Right, at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19749130. That's the same study, so I think this submission counts as a dupe. It's a pity that we didn't correct the title on that one at the time.
Yeah I’m not sure they are really comparable. Most foreign governments buying T-notes are not fully hedging their currency exposure. As the Bloomberg article demonstrates, doing so heavily eats into your returns. You are paying an expensive premium, it would probably just be a better idea to buy USD denominated T-notes and deal with the currency exposure down the line.
In an email to Barron’s the head of the SIPC cast doubt on
the idea that it would insure checking or savings accounts.
“SIPC protects cash that is deposited with a brokerage firm
for one limited purpose...the purpose of purchasing
securities,” wrote Stephen P. Harbeck, the president and CEO
of SIPC. “Cash deposited for other reasons would not be
protected.”
Saving $5000 per year for 75 years compounded annually at 6.2% would net you a little over $8M. An unremarkable return on an unremarkable savings rate.
My program adds 5000 nominal dollars to a savings account every 'year' and then applies a 6.2% interest rate once a 'year'.
Where is the '2018 dollars'? The account takes the same nominal deposit at year 0 as at year 76.
Where is the adjustment for inflation in the interest rate? The account adds 6.2% every year regardless of that years inflation.
EDIT: The program obviously cannot account for inflation since it has no notion of inflation. If the secretary were depositing 5000 '2018 dollars' in 1947, then the nominal deposit would have to be something like $500. Inflation is usually positive, so money in the past is worth more.
6.2% would be inflation adjusted returns. Actual inflation adjusted returns were 7.4%. So investing the equivalent of $5k each year from then until now (so starting at $350 or whatever) would yield >$8.2M.
You are neglecting inflation. There was no way this secretary was saving $5000 a year 75 years ago - her yearly salary was mostly likely around that amount.
I think it's more the fact that they were a two income family and never had kids. Their apartment was probably paid off and they were one of those couples that was perfectly happy not taking expensive vacations or buying expensive things. Combine that with smart investing and you an amass quite a fortune over a lifetime.
Of course then you are 95 and realize that without descendants about the only thing you can do with the money is give it to a charity and hope they don't squander it.
Actually M&A lawyers know the law, and have a lot more to lose than the average person. So insider trading amongst them is quite rare. Ask around at work and see what your GC thinks about your hypothesis.
Quick script, to show some example numbers on how this could happen (assumes she worked for 75 years, that her salary kept up with annual rate of inflation and she always invested 10%, and a very high annual rate of return of 10%) [1].
Warren Buffet says 6-7%, and by rules of compound interest, that 3-4% difference is a lot over 75 years, so I'd say "high." I'd guess a really good, modern, algorithm from the past couple years could average, maybe, 15%? I actually have no idea.
There’s no need to quote authority; this is public data. The annualized return on the S&P 500 over the last 75 years (Mar 1943 - Mar 2018) was 11.35%. Adjusted for inflation, 7.45%.
My personal overall rate of return is 13% over the last 20 years, without any algorithmic bullshit. Just 80% in a basket of dollar cost averaged mutual funds and 20% in cash strategically invested when opportunity arises.
Iirc, last year was around 14% in the mutual funds, with the “fun money” mostly cash.
I'm a fan too. I think we'd see fewer people take Uber/Lyft's for short drives (less than 2 miles), but commute traffic will stay the same due to "induced demand." Any reduction in the number of cars on the road will be met by more people willing to do a "super commute" from outside the city. Right now the traffic into cities is dependent on the jobs (and their pay) available downtown, and people's willingness to commute from afar. If the number of jobs increase, or highway capacity increases (along with added housing in the suburbs), more people will take to the roads and the roads will still be clogged. Only if a lot of mass transit is added to distant suburbs and no growth in suburban housing would the amount of traffic decrease. Anyways, vehicular traffic could still be reduced during non-peak hours which is a great thing.
This could be fixed if SF voted to build more bike lanes to replace existing regular lanes. Removing a small number of regular lanes would nip the induced demand issue fairly quickly.
They are indeed fun to ride but with the Uber's subsidized price, Uber still ends up being cheaper for a commute within the city. Especially with pool.
> If the value of ether held as collateral is worth less than the amount
> of Dai it’s supposed to be backing, then Dai would not be worth one dollar
> and the system could collapse.
> Maker combats this by liquidating CDPs and auctioning off the ether inside before the
> value of the ether is less than the amount of Dai it is backing.
Note combats not prevents, it will go to zero with probability 1 [0].
Most infuriating about the SF housing debate is the the utter lack of economic knowledge that aligns groups like sierra club and low-income advocacy groups with rent-seeking or racist NIMBY homeowners.
