Jurgis

Yeah, ethics is a harsh mistress. (But then I repeat myself). Clearly there is no single ethics that people agree on. And even though I am no ethics expert, from what I've seen ethicists do not agree on single ethics theory. And ethics theories are possibly either too simplistic (pure utilitarianism) or too complicated to use in real life. On the other hand, I think there are three areas where this is worthwhile to consider: 1. You can try to figure out what you want to do in your life. Do you want to donate/volunteer/help and how much? https://www.thelifeyoucansave.org/ BTW, one of the arguments in ethics course by Peter Singer is that you might do most good going Buffett way - earning craptons of money and giving it to charity vs. just volunteering for free. So you can be investor and ethical too! 8) Another part of this is that you can think whether buying a fancy meal in restaurant is better than buying simpler one and donating X to people in extreme poverty. Or other scenarios that might come up as you are thinking about this. 2. As we are progressing towards future where people can wield weapons of mass destruction single handedly, is it possible to agree on at least some common morality and ethics? Can we get there? Or are we doomed to strife/terrorism/wars to extinction? How can we get there? Ideally we'd all be libertarian communists 8) loving each other and supporting each other because of the greatness of our hearts and minds. But is there a path to that? 3. AI. What kind of ethics systems can we impart on (super)human AI. Yeah, we can brush off this as "we'll do a variety of systems and it will work out", but that's even worse than human-based terrorism. If superhuman AI decides that Chinese are evil, it could just nuke them... ::) Anyway, interesting but very tough area. 8) Peace and love and all that :-*

BTW, it should be possible to apply similar techniques to merger outcome prediction and get better results in merger arbitrage. However, IMO the legal prediction has fatter returns if you can do it.

I think this could be a great side-way for investing returns: http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/05/artificial-intelligence-prevails-predicting-supreme-court-decisions Assuming the technology can be applied to more accurately predict patent litigation (techs/biotechs), or other financial litigation (Fannie, BK/post-BK cases), there should be a yuge opportunity for outsized returns, since I think most people invest in these areas by guesswork that has yuge biases. Instead you could have a more accurate probability of win and use more precise Kelly for investing. I won't work on this, since it's way outside my area of expertise, but someone who does could make $$$$$. You've heard it here first. 8)

Just got back... and Warren's quarreling with Charlie... what happened. 8) Edit: you guys don't have to answer ... it was rhetoric question. Maybe first time I saw them talking cross each other. 8) Tough topic. 8)

Snowball is great book. 8)

10% compounding incoming. 8) (might be understated as in the past)

Oh, no, KO controversy again. :-\ I stopped drinking sodas period. My quality of life only improved. So there Warren and Charlie. ;D 8)

sounds like plays on cannibals Yeah, that's a good observation Gamecock-YT

With IBM and airlines it looks like BRK is moving out of the moat-hold-forever investments into buy-somewhat-crappy-business-somewhat-cheap-sell-it-hopefully-a-bit-higher... ::)

IMO directors do very little in these kinds of situations. Canning current WFC directors might send a message that directors should look at it more. Not sure it would make much difference. IMO the management and company culture matters more. I don't really know if Buffett's belief in WFC is wellsubstantiated ;). We'll have to see how it goes from here.

Works on IE11. Was not working for me on Opera. Ha, that's interesting! I just also found that out. Works on IE 11, but not Chrome. GAAATTTTEESS! Thanks! Yeah, I was thinking that Opera and Chrome might have similar issues, since Opera is based on Chromium (Chrome open source codebase). There are differences between the two, so I was not confident enough to say that Chrome might have same behavior.

Works on IE11. Was not working for me on Opera.

It's likely not there yet in terms of long term predictions/investing. Most of these models now do short term predictions that may or may not work. I think they will get to long term predictions within 10 years or so. Although there's a lot of short-term/technical/price-based prediction mentality in financial AI/ML. Not many (any?) people are doing fundamentals-based longer term predictions.

Isn't it just tracking India market results and underperforming it too? Not sure if this works: http://www.marketwatch.com/investing/stock/iif/charts?symb=IIF&countrycode=US&time=8&startdata-ipsquote-timestamp=1%2F4%2F1999&enddata-ipsquote-timestamp=5%2F5%2F2017&freq=1&compidx=none&compind=none&comptemptext=FFXDF&comp=FFXDF&uf=7168&ma=1&maval=50&lf=1&lf2=4&lf3=0&type=2&size=2&style=1013 I compared to IIF since that's the fund I know from way past. There might be better India funds currently. Maybe not completely Fair ;) comparison since they had a bunch of cash in the beginning...

I've never understood why the trolley problem is a problem. If I know one group of people and not the other (regardless of group size) I flip the switch to save the group I know. If one group is more attractive than the other, I flip it to kill the uglier group. Otherwise why is it my problem? I leave it alone and yell, "Hey you, idiots, get off the tracks!". Because we are making the trolley problem decisions every day of our lives. The cat decision from another thread "spend 3K for your cat surgery or save X cats in a shelter instead" is close to pure example. However, you can even think about "spend Y on a restaurant/computer game/fancy dress or save Z people in Africa" ( https://www.thelifeyoucansave.org/ ) as a trolley problem. It's even more skewed in terms of overall value vs. your own convenience value, but we (unconsciously?) choose the first every day (or at least most of the time). Your answer is one choice: base the decision on tribal/familial/emotional attachments. Some people are OK with that, some people disagree. It may lead to very egoistical decisions if taken to extreme. On the other hand utilitarian answers to this have issues too. I don't think it's fake problem in larger context. So I am not completely trolling. (And I posted it on this thread as an example that triggers hot button reactions from people.) Bonus question: if we develop (super) human AI, what kind of ethics should it follow? What should it do in the trolley situations? Should it give you gourmet meals while people are starving in Africa? (Note that fully utilitarian ethics for AI would also have issues...) Edit: there is a side issue to trolley problem that some people cannot consciously kill people even if it means saving others. I find that part less interesting to me.

So how about that https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem Just trolling... 8)

Thank you. 8) To answer the other poster, I don't know the number and I don't know individually the cats I saved. If you need the info, you'll have to call the organizations I donate to.

No. Just no. Paying $40 per month is not a win for pet owner. Sorry. Maybe it is for people who throw money at pets as if they are family members, but it's not for a regular person. Sorry, if kitty gets cancer, it's not getting $5K procedure and it's not getting pet insurance. It is going to eternal hunting grounds where mice run slowly and bowl is always full of organic kibble. Not to say that he and FFH won't make tons of money on pet insurance. Cause there's tons of people who think that Fido is a family member and all that. It's a personal choice. There's no right or wrong answer, it's subjective. If you love your pet, insuring against it potentially dying because you don't have thousands on hand might make all the sense in the world and be a small price indeed compared to the alternative. Doesn't matter if you wouldn't do it if many others would, just like it doesn't matter if I wouldn't spend money on a luxury car or a fancy business suit if many others will. Maybe you love an artist and will spend hundreds to see them live but I think they're worthless and wouldn't pay a dime. We're both correct from our perspective. And I write this as a non-pet owner who can still see how many people feel deep attachment to their pets and want to take good care of their health. I literally spent like $3k getting rid of my cat's cancer a few months ago, and did it without a second thought. Animals mean a lot to me; they have always been there through feast and famine, and I will do what is in my power to make sure they have the treatment they need to live a happy life. He was growing cysts and some of them were cancerous and had to be removed. That 3K could have saved more than 10 cats who instead were killed because shelters don't have space. Yeah, attachments matter. And ethics is a harsh mistress ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem ) Meow.

His thoughts about recency bias are worth listening to. QFT.

I'm not sure it's so black and white. However, what I discovered while looking for other people to manage my money: it is very hard to accept others' investment choices that contradict your own worldview when you are yourself an investor. E.g. you think that SHLD is a donut; how can you give money to someone who invests into SHLD? Maybe this is extreme example, but there are similar issues. On the other hand if someone makes the same investment choices as you do, then what's the point paying them fees to do what you can do yourself? ;) I guess it is possible to find someone to trust implicitly without analyzing their positions and processes (or maybe they don't tell you their positions and processes... then you trust even more implicitly ... haha ;) ). It is quite hard though. BTW, it is easier to trust/not-get-flustered when someone invests outside your area of competence. I guess that goes back to trusting implicitly. 8)

No. Just no. Paying $40 per month is not a win for pet owner. Sorry. Maybe it is for people who throw money at pets as if they are family members, but it's not for a regular person. Sorry, if kitty gets cancer, it's not getting $5K procedure and it's not getting pet insurance. It is going to eternal hunting grounds where mice run slowly and bowl is always full of organic kibble. Not to say that he and FFH won't make tons of money on pet insurance. Cause there's tons of people who think that Fido is a family member and all that.

Why not? If I had $$$B, I'd consider donating to university. Might not be the best place to donate money to (I'd probably talk to Bill and Melinda instead), but not the worst either. There's a lot of progress in our lives that came from university research.

If only I saw this 5 years or so ago... :'(

Look how small FCF is ;D ;D ;D (Compare http://www.rocketfinancial.com/Charts.aspx?fID=4614&t=9 http://www.rocketfinancial.com/Charts.aspx?fID=2860&t=9 )

They continue to promise 15% per year returns. ::) 8)