a thread for documenting the excesses of
― dayo, Tuesday, 13 September 2011 11:09 (1 year ago) Permalink
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/news/8753784/The-300m-cable-that-will-save-traders-milliseconds.html
Seabed survey work for the Hibernian Express, as the 6,021km (3,741 mile) fibre-optic link will be known, is already under way off the east coast of America.The last cables laid under the Atlantic were funded by the dotcom boom in the 1990s when telecoms infrastructure firms rushed to criss-cross the ocean.The laying of the new transatlantic communications cable is a viable proposition because Hibernia Atlantic, the company behind it, is planning to sell a special superfast bandwidth that will have hyper-competitive trading firms and banks in the City of London and New York queuing to use it. In fact it is predicted they will pay about 50 times as much to link up via the Hibernian Express than they do via existing transatlantic cables.The current leader, Global Crossing's AC-1 cable, offers transatlantic connection in 65 milliseconds. The Hibernian Express will shave six milliseconds off that time.Of course, verifiable figures are elusive and estimates vary wildly, but it is claimed that a one millisecond advantage could be worth up to $100m (£63m) a year to the bottom line of a large hedge fund.
"We spent 18 months planning the route," says Mike Saunders, Hibernia Atlantic's vice-president of business development. "If it ever gets beaten for speed we end up giving our customers their money back, basically, so my boss would kill me if we got it wrong."
we should be so lucky
― dayo, Tuesday, 13 September 2011 11:10 (1 year ago) Permalink
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2011/sep/15/ubs-rogue-trader-man-arrested
tut tut
idk how that money is 'lost' rly. some cunts lost it, some other cunts got it.
― a fake wannabe trying to be a pimp (history mayne), Thursday, 15 September 2011 10:00 (1 year ago) Permalink
here is an interesting thing on why/how they can make money out of microsecond advantages http://www.lrb.co.uk/v33/n10/donald-mackenzie/how-to-make-money-in-microseconds
p.s. that telegraph thing is written by my actual bro.
― caek, Thursday, 15 September 2011 10:09 (1 year ago) Permalink
how many imaginary bros you got
― talking heads, quiet smith (darraghmac), Thursday, 15 September 2011 10:22 (1 year ago) Permalink
I met someone who seemed pretty rich and told me that he had quit his job at micr0s0ft and moved to hong kong so that he could focus on writing microtrading software
― dayo, Thursday, 15 September 2011 10:27 (1 year ago) Permalink
Human beings can, and still do, send orders from their computers to the matching engines, but this accounts for less than half of all US share trading. The remainder is algorithmic: it results from share-trading computer programs. Some of these programs are used by big institutions such as mutual funds, pension funds and insurance companies, or by brokers acting on their behalf. The drawback of being big is that when you try to buy or sell a large block of shares, the order typically can’t be executed straightaway (if it’s a large order to buy, for example, it will usually exceed the number of sell orders in the matching engine that are close to the current market price), and if traders spot a large order that has been only partly executed they will change their own orders and their price quotes in order to exploit the knowledge. The result is what market participants call ‘slippage’: prices rise as you try to buy, and fall as you try to sell.
ffs this is like playing quake w/ an aimbot
― dayo, Thursday, 15 September 2011 10:34 (1 year ago) Permalink
No one in the markets contests the legitimacy of electronic market making or statistical arbitrage. Far more controversial are algorithms that effectively prey on other algorithms. Some algorithms, for example, can detect the electronic signature of a big VWAP, a process called ‘algo-sniffing’. This can earn its owner substantial sums: if the VWAP is programmed to buy a particular corporation’s shares, the algo-sniffing program will buy those shares faster than the VWAP, then sell them to it at a profit. Algo-sniffing often makes users of VWAPs and other execution algorithms furious: they condemn it as unfair, and there is a growing business in adding ‘anti-gaming’ features to execution algorithms to make it harder to detect and exploit them. However, a New York broker I spoke to last October defended algo-sniffing:
lol, he has a better aim-bot than you do!
god it just kills me to think about how many smart and brilliant people are spending 16 hours a day coming up with a better arbitrage algorithm.
― dayo, Thursday, 15 September 2011 11:08 (1 year ago) Permalink
as opposed to doing what? Y'know, lyfe mayne
― talking heads, quiet smith (darraghmac), Thursday, 15 September 2011 11:13 (1 year ago) Permalink
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/joris-luyendijk-banking-blog/2011/sep/15/computer-programmer-high-frequency-trading
― diouf est le papa du foot galsen merde lè haters (nakhchivan), Thursday, 15 September 2011 11:49 (1 year ago) Permalink
"I just feel incredibly lucky to be living now. What would I have been doing with my maths skills 100 years ago? Or 100 years from now? This is exactly the right time in history to have these skills. And I have them."
yah i mean the fuck use was maths in 1911?
― diouf est le papa du foot galsen merde lè haters (nakhchivan), Thursday, 15 September 2011 11:50 (1 year ago) Permalink
lol
this stuff is still my plan b : (
― caek, Thursday, 15 September 2011 11:54 (1 year ago) Permalink
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/09/15/us-ubs-idUSTRE78E15I20110915
(Reuters) - Swiss bank UBS said a trader who had lost it around $2 billion in unauthorized deals had been arrested in London, where police were holding 31-year-old Kweku Adoboli.
― dayo, Thursday, 15 September 2011 17:38 (1 year ago) Permalink
The trader in question, Mr. Adoboli, who graduated with an honors degree in computer science from the University of Nottingham,
think about all the social media websites these guys could be starting
― dayo, Thursday, 15 September 2011 17:39 (1 year ago) Permalink
One of the few noteworthy moments in Michael Moore's last film was showing how Wall Street woos math majors.
― Anakin Ska Walker (AKA Skarth Vader) (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 15 September 2011 17:40 (1 year ago) Permalink
haha this same conv is going on in the grad school thread
― iatee, Thursday, 15 September 2011 17:41 (1 year ago) Permalink
hardly surprising though. from reading books about when finance companies fuck up, this kind of thing happens every 2-3 years. bet these companies build this into their models.
― dayo, Thursday, 15 September 2011 17:41 (1 year ago) Permalink
― caek, Thursday, 15 September 2011 17:41 (1 year ago) Permalink
like "commodities market volatile this year, 23% chance... blue chips up this year, 10% chance... broken arrow rogue trader, 25% chance...oh, pizza's here! meeting adjourned"
― dayo, Thursday, 15 September 2011 17:42 (1 year ago) Permalink
"we model so well when we're on cocaine!" *fist bumps*
― caek, Thursday, 15 September 2011 17:43 (1 year ago) Permalink
sorry "I love that we can model while were on cocaine"
― buzza, Thursday, 15 September 2011 17:51 (1 year ago) Permalink
But I don't care. I expect to make enough money to be out of this business in a few years. I think I would like to go back to university. I have become very interested in the humanities and philosophy.
my friend used to work for a company that designed materials to help assuage successful businessmen about their guilt at having made huge amounts of money
it was a bunch of pseudophilosophical tracts that, when boiled down, said "yes, you DESERVED to make all that money! don't feel bad! if you like, give some to charity!"
― dayo, Thursday, 15 September 2011 21:20 (1 year ago) Permalink
that's amazing
― iatee, Thursday, 15 September 2011 21:21 (1 year ago) Permalink
haha you know him! you can ask T about it sometime
― dayo, Thursday, 15 September 2011 21:22 (1 year ago) Permalink
!
how would u even find such a company? do they leave brochures lying around hotels in st moritz
― diouf est le papa du foot galsen merde lè haters (nakhchivan), Thursday, 15 September 2011 21:23 (1 year ago) Permalink
company reps on every 35th storey ledge in new york
― diouf est le papa du foot galsen merde lè haters (nakhchivan), Thursday, 15 September 2011 21:24 (1 year ago) Permalink
I wish I could find the article, from the NYT I think, about a Ph.D. in math from Berkeley, a logician even, who took a quant job, made gobs of cash, fucked things up so that his company lost gobs of cash, quit, & ended up doing shark fishing in the Pacific, because it had the thrills to which he'd become accustomed on Wall Street.
― Euler, Thursday, 15 September 2011 21:24 (1 year ago) Permalink
article would be from the late 1990s I think
haha wow yeah I'm gonna I want to hear more xp
― iatee, Thursday, 15 September 2011 21:25 (1 year ago) Permalink
I might be misremembering but I think that's the thrust
I imagine this company was probably started by a successful businessman turned professional confessional
― dayo, Thursday, 15 September 2011 21:25 (1 year ago) Permalink
pretty sure that article wasn't from the 90s cuz it would have been made into a major motion picture with cuba gooding jr in a supporting role
― diouf est le papa du foot galsen merde lè haters (nakhchivan), Thursday, 15 September 2011 21:27 (1 year ago) Permalink
relevant to our interests here:
If Aristotle Ran General Motors: The New Soul of Business
written by a former Notre Dame philosophy prof who now is fantastically wealthy peddling this sorta stuff to the plutocrats
― Euler, Thursday, 15 September 2011 21:28 (1 year ago) Permalink
I've looked SO LONG for that article over the last few years (shark fishing quant I mean); I think I read a scan of it on a webpage in the 90s & now I can find nothing.
― Euler, Thursday, 15 September 2011 21:29 (1 year ago) Permalink
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2038139/Colin-Birch-hanged-paying-2-prostitutes-stage-mock-execution.html
― diouf est le papa du foot galsen merde lè haters (nakhchivan), Friday, 16 September 2011 17:19 (1 year ago) Permalink
the monk who sold his ferrari kinda shite
― talking heads, quiet smith (darraghmac), Friday, 16 September 2011 17:33 (1 year ago) Permalink
have long pondered a book of common-sense negativity, provisional title 'feel the fear and cop the fuck on'
― talking heads, quiet smith (darraghmac), Friday, 16 September 2011 17:36 (1 year ago) Permalink
Detective Superintendent Lee Neiles told the hearing: ‘Mr Birch had been redundant since September 2009 and had had difficulties in finding other means of employment, although the family were financially stable.’
god I *hate* the british use of the term 'redundant'. it's so callous.
― iatee, Friday, 16 September 2011 17:41 (1 year ago) Permalink
not in the british meaning, though
― talking heads, quiet smith (darraghmac), Friday, 16 September 2011 17:43 (1 year ago) Permalink
iykwim
― talking heads, quiet smith (darraghmac), Friday, 16 September 2011 17:44 (1 year ago) Permalink
yeah I guess I didn't think of that! but from an american's perspective it just sounds evil.
― iatee, Friday, 16 September 2011 17:44 (1 year ago) Permalink
here it's like 'you were bad at your job' or 'we can't afford you' but 'redundant' gives me a sense of 'you are unnecessary as a human being'
which means it probably was correctly used w/r/t to this banker, but outside of that...
― iatee, Friday, 16 September 2011 17:47 (1 year ago) Permalink
nobody rly uses redundant as a synonym for unemployed and 'laid off' is more often used instead of 'made redundant' in newspapers etc
i think it's just policemen and their strangely clunky phrasing, cf 'other means of employment' instead of 'a job'
― diouf est le papa du foot galsen merde lè haters (nakhchivan), Friday, 16 September 2011 17:48 (1 year ago) Permalink
'made redundant' still common terminology iirc, though there's subtle emp. law differences between the two i think
― talking heads, quiet smith (darraghmac), Friday, 16 September 2011 17:50 (1 year ago) Permalink
it is a shitty term tho, def
― diouf est le papa du foot galsen merde lè haters (nakhchivan), Friday, 16 September 2011 17:51 (1 year ago) Permalink
eh i dunno, it's quite useful as a means of conveying the right tone of contempt society ought to feel for the wastrel layabouts tbh
― talking heads, quiet smith (darraghmac), Friday, 16 September 2011 17:53 (1 year ago) Permalink
I have no problem w/redundant. It doesn't imply fault like 'fired' does. It implies that the employer doesn't have any meaningful/profitable work for you to do.
― em vee equals pea queue (Michael White), Friday, 16 September 2011 18:01 (1 year ago) Permalink
that's awful
― partistan (dayo), Friday, 16 September 2011 19:18 (1 year ago) Permalink
this is typical police illiterately pretentious usage though. no one except a policeman would say "he has been redundant for a year". you get made redundant, and then you are unemployed. like how only police say "i was proceeding along oxford st" or "he asked myself how to get to piccadilly circus".
― caek, Saturday, 17 September 2011 07:51 (1 year ago) Permalink
it's a cliche, but that almost seems like an onion article
― rock 'em sock 'em (Treeship), Wednesday, 1 May 2013 02:42 (2 weeks ago) Permalink
article does offer some reasonable, if not completely original, insights into the kinds of people who go into finance in the first place and why they wind up trapped in that mentality
― huun huurt 2 (Hurting 2), Wednesday, 1 May 2013 02:51 (2 weeks ago) Permalink
The vast majority of people (including most rich people) essentially live check to check, trapped in some form of mentality where they don't adequately save in the event that financial disaster occurs. And fuckit, you only live once, amirite?
Hard to feel sorry for bankers because hey, aren't they supposed to know better than to leverage themselves silly?
― I will forlornly return to my home planet soon (dandydonweiner), Wednesday, 1 May 2013 03:01 (2 weeks ago) Permalink
yeah, i am one of these people. i could have moved out of my parents house by now if i wasn't eating lunch in cafes and buying records probably.
― rock 'em sock 'em (Treeship), Wednesday, 1 May 2013 03:04 (2 weeks ago) Permalink
The vast majority of people (including most rich people) essentially live check to check -dandydon
While that may be true for the rich folks cited in that article, I'm not so sure about "most rich people." But if you have factual data to back that up, I'd accept it.
― curmudgeon, Wednesday, 1 May 2013 14:36 (2 weeks ago) Permalink
It's probably true of a lot of so-called "working rich" -- people who aren't independently wealthy but make large salaries, especially who start making large salaries at a young age
― huun huurt 2 (Hurting 2), Wednesday, 1 May 2013 14:37 (2 weeks ago) Permalink
Well, context is everything right? I do not mean to discount the advantageous issue of net worth or liquidity issues; clearly the rich can likely make lifestyle downgrades and, you know, still survive. That's what we hate about them, right? That they have that "choice"?
But the rich (not sure of the definition or parameters as it relates here) are typically highly leveraged by their lifestyle in at least their mortgage but almost certainly with other household debt that would be very difficult to service if a bad financial event happened. Certain elements of the tax code favor this kind of behavior, obv.
― I will forlornly return to my home planet soon (dandydonweiner), Wednesday, 1 May 2013 15:18 (2 weeks ago) Permalink
here is a lot of information about annual income and debt
http://www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/bulletin/2012/pdf/scf12.pdf
especially pp56-73
― I will forlornly return to my home planet soon (dandydonweiner), Wednesday, 1 May 2013 15:33 (2 weeks ago) Permalink
Well, context is everything right?
No
― huun huurt 2 (Hurting 2), Wednesday, 1 May 2013 15:35 (2 weeks ago) Permalink
There's also the fact that if you are rich, you were probably born rich, and have rich parents, rich friends, rich extended family, etc. While the safety net is being pulled out from under the poor, this particularly safety net is pretty much built into being rich and will never go away.
― Emperor Cos Dashit (Adam Bruneau), Wednesday, 1 May 2013 15:35 (2 weeks ago) Permalink
― I will forlornly return to my home planet soon (dandydonweiner), Wednesday, May 1, 2013 11:33 AM Bookmark Flag Post Permalink
This shows that people in the 90th percentile and up have BY FAR the lowest leverage ratios, so I'm really not sure what you're getting at
― huun huurt 2 (Hurting 2), Wednesday, 1 May 2013 15:40 (2 weeks ago) Permalink
am I reading page 59 wrong?
― I will forlornly return to my home planet soon (dandydonweiner), Wednesday, 1 May 2013 16:04 (2 weeks ago) Permalink
size of debt in dollars is not really a useful measure without comparison to income and assets.
That aside, there's an awfully large amount of secured debt from "other" residential property (if I'm reading that right) which I guess means either second homes or rental property for income. Worst thing that happens if they can no longer service that debt is they lose a vacation home or a rental property.
― huun huurt 2 (Hurting 2), Wednesday, 1 May 2013 16:10 (2 weeks ago) Permalink
xp and that info is conveniently provided on p. 72, where we get lots of great information about debt burden to income ratios. People in the 90th percentile and above have about half the ratio of every other decile group. In addition, the percentages of people in the top decile with debt payments making up more than 40 percent of their income, and people in that group who are past due on debt, are tiny compared to the other groups.
smarten up Don
― huun huurt 2 (Hurting 2), Wednesday, 1 May 2013 16:25 (2 weeks ago) Permalink
right, as I noted above there is usually an advantage to net worth (and as Adam elaborated on) but that doesn't mean that rich people aren't leveraging themselves like crazy. It just means that for whatever percent of the top (3% ? I dunno, you name it) there is likely a significant safety net that they can likely mitigate most unplanned, negative financial situations.
But that leaves millions of others with a relatively high net worth who are certainly leveraged by their homes and other secured debts. You know that. Not sure why you're trying to fight me over how leveraged most rich people are.
― I will forlornly return to my home planet soon (dandydonweiner), Wednesday, 1 May 2013 16:36 (2 weeks ago) Permalink
well according to the doc you sent me rich people are like half as leveraged as everyone else!
― huun huurt 2 (Hurting 2), Wednesday, 1 May 2013 16:39 (2 weeks ago) Permalink
Don suggested that most rich people live check to check and that does not seem right.
― curmudgeon, Wednesday, 1 May 2013 16:41 (2 weeks ago) Permalink
kind of depends what you think is rich--top 10% is $148k of annual income on up and it would seem reasonable that above 5% ($208k on up) probably has an effect on the leveraging. And the halving point starts at $107k hh per year. Maybe it would be better if I defined rich better.
Honestly, I found it odd that aggregate debt was within a few percentage points for all 70% of the country. And, that, it was only around 20%. So in that metric, I'm totally fucking wrong. Like, wayyyyyy wrong. Like always, right?
― I will forlornly return to my home planet soon (dandydonweiner), Wednesday, 1 May 2013 16:53 (2 weeks ago) Permalink
why would people in the top 5% be more leveraged than people in the top 10-5%?
― huun huurt 2 (Hurting 2), Wednesday, 1 May 2013 16:59 (2 weeks ago) Permalink
didn't type that well; what I meant was that the amount of leverage between the top 10% and 5% is probably significant. I am curious to where it really starts dropping because that to me would be an indication of where the truly "financially independent" households like. Sorry I have been terribly sloppy today and wasting so much bandwidth.
I really thought that aggregate debt for most households would be in the 30%+ range. Can't get my head wrapped around that.
― I will forlornly return to my home planet soon (dandydonweiner), Wednesday, 1 May 2013 17:05 (2 weeks ago) Permalink
I think what's really striking is that there's a huge dropoff in leverage from the 80-90 group to the 90-100 group, whereas 70-80 is pretty similar to 80-90. But I guess that makes sense if the 70-80 is x income to y income, the 80-90 is y income to z income, but the 90-100 is z income to infinity.
Does it say whether those ratios are median ratios, within the decile? Is the ratio listed exactly the 95th percentile mark?
― huun huurt 2 (Hurting 2), Wednesday, 1 May 2013 17:11 (2 weeks ago) Permalink
anyway, even if you broke down that top decile further I don't think you'd find a significant percentage of those people were MORE leveraged than most Americans.
― huun huurt 2 (Hurting 2), Wednesday, 1 May 2013 17:12 (2 weeks ago) Permalink
well, the point was more if we pull the super rich out of the equation (as affable outliers!) then are the rich still leveraged like the rest of us (by percentage of aggregate debt!)? Honestly, with debt levels around 20% for even 70% of households, my argument about people being leveraged seems HORRIBLE. I need to find a new metric. Or invent one.
I didn't read the details of the breakdown that well. I think it's possible to download the whole table of data and then maybe we could (likely?) slice and dice by whatever we wanted and create our own income stratas.
I thought I'd read before that typical HH debt target (for mortgage purposes and including mortgage) was somewhere around 36%. Was very surprised to see aggregate debt levels below that.
― I will forlornly return to my home planet soon (dandydonweiner), Wednesday, 1 May 2013 17:20 (2 weeks ago) Permalink
Keep in mind that those debt levels are heavily skewed by renters. Mortgages are going to be by far the biggest ticket debt item for a family, and a family that doesn't have a mortgage is going to have a much tinier debt burden than an equal income family with none. That's why you see relatively even debt-service-to-income ratios, yet the percentages of lower income families with greater than 40% of their income going to service debt are MUCH higher.
― huun huurt 2 (Hurting 2), Wednesday, 1 May 2013 17:26 (2 weeks ago) Permalink
yes, I was thinking I could go get a table of home ownership and then manually factor that in but it became too much of a hassle. And really this discussion point was supposed to be essentially about cash flow...so rents are related if I'd not have strayed over into debt.
But still, I would probably assume that at least the middle income strata had a high degree of home ownership, and that those home owners likely were near the limits of their loaning ability, and that therefore the 20% was low.
― I will forlornly return to my home planet soon (dandydonweiner), Wednesday, 1 May 2013 17:35 (2 weeks ago) Permalink
not to derail or be too lol obvious, but the kickoff to this conversation seems rather liberally sourced from this chestnut
the orig. article seems a bit dry f/ satire, though even the lonely-at-the-top sentimental horseshit w/ Oliver James waxing on the simple (and apparently inexpensive) joys of one's student years is ripped straight from the novel. (OTOH "Sarah Butcher" seemed f/ at least a few minutes to have effectively pitched the noxious notion of the upper strata as just another besieged bourgeois outpost affected terribly by the financial shenanigans of ~mysterious others~).
/parenthetical bs
― Hellhouse, Wednesday, 1 May 2013 21:38 (2 weeks ago) Permalink
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/01/alexis-goldstein-jim-himes_n_3196206.html#slide=more34585
― Gukbe, Thursday, 2 May 2013 04:00 (2 weeks ago) Permalink
http://blogs.wsj.com/moneybeat/2013/05/02/crude-broker-talk-surfaces-in-london-trading-probe/
― sktsh, Thursday, 2 May 2013 10:27 (2 weeks ago) Permalink
http://news.efinancialcareers.com/us-en/134725/how-to-tell-your-wife-or-husband-you-got-a-bad-bonus/
― Chuck E was a hero to most (s.clover), Thursday, 2 May 2013 17:42 (2 weeks ago) Permalink
"bad bonus"
― Aimless, Thursday, 2 May 2013 17:44 (2 weeks ago) Permalink
― huun huurt 2 (Hurting 2), Thursday, 2 May 2013 18:15 (2 weeks ago) Permalink
Was that "bad bonus" piece for real?
― curmudgeon, Thursday, 2 May 2013 18:28 (2 weeks ago) Permalink
this is amazing:
3. Don’t accuse your wife or girlfriend of being a hypocrite One equity researcher who said he hasn’t had a bonus for five years, advised bankers to resist the temptation to criticize wives’ reactions to the size of their bonus
“My own experience is that a lot of wives and girlfriends of investment bankers don’t necessarily like the fact that their partner is in banking – they’d rather be with someone who’s doing something much more worthy. Spouses pretend that they don’t like the money and the long hours, but the fact is that they also love the expensive holidays and meals out.
“Banking partners are therefore a bit hypocritical. It’s tempting to point this out when a bonus doesn’t come through. I’ve never actually said that to my girlfriend though as it would just cause an argument,” he added.
― huun huurt 2 (Hurting 2), Thursday, 2 May 2013 18:30 (2 weeks ago) Permalink
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/06/opinion/a-disappointing-debut-at-the-sec.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=edit_th_20130506&_r=0
Mary Jo White's initial review for early actions taken
― curmudgeon, Monday, 6 May 2013 13:48 (2 weeks ago) Permalink
http://www.forbes.com/sites/davidmarotta/2013/04/21/is-a-3-million-ira-sufficient-for-retirement/
Forbes defending the rich folks rights to enormous IRAs, and neo-con Hyatt at the Post even thinks Forbes is wrong. This will never pass anyway
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/fred-hiatt-obamas-modest-proposal-to-cap-retirement-entitlements/2013/05/05/de9eea7a-b402-11e2-bbf2-a6f9e9d79e19_story.html?tid=pm_pop
― curmudgeon, Monday, 6 May 2013 14:52 (2 weeks ago) Permalink
wow so much wrong with that Forbes article
― huun huurt 2 (Hurting 2), Monday, 6 May 2013 14:58 (2 weeks ago) Permalink
forbes blogs are like bleachercrowd / gawkers new thing etc. etc.
― iatee, Monday, 6 May 2013 15:00 (2 weeks ago) Permalink
the crowdsourcing of linkbait
http://blogs.forbes.com/help/how-do-i-become-a-contributor/
ilx should start a forbes blog
― iatee, Monday, 6 May 2013 15:01 (2 weeks ago) Permalink
Assuming 4.5% inflation, a 20-year-old starting to save for retirement today will need a $9.97 million portfolio value at age 65 to have a lifestyle of $60,000 in today’s dollars.
We haven't had inflation of 4.5% or close to it since the early 1990s.
― huun huurt 2 (Hurting 2), Monday, 6 May 2013 15:01 (2 weeks ago) Permalink
the bigger point though is that Obama's proposal is not a cap on how much you can save for retirement, which is what the article makes it sound like
― huun huurt 2 (Hurting 2), Monday, 6 May 2013 15:02 (2 weeks ago) Permalink
this is like finding fault w/ a comment for a yahoo news article
― iatee, Monday, 6 May 2013 15:02 (2 weeks ago) Permalink
Is it really? The guy has written dozens of pieces for Forbes and has his own wealth management firm
― huun huurt 2 (Hurting 2), Monday, 6 May 2013 15:06 (2 weeks ago) Permalink
yes...in charlottesville virginia
― iatee, Monday, 6 May 2013 15:06 (2 weeks ago) Permalink
with 66 twitter followershttps://twitter.com/MarottaOnMoney
What I also don't get about the cap proposal -- traditional IRAs already have a tax-free contribution limit per year, so what would the cap change?
again he has not written '66 pieces for forbes', forbes allows basically anyone to start a forbes blog
― iatee, Monday, 6 May 2013 15:07 (2 weeks ago) Permalink
the seeking alpha of money magazines
― huun huurt 2 (Hurting 2), Monday, 6 May 2013 15:09 (2 weeks ago) Permalink
Don't care about a Forbes blog, or the W, Post editorial re a Forbes blog, here's the USA Today(!):
The president's proposed budget would cap IRAs and other retirement plans at $3 million, but it could fall below that in future years.
It's not easy to get more than $3 million in a retirement account, which includes IRAs, 401(k) and 403(b) plans. Currently, the cap would affect just 0.03% of retirement accounts, says the Employee Benefit Research Institute.
But despite the above:
Capping IRA could deter savings without helping reduce the deficit, Ronald O'Hanley, president of Asset Management and Corporate Services at Fidelity Investments, argued at a speech to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce Wednesday. Most retirement programs are tax deferrals, not tax breaks, he argues: Savers pay taxes when they withdraw. "Not only will such a proposal further challenge retirement savings, it will not generate additional revenue," he says.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/personalfinance/2013/04/10/presidents-budget-plan-iras-cap/2071529/
Sure buddy.
― curmudgeon, Monday, 6 May 2013 15:30 (2 weeks ago) Permalink
http://news.efinancialcareers.com/uk-en/141013/goldman-sachs-hires-particle-physicist-from-the-large-hadron-collider/
― 乒乓, Thursday, 16 May 2013 12:08 (5 days ago) Permalink