I agree with Jeff Flake for once

[wino]

Turning $200MM in 1976 into $3.1B in 2018 would require an average annual return of 6.75%.

In order to wind up with $3B today, you would have only needed to park $36MM in the market in 1976 and hope for the S&P annual return.

If you parked $36M in the S&P 500 in 1976, you'd have about $16.6B today.

If you were lucky enough to be in real estate in NYC in the 80s, you'd probably do a lot better.

 

[CowboyJD]

Stop ya’ll.

These numbers hurt my head.

I changed my major because I barely passed Accounting I.

 

[Alpha Poke]

Turning $200MM in 1976 into $3.1B in 2018 would require an average annual return of 6.75%.

In order to wind up with $3B today, you would have only needed to park $36MM in the market in 1976 and hope for the S&P annual return.

If you parked $36M in the S&P 500 in 1976, you'd have about $16.6B today.

If you were lucky enough to be in real estate in NYC in the 80s, you'd probably do a lot better.

Turning $200MM in 1976 into $3.1B in 2018 would require an average annual return of 6.75%.

In order to wind up with $3B today, you would have only needed to park $36MM in the market in 1976 and hope for the S&P annual return.

If you parked $36M in the S&P 500 in 1976, you'd have about $16.6B today.

If you were lucky enough to be in real estate in NYC in the 80s, you'd probably do a lot better.

So, everyone did it then right?

 

[CBradSmith]

If I inherited millions, i’m quite confident I wouldn’t go bankrupt multiple times and have to put down 2nd and 3rd mortgages on assets, or need to invent ideas of extortion, like my own “university”. But he’s a “great businessman”.....right?

Know how I know you have zero, and I do mean zero, business acumen?

 

[HighStickHarry]

Know how I know you have zero, and I do mean zero, business acumen?

The dude turned a 135 iq into a 600 sq ft basement.

 

[JimmyBob]

Damn, one Dbro wants debit, the other wants credit. Never mind.

 

[CBradSmith]

The dude turned a 135 iq into a 600 sq ft basement.

That's a wicked multiplier effect.

 

[HighStickHarry]

That's a wicked multiplier effect.

 

[CBradSmith]

Turning $200MM in 1976 into $3.1B in 2018 would require an average annual return of 6.75%.

In order to wind up with $3B today, you would have only needed to park $36MM in the market in 1976 and hope for the S&P annual return.

If you parked $36M in the S&P 500 in 1976, you'd have about $16.6B today.

If you were lucky enough to be in real estate in NYC in the 80s, you'd probably do a lot better.

The statistical fallacy of "average" rate of return.

Mainly... any given year is disjointed from the whole. The overall affect isn't as smooth as we are coaxed to believe.

https://marginalrevolution.com/marg...erage-stock-market-returns-arent-average.html

Cliffs:

To illustrate I ran 100,000 simulations of a 30 year stock market investment with a 7% return and a 20% standard deviation. The mean payoff across all 100,000 runs was $759.58 (recall the theoretical mean is $761.23 so we are spot on). But now consider the following. What percentage of returns would you guess lost money, i.e. had a total payoff after 30 years of less than $100?

After 30 years, 8.9% of all returns lost money!!! In terms of recent debates, (average) r>g does not mean that wealth accumulates automatically. Fortunes can be lost even when the averages are in your favor.

Perhaps even more surprisingly what percentage of investors would you guess earned less than the average payoff of $761.23? An amazing, 69.2% of investors earned less than the average. The median payoff in my simulation was only $446.85, so the median return was not 7% but 5.1%. The average investor earned less than the average return.

 

[JimmyBob]

The statistical fallacy of "average" rate of return.

Mainly... any given year is disjointed from the whole. The overall affect isn't as smooth as we are coaxed to believe.

https://marginalrevolution.com/marg...erage-stock-market-returns-arent-average.html

Cliffs:

To illustrate I ran 100,000 simulations of a 30 year stock market investment with a 7% return and a 20% standard deviation. The mean payoff across all 100,000 runs was $759.58 (recall the theoretical mean is $761.23 so we are spot on). But now consider the following. What percentage of returns would you guess lost money, i.e. had a total payoff after 30 years of less than $100?

After 30 years, 8.9% of all returns lost money!!! In terms of recent debates, (average) r>g does not mean that wealth accumulates automatically. Fortunes can be lost even when the averages are in your favor.

Perhaps even more surprisingly what percentage of investors would you guess earned less than the average payoff of $761.23? An amazing, 69.2% of investors earned less than the average. The median payoff in my simulation was only $446.85, so the median return was not 7% but 5.1%. The average investor earned less than the average return.

lol/haha/pom-poms/muffin divers/two-humped quasimodos/idiot/fyou/basement drainage/Harve Presnell. Let me know if I missed anything.

 

[wino]

The statistical fallacy of "average" rate of return.

Mainly... any given year is disjointed from the whole. The overall affect isn't as smooth as we are coaxed to believe.

https://marginalrevolution.com/marg...erage-stock-market-returns-arent-average.html

Cliffs:

To illustrate I ran 100,000 simulations of a 30 year stock market investment with a 7% return and a 20% standard deviation. The mean payoff across all 100,000 runs was $759.58 (recall the theoretical mean is $761.23 so we are spot on). But now consider the following. What percentage of returns would you guess lost money, i.e. had a total payoff after 30 years of less than $100?

After 30 years, 8.9% of all returns lost money!!! In terms of recent debates, (average) r>g does not mean that wealth accumulates automatically. Fortunes can be lost even when the averages are in your favor.

Perhaps even more surprisingly what percentage of investors would you guess earned less than the average payoff of $761.23? An amazing, 69.2% of investors earned less than the average. The median payoff in my simulation was only $446.85, so the median return was not 7% but 5.1%. The average investor earned less than the average return.

Well aware. I used the each individual year’s S&P 500 return, gains & losses, between 1976 and 2017 to arrive at the $36MM & $16.6B figures.

http://www.moneychimp.com/features/market_cagr.htm

 

[CBradSmith]

The dude turned a 135 iq into a 600 sq ft basement.

For starters he doesn't understand or appreciate leverage.

 

[07pilt]

The statistical fallacy of "average" rate of return.

Mainly... any given year is disjointed from the whole. The overall affect isn't as smooth as we are coaxed to believe.

https://marginalrevolution.com/marg...erage-stock-market-returns-arent-average.html

Cliffs:

To illustrate I ran 100,000 simulations of a 30 year stock market investment with a 7% return and a 20% standard deviation. The mean payoff across all 100,000 runs was $759.58 (recall the theoretical mean is $761.23 so we are spot on). But now consider the following. What percentage of returns would you guess lost money, i.e. had a total payoff after 30 years of less than $100?

After 30 years, 8.9% of all returns lost money!!! In terms of recent debates, (average) r>g does not mean that wealth accumulates automatically. Fortunes can be lost even when the averages are in your favor.

Perhaps even more surprisingly what percentage of investors would you guess earned less than the average payoff of $761.23? An amazing, 69.2% of investors earned less than the average. The median payoff in my simulation was only $446.85, so the median return was not 7% but 5.1%. The average investor earned less than the average return.

This is a good point about ex ante returns, but has no relevance when we are talking about ex post returns.

 

[CBradSmith]

This is a good point about ex ante returns, but has no relevance when we are talking about ex post returns.

Controlling for a forward-looking environment, which is what a Trump in 1976 would be looking toward, it is absolutely valid to enter into the conversation if the goal is to measure current Trump wealth against hypothesized Trump wealth.

It speaks to 2 things easily, all else equal:

1. Trump doesn't have the mindset to sit around and live a lazy lifestyle off of other people's money.
2. The importance of diversification can't be understated long term.

 

[07pilt]

Controlling for a forward-looking environment, which is what a Trump in 1976 would be looking toward, it is absolutely valid to enter into the conversation if the goal is to measure current Trump wealth against hypothesized Trump wealth.

It speaks to 2 things easily, all else equal:

1. Trump doesn't have the mindset to sit around and live a lazy lifestyle off of other people's money.
2. The importance of diversification can't be understated long term.

Yes in 1976 Trump was faced with an 8.5% chance that the market portfolio would go to 0.

If faced with that possibility and he chose a more risk averse allocation, that would be reasonable I guess, but he chose a riskier allocation that had him underwater at least 4 times. We can safely determine that even if he started with Alpha's 2MM that his investment's were well below the efficient frontier line.

 

[CBradSmith]

Yes in 1976 Trump was faced with an 8.5% chance that the market portfolio would go to 0.

If faced with that possibility and he chose a more risk averse allocation, that would be reasonable I guess, but he chose a riskier allocation that had him underwater at least 4 times. We can safely determine that even if he started with Alpha's 2MM that his investment's were well below the efficient frontier line.

Reinforcing that he's not a lazy guy satisfied to live off of fortunate happenstance of inheriting money.

The implications for him as President bode well for the values he's espoused...

Are you calling BK = underwater? Are you further saying that segments of BK mean he was underwater on the whole?

 

[07pilt]

Reinforcing that he's not a lazy guy satisfied to live off of fortunate happenstance of inheriting money.

The implications for him as President bode well for the values he's espoused...

Are you calling BK = underwater? Are you further saying that segments of BK mean he was underwater on the whole?

Sure, if you want to claim that his performance is an indication that he isn't lazy, that's fine.

No, by underwater I mean that his assets were worth less than his liabilities.

 

[CSCOTTOSUPOKES]

Reinforcing that he's not a lazy guy satisfied to live off of fortunate happenstance of inheriting money.

The implications for him as President bode well for the values he's espoused...

Are you calling BK = underwater? Are you further saying that segments of BK mean he was underwater on the whole?

It’s hilarious watching you attempt to espouse that “business acumen” lol. You are completely full of shit and don’t even see it haha

 

[davidallen]

Dude, he turned a couple of million into billions.

You aren't grasping what that takes.

Quick aside - which is easier in terms of building net worth:

• $10k -> $10 mln
• $10 mln -> $10 bln

Where did DJT start that climb?

 

[davidallen]

You guys are witnessing very magnanimous expectations on returns, think north of Bezos...

Yeah, not so much...

 

[davidallen]

What is the % increase in aggregate? Divided by 42 years? JFC. Liberals that didn’t inherent a B have zero fn idea what it takes to make a B. Zero.

Dude, please don't tell me this is how you calculate CAGR...

Where is that meme of the dancing jesus?

 

[davidallen]

Know how I know you have zero, and I do mean zero, business acumen?

You really want to wade into this one? It would mean you would have to educate your pals on the basics... you up for that?

 

[davidallen]

The statistical fallacy of "average" rate of return.

Mainly... any given year is disjointed from the whole. The overall affect isn't as smooth as we are coaxed to believe.

https://marginalrevolution.com/marg...erage-stock-market-returns-arent-average.html

Cliffs:

To illustrate I ran 100,000 simulations of a 30 year stock market investment with a 7% return and a 20% standard deviation. The mean payoff across all 100,000 runs was $759.58 (recall the theoretical mean is $761.23 so we are spot on). But now consider the following. What percentage of returns would you guess lost money, i.e. had a total payoff after 30 years of less than $100?

After 30 years, 8.9% of all returns lost money!!! In terms of recent debates, (average) r>g does not mean that wealth accumulates automatically. Fortunes can be lost even when the averages are in your favor.

Perhaps even more surprisingly what percentage of investors would you guess earned less than the average payoff of $761.23? An amazing, 69.2% of investors earned less than the average. The median payoff in my simulation was only $446.85, so the median return was not 7% but 5.1%. The average investor earned less than the average return.

So your saying at best Trump was below average?

 

[HighStickHarry]

David Allen you using a bump stock on your posting machine tonight?

 

[CBradSmith]

You really want to wade into this one? It would mean you would have to educate your pals on the basics... you up for that?

Google "youtube business leverage." Watch a least 5 different videos that don't promise to get rich quick.

My job here is done.

 

[CSCOTTOSUPOKES]

Google "youtube business leverage." Watch a least 5 different videos that don't promise to get rich quick.

My job here is done.

You think you’re #winning lol...what an idiot!

 

[CBradSmith]

You think you’re #winning lol...what an idiot!

I am holding a conversation with another grown man. Winning has nothing to do with that, 27.

 

[davidallen]

David Allen you using a bump stock on your posting machine tonight?

I was responding as I read top to bottom...

BTW: Oath sucks. Their answer to GDPR? Ban all access from Europe.

 

[davidallen]

Google "youtube business leverage." Watch a least 5 different videos that don't promise to get rich quick.

My job here is done.

Good advice for your brethren. @Alpha Poke this is Brad's advice for you. Good luck with that...

 

[CBradSmith]

Quick aside - which is easier in terms of building net worth:

• $10k -> $10 mln
• $10 mln -> $10 bln

Where did DJT start that climb?

The former is easier by a mile.

 

[davidallen]

The former is easier by a mile.

Lets talk on this again once you cross that first hurdle...

BTW: you seem to have forgotten your lesson on leverage. Please go back and do the work again. Perhaps you picked the wrong 5 videos. That Kiyosaki dude doesn't count.

 

[07pilt]

Getting a 1000x is easier if if you start at 10MM than 10K, but it is also easier if you start at 10MM than if you start at 100MM or 1B. At some point the disadvantages of size (hitting the limits of maximum absolute return) overwhelm the advantages of size (the ability to meet minimum investment requirements).

 

[tlwwake]

 

[HighStickHarry]

So stupid. What if all presidents since 1776 weren’t allowed private conversations with other leaders? That makes zero sense and has been required of no predecessors.

 

[Rdcldad]

View embedded media

otard gets hot miced with ivan
what was it
telling him he’d have more flexibility after the election or some such?
now policy discussions are public forum

 

[N. Pappagiorgio]

The dude turned a 135 iq into a 600 sq ft basement.

 

[JimmyBob]

This pic is WWRC!*























Worthless Without Real Cleavage!

 

[windriverrange]

I think it is really strange that Trump met with Putin in private.

I'm not saying that anything nefarious went on (although I can't rule it out). But, Trump is a novice as a politician, and Putin is a veteran to the nth degree. In addition, Trump's idiosyncrasies, and weaknesses are well known, whereas Putin's are more mysterious. To think that Putin would not "win" the conversation is being naive. It seems like he would be more likely to manipulate Trump than vice versa.

IMO, the smart move would have been for both men to have other representatives of their government present. In Trump's case, maybe Bolton and Pompeo. It might have protected Trump against saying/agreeing to anything unreasonable.

Been, I can think of a few reasons Flake, RINO’s and libs want this information and it’s not to help Trump or the US.

Right off the top of my head I’d say Trump has to worry about leaks more than just about any other president in the last 50 years. Fewer people in meetings, fewer leaks.

Second, what leader would be upfront and honest in a discussion that might be made public later? The ex-rodent in chiefs hot mike meeting with Medvedev comes to mind.

Since Congress can’t put a 4 piece jigsaw puzzle together correctly, I prefer they know as little as possible. They are only interested in grandstanding in front of the mic. Saw Schumer this morning talking about we should know this or know that? Why should you know Chucktard? All him and the majority of the other idiots (both sides) want is a gotcha byline to solicit more money for their next election. They have proven beyond a doubt they are incapable of running this country....except into the ground.

I don’t recall a huge groundswell of bitching when the ex-rodent in chief met with foreign leaders. Of course his sycophants and the media probably figured since he was the smartest president ever, they knew he wouldn’t do anything dumb....

Most politicians are freakin belly dragging, spineless carrion eaters and they alternately love anything their party or president does while resoundingly bitch about the opposite party doing the same exact thing.

 

[aix_xpert]

I think it is really strange that Trump met with Putin in private.

I'm not saying that anything nefarious went on (although I can't rule it out). But, Trump is a novice as a politician, and Putin is a veteran to the nth degree. In addition, Trump's idiosyncrasies, and weaknesses are well known, whereas Putin's are more mysterious. To think that Putin would not "win" the conversation is being naive. It seems like he would be more likely to manipulate Trump than vice versa.

IMO, the smart move would have been for both men to have other representatives of their government present. In Trump's case, maybe Bolton and Pompeo. It might have protected Trump against saying/agreeing to anything unreasonable.

Did you care that Obama held private, unrecorded meetings with Putin? This is the piece of the puzzle the left seems to miss. Its hard to take these takes seriously when you didn't care when your own guy did them.

 

[Been Jammin]

Did you care that Obama held private, unrecorded meetings with Putin? This is the piece of the puzzle the left seems to miss. Its hard to take these takes seriously when you didn't care when your own guy did them.

Never knew if he did or not.

Also didn’t say anything about wishing they were recorded.