviser - no adviser. Use Fido. Have small accounts at couple other places for various reasons. Very unlikely to leave Fido. Very sticky.

Looks like the name of the thread was not great. Can't find it using search function. :( Should have named AI - Artificial Intelligence. ::) I don't think I can rename right now. Anyway, today I've read pretty impressive paper on predicting index X using deep neural nets using 20XX-20XX dataset. Great results. Not sure if this is one of these situations where back testing works and currently the approach stopped working or not. I would have thought that their approach should not have worked on historical data either, since this seems should have been exploited already. They do have training set and test set and some additional checks, so unless they did something "bad", the results seem to be real. Edit: After some thinking, I have some questions/ideas/reservations/inquisitions to test if this really works or not. If anyone is familiar with DNNs and want to run some experiments, shoot me a message and we can play around. Results could be contribution to science or monetary (if you get a model that works, you can just use it to invest ;D - most likely you won't ). I might do it myself, but I need time and motivation... yeah, yuge pile of money is not motivation enough. :P ::) 8) ;D I'll point to the paper when it becomes publicly available. 8)

In IBKR SMAs client is paying the commissions for trades done by advisor. In Merrill Lynch, I don't know.

https://www.economist.com/international/2018/06/02/can-effective-altruism-maximise-the-bang-for-each-charitable-buck