"Well, I started at--I'll give you a little background. I started at the bank at 23. I dropped out of graduate school because I wanted to get a PhD in economics--it took me about a semester and a half to figure that wasn't going to work. And I got a job in construction. And then the only job I could get was at Pittsburgh National. And I started in the training program. In a bank, you're a teller, you go through the credit department, and everybody wants to go to the credit department. And I thought I was pretty smart. There were 12 of us. I had a pretty high opinion of myself, and I went in after we went through the training program, and the guy at credit said, You couldn't sell snowmobiles in Alaska if there was no other transportation vehicle there. So we have no use for you anywhere in the bank. But there's a guy up on the 30th floor whose personality is worse than yours, who runs the trust department. He's a great investor--you should call him up and see if he'll hire you. So I called the guy up and he said, Where'd you go to school? And I said, I met University of Michigan. And before I get out--he said, I went to Michigan. You're hired. So I went up there, and I started as an analyst in the banking industry and the chemical industry. And I was doing that about year and a half, I think I was 25--this guy was really quirky, okay? And he got in a fight with the top management of the bank, and--no, that was later, I'm sorry. So there were about eight guys in research, and I'd been there about a year and a half, and he promoted me to be Director of Research, which is a little crazy, because everybody else had an MBA, they had more experience. And I'd like to say it was something to do with me, but I think it was just this guy wanted to show them how powerful he was, that he could make them all report to this 25 year old. So they all hated me, and it was sort of working out, because this guy protected me, and then he got in a fight with the guy up above him. So he's gone to Eastern Airlines, and I'm there at, I guess, 26 now. And there's the charitable guy, there's the pension guy, and there's the individual guy, and then there's me, Director of Research, all vying for power. And this guy that ran the thing was a lawyer, and he didn't understand anything about investments, but he'd sit on the investment decisions. They hadn't made a decision about who was going to be Director of Investments. So the Shah of Iran had just been overthrown. I was 26. Had more courage than brains. Didn't know about diversification. I said, Well, this is pretty easy. Let's put 70% of our money in oil stocks, and let's put 30% in defense. These guys all said, Well, that's nuts. You got to do diversification. Blah, blah, blah. I said, No, that's what we should do. And so the lawyer's listening to this, and he doesn't know anything. And so my stock selection list went up 300% in two years; the S&P was flat. Bonds went down the tubes, which I hated. Now, if you asked me that question anytime in the next 10 years after I was more experienced, I probably wouldn't have given that answer. But that's how I became Director of Research. And this guy that mentored me, even though he was quirky, he was an investment genius. And he was very trading oriented, and actually very chart oriented, which was good for me, because when you get promoted at the age of 26, you never really learned fundamental analysis--and charts are kind of quicker and easier if you want to see what's going on. So, actually, Jeff, I learned from this guy, because he knew about things like, if all the news is great and the stocks not acting well, get out--which is a pretty simple thing that for some reason, most analysts don't know. He taught me more what makes stocks go up and down than analysis itself, which is--it's 90% of the function, but I'd say about 10% of the people, it's what they focus on."
He vuelto iluminado de las vacaciones: si hablamos en términos topográficos, la felicidad igual no consiste en encontrar un altiplano donde uno se queda por fin realizado. Probablemente eso ni exista. Igual se trata más bien de ir encontrando nuevas laderas que te apetezca escalar
Me sorprende como la gran mayoria cree que el consumo domestico chino sigue creciendo. Cualquier inversor que habla con las compañias, ya sea europeas, americanas o asiaticas, llevan todas 2 años en el que sus ventas caen un 20% al año. Da igual hables con cualquier multinacional de autos, de alcohol, de consumo discrecional, de maquinaria... es todo un autentico drama.
El problema que hay es que la gente se traga los datos estadisticos chinos sin mirar que esta pasando realmente o hablar con las compañias que estan ahi.
1/
Nunca dejéis de tirar ofertas aunque tengáis trabajo.
Yo, aún habiendo conseguido uno tengo 5 entrevistas esta semana de distintos países. Nunca se sabe dónde te pueden mejorar.
Esto no es una hustleada eh, es real.
De donde salen el Sharpe y la volatilidad como medida de riesgo, y por que no importan
Esto es algo a lo que le he dado muchas vueltas, tanto solo como con compañeros de trabajo, y al final siempre llego a la misma conclusion: el sharpe como inversor a largo plazo te la pela. Es asi de simple.
Antes que nada, concuerdo bastante con los puntos del hilo de abajo (de hecho la principal razon por la que no hay que mezclar a un HF contigo mismo como inversor particular es que no quereis el mismo producto!) y hay un salto bastante grande entre el gambler que esta arriba un 120% y esta apalancado all-in en un par de stocks sin ningun tipo de diversificacion ni risk management, y el tio que hace las cosas con un poco mas de cabeza. La primera regla en los mercados es no petar (don't be Leopold). Y por cierto, esa es la unica definicion de riesgo que importa, porque al final el riesgo en realidad no es otra cosa que la perdida permanente del capital. Que suba la accion y baje te la pela, y no es mas arriesgada una accion por que tenga mas volatilidad que otra, ni un portfolio que tenga mas vol que otro.
Como entiendo que todo el mundo sabe que es el sharpe y la volatilidad, vamos a la chicha.
1/
"claude fable just proved the jacobian conjecture is false"
"incredible this changes everything"
"do you know what the jacobian conjecture is?"
"no, do you?"
"no"
El problema no es ese Daniel, el problema de la corrupción no es el dinero que se roba, eso es lo de menos.
El problema de la corrupción es que no se asignan los contratos a las empresas más capacitadas, sino a las que hacen trampas. Y si hacen trampas en el proceso de contratación, qué no harán en la ejecución.
El problema de la corrupción es que los responsables políticos, como el ministro que ahora se encuentra en la cárcel, en vez de tener el 100% de la atención en su trabajo, que es de extrema importancia, la tienen en otra parte.
El problema de la corrupción es que mina la confianza en las instituciones y en el estado, incentiva al resto a saltarse las normas lo que empieza una espiral de degradación donde si no pasas por el aro, si actúas con integridad, simplemente dejas de existir, lo que causa que al final todo se vaya a la mierda.
Ese es el problema de la corrupción.
¿Sabías que hay el doble de futbolistas nacidos en enero que en diciembre? No es "un efecto curioso". Son el DOBLE. Mirad el gráfico.
Y no es casualidad: si naces en enero tienes más opciones de ser profesional.
¿Por qué? 👇
My friend’s Dad has a part time job.
He’s had it for 30 years.
He does nothing but go to the warehouse of a major distributor, and when the semi drivers arrive, he jumps into the truck and backs them into the loading docks.
He does it perfectly, every time, first time, no matter how tight the fit.
The company says his job saves them an insane amount of money in damages and delays every year, they can’t duplicate what he does at other sites, and they don’t want him to quit…
because no one else can do it.
This is peak masculinity.