|
Discendo Vox posted:Good news, everyone!
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2016 01:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2024 06:57 |
|
|
Arsenic Lupin posted:Didn't some state pension funds bite it hard during the dot-com crash? I forget. California has a looming pension crisis that has a lot to do with it. In '98 / '99 they passed SB 400, which boosted pensions retroactively to date of hire, and gave a 1-6% increase to existing retirees. It passed easily, since the S&P was taking off like a rocket, and the state had a sizable budget surplus. The good times will last forever, right guys!? Well, once you pump up pensions, it's not like you can take the money back from existing beneficiaries, and California is notorious for being unable to raise tax revenue. Between the first tech bubble and the housing crisis, it's now $366 billion dollars in debt. I seriously doubt it can survive another crash like the one that's about to happen, and it's far from the only state with a similar story. http://www.latimes.com/projects/la-me-pension-crisis-davis-deal/ https://beaconecon.com/blog/californias_pension_crisis_part_1_what_went_wrong Dr. Fishopolis fucked around with this message at 01:19 on Nov 7, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2016 01:17
|
|
|
Arsenic Lupin posted:Didn't some state pension funds bite it hard during the dot-com crash? I forget. I though got that was based on losses in public equities. It would be very surprising to me if a state pension fund had much more than 10% in private equity overall, let alone just in tech VC.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2016 01:26
|
|
|
Subjunctive posted:I though got that was based on losses in public equities. It would be very surprising to me if a state pension fund had much more than 10% in private equity overall, let alone just in tech VC. According to Pew, holdings outside public equities have more than doubled in the last 30 years. I can't find a breakdown specific to private equity as a federal average, but I was able to find Washingon State's numbers, and it's 15.8%. http://www.pewtrusts.org/~/media/assets/2014/06/state_public_pension_investments_shift_over_past_30_years.pdf http://www.sib.wa.gov/financial/io.asp
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2016 01:36
|
|
|
Dr. Fishopolis posted:According to Pew, holdings outside public equities have more than doubled in the last 30 years. I can't find a breakdown specific to private equity as a federal average, but I was able to find Washingon State's numbers, and it's 15.8%. Interesting. That seems more aggressive than I'm used to from talking to pension LPs, but maybe that's a cross-border difference. Thanks for digging it up. Do you think tech VC going to zero return for a generation of funds would lead to a collapse for such a pension fund?
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2016 01:51
|
|
|
Subjunctive posted:Interesting. That seems more aggressive than I'm used to from talking to pension LPs, but maybe that's a cross-border difference. Thanks for digging it up. Of course not by itself, no. As we saw in the last tech collapse though, this kind of correction has a much larger effect than just private equity disappearing. If pension funds had fully recovered from the last two major recessions, I'd have a sunnier disposition about it, but they mostly haven't. The patterns are evident that we're headed for a serious crash very soon, and if it were up to me, things like state pension funds would get the hell out of the pool right now, rather than trying to squeeze as much return as they can until the last possible minute. As we saw in California, you can't make good plans with an unreliable rate of return, and I'd much rather see the majority of these funds in annuities and treasury bonds. Not to mention the fact that I don't think we need to be using tax money to pay throngs of money managers to handle all these complex products.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2016 02:29
|
|
|
blah_blah posted:My understanding was that certain employees of company A had access to data from bettors at company A (prevalence of individual player picks, etc) and used this information to (successfully) wager in the analogous contests on company B's platform. Is this understanding incorrect (it quite possibly is) or are you arguing that this isn't insider info? What happened is an employee of site A had the job to post information about the most popular picks on site A. He made his post a few minutes before lineups locked for site A, when that information would have become publicly available. He was accused of using that information to gain an advantage on site B. However, site B had locked several hours earlier and so it was too late to actually make plays there, and the information on site B's top plays was already public. An external investigator (from the NY AG, I believe) found that the database logs confirmed that they were accessed only after site B had already locked. Nevertheless, the sites agreed to ban employees from playing on other sites and introduced an external data auditing process. Stuff they already should have been doing, to be sure. In any case, I find it fairly implausible that an employee would use data about their site's top plays to play on another site, because figuring out who the top plays will be on site B is not actually that hard to do. For example, by checking contests that locked earlier. Furthermore, many people predict who the top plays will be and post their predictions for free, and these predictions are about as accurate as using the actual top plays from another site would be. Basically, it's not a mystery who the top plays will be. It's like if someone hacked a bank in order to find out what time their local branch closed: there's a less risky way to get that information. And again, the issue was not that this actually happened but just that it could have happened. Yes, data auditing is important and they should have already been doing that, but there was no "insider trading". blah_blah posted:One of the biggest problems with DFS relative to e.g. online poker in terms of a competitive ecosystem is that poker is a much more complex game to automate near-optimal play in (only HU limit holdem was anywhere close to being solved during the poker boom, which was very much a niche game), and that individual players can scale their play volume much more easily in DFS than online poker (efficiently multi-tabling more than a handful of tables was very difficult for all but a relatively small number of elite players, whereas in DFS it is relatively simple for very big winners to scale their volume to the appropriate amount given their bankroll/risk-tolerance/etc). Yes to the second part, although I don't think the fact that some people are playing high volume makes the game worse for others. For example, single-entry tournaments are actually harder to win than multi-entry tournaments (per individual entry). It's the main perception problem though, and there's still plenty of behavior that should be shut down (some restrictions have been introduced). Regarding the first part, I'm not so sure. I played online poker until it was shut down in the US and my recollection is that while it was not a solved problem, there was more or less a consensus in the community about the optimal strategies. Whereas with DFS there is wild divergence in the strategies that players are using (including the top players). Part of it is just that it's a fairly new game. But also, predicting the probabilities of all the possible outcomes of a sports game is an extremely difficult problem. And it is not clear how to take into account uncertainties in this regard when devising a strategy. For example, tying back into the previous discussion, there is currently a debate among top players regarding whether it is better to play the most popular plays (since these are typically the best plays) or to try to play slightly less optimal less popular plays. If you had the probability distributions of outcomes and of what the other players would pick then yes, you could probably solve the game, but that's a long ways off. From my interaction with the community I believe that the players doing anything more advanced than Excel sorts are few and far between. The top players get by on their volume, not because they've solved the game. archangelwar posted:(game plans are not traditionally published, but are often leaked, for one thing). Do you have a source for this? I've never heard of this happening. I thought by "game plans" you were referring to what the coach says publicly and what can be inferred from what they've done in the past. I tried to google this a bit but couldn't find any examples. Most of the accusations of cheating in the DFS community are things that would not actually give much of an advantage. As a player, even if they're true they wouldn't bother me too much because I don't think it affects my odds very much (e.g. 2 players colluding to avoid duplicating their entries). The one exception would be if there was actual insider information, as in from a referee or a coach or something. If I thought this was rampant I would stop playing. But for whatever reason this is not something that I've ever heard before. The DFS community loves to accuse people of cheating but I've never heard this particular accusation. I didn't realize that's what you had in mind, and yes obviously it would be a big deal. But I'm skeptical that this can help explain why top players are winning. SurgicalOntologist fucked around with this message at 03:05 on Nov 7, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2016 02:30
|
|
|
Dr. Fishopolis posted:if it were up to me, things like state pension funds would get the hell out of the pool right now By that, do you mean "renege on capital commitments" or "not put money into future funds"? The phrasing sounds like you want them to sell their VC fund holdings, but those are typically quite illiquid, and most LPAs have very strong provisions against missed capital calls.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2016 02:56
|
|
|
Subjunctive posted:By that, do you mean "renege on capital commitments" or "not put money into future funds"? The phrasing sounds like you want them to sell their VC fund holdings, but those are typically quite illiquid, and most LPAs have very strong provisions against missed capital calls. No, of course I don't want fund managers to default on capital calls. That was poorly worded, I didn't mean to say that funds should just bail out ahead of this particular crash. What I mean is that the trend of institutional investment toward private equity and real estate is disturbing as hell, and steering that ship toward safer waters is something I think would help stabilize the economy in general. I don't think public equity is much better, incidentally. I understand that states are going to put their money where they think they can get the best returns, but at a time when the economy is growing at around 2% and the stock market is valued over the actual GDP, there should be a point at which people should be skeptical of anyone getting better than 8%.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2016 03:10
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:I'm sure both companies are loving this. Like I get the idea but it's not cool to cross picket lines like that. There's a reason it's being run out of LA; the promotion, and the whole PAC, appear to have been set up by proxies for the two companies.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2016 05:46
|
|
|
Dr. Fishopolis posted:This one drives me nuts. It's a bunch of VC guys handwaving how going from 3% to 20% down rounds in a quarter doesn't indicate anything more than a "needed slowdown".
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2016 06:35
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:I'm sure both companies are loving this. Like I get the idea but it's not cool to cross picket lines like that. I thought the strike was going to be suspended on election day.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2016 06:41
|
|
|
I know Twitter isn't a unicorn anymore but it's down. The news sites are still up, though.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2016 07:03
|
|
|
duz posted:I thought the strike was going to be suspended on election day. Nah, the city's trying to sue to make them work on election day and the person in USPOL who said that misread the statement. As of right now it's denied but apparently there's another court date tomorrow
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2016 07:06
|
|
|
cheese posted:Billions upon billions of dollars of valuation, all built upon companies with no physical assets and no revenue model. It is entirely possible that future generations of business and econ students will simply be incapable of understanding how something like that could occur. *cough* South Sea Bubble *cough*. The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2016 07:21
|
|
|
Subjunctive posted:What pension fund has enough of its money in the VC asset class that it risks collapse when returns drop? That would be an unusual LP, I think. As we learned in 2008 investments banks are really good at conning pension funds so I wouldn't make any assumptions.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2016 08:05
|
|
|
cheese posted:Billions upon billions of dollars of valuation, all built upon companies with no physical assets and no revenue model. It is entirely possible that future generations of business and econ students will simply be incapable of understanding how something like that could occur. Call me a wacky futurist, but I think it'll be seen as a rocky transition period away from real goods as value. Unless we collapse in some drastic way, automation will force us to reckon with this at some point. That said, there's literally no reason that our economy has to be this insane roller coaster. Hopefully we'll remember how to enforce broad strokes financial regulation before we end up in a very big depression.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2016 08:14
|
|
|
do white apples have white seeds
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2016 09:16
|
|
|
Avshalom posted:do white apples have white seeds does a bear poo poo on a pope
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2016 10:00
|
|
|
Weatherman posted:does a bear poo poo on a pope No but kangaroos
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2016 10:02
|
|
|
today i tried to sell five ewes and a ram to a woman whose first name was cortez but after chasing them around the paddock for two hours she admitted defeat and went home empty-handed. i have a whole lineup of people next in line to take the sheep if they can catch them, the next attempt is tomorrow morning, and i feel like this will become the herculean quest of our time except the reward is two purebred damara ewes, three purebred dorpers and an awassi cross, difficult to find in australia, for a hundred bucks. anyway are there any desk jockeys itt want to make this an app and send it viral
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2016 10:10
|
|
|
MiddleOne posted:As we learned in 2008 investments banks are really good at conning pension funds so I wouldn't make any assumptions. There's also the not-so-minor issues that interest rates are rock bottom all over the west so pension companies and investors are being forced to make riskier and risker investments since there's nowhere else to put their money
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2016 13:04
|
|
|
Moatman posted:Nah, the city's trying to sue to make them work on election day and the person in USPOL who said that misread the statement. As of right now it's denied but apparently there's another court date tomorrow
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2016 13:47
|
|
|
Dr. Fishopolis posted:Call me a wacky futurist, but I think it'll be seen as a rocky transition period away from real goods as value. Unless we collapse in some drastic way, automation will force us to reckon with this at some point. It's easy to think this when you work in an environment that's already mostly automated or is heavily controlled. Any sort of establishment that has a high amount of variability - this can be a large retail store with lots of different items and demand, a distribution center which brings lots of different things to lots of different areas, etc - will be by far the last thing to automate, if ever. It's easy for Joe Manufacturer who only has to make one type of item every six weeks. Not so much for the person that has to handle 1,000 different Joe Manufacturers and coordinate them.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2016 16:04
|
|
|
MikeCrotch posted:There's also the not-so-minor issues that interest rates are rock bottom all over the west so pension companies and investors are being forced to make riskier and risker investments since there's nowhere else to put their money Can you explain the "forced" part? From my reading of pension stuff the amount they have to contribute is based on the rate of return. So better returns means less money they have to add this year. Is that the "force" or is there some other thing I am missing?
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2016 16:18
|
|
|
computer parts posted:a large retail store It's not like in 50 years we are going to shop at malls run by robots, it's that in 50 years no one will shop at a mall at all. Brick and mortar stores aren't going to actually cease to exist any time soon but they already have taken a massively reduced role in society and that is the trend that will continue. You aren't going to go to the GAP and have an android folding shirts and stocking shelves, you are going to go to gap.com and everything will come to your door from an increasingly automated warehouse on increasingly automated shipping systems.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2016 16:21
|
|
|
Boot and Rally posted:Can you explain the "forced" part? The entire point of funds is growth, if bonds have abysmal returns then that means that money that would have otherwise gone into bonds must go into other forms of financial instruments.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2016 16:22
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:It's not like in 50 years we are going to shop at malls run by robots, it's that in 50 years no one will shop at a mall at all. I didn't say a mall. Even just a single retail establishment is much too complicated for automation. Unless it's like "Jim's Ham Radios" but those died out a decade or two ago.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2016 16:23
|
|
|
computer parts posted:I didn't say a mall. Even just a single retail establishment is much too complicated for automation. Yeah, but that is why the way automation will replace retail store workers is by increasingly replacing retail stores. Other than some gimmick store in tokyo or something I bet you'll never walk into a retail store and see androids staffing it, but you just will increasingly walk into less retail stores as more and more automated mail order systems come into existence. Which is already a thing that has happened widely. The future of retail (and kinda for many people the present and recent past of retail) is 95% online shopping and 5% walk into a big box store because you need something right this second and target/walmart sells everything.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2016 16:33
|
|
|
MiddleOne posted:The entire point of funds is growth, if bonds have abysmal returns then that means that money that would have otherwise gone into bonds must go into other forms of financial instruments. So you're saying that they are legally obligated to chase the highest returns possible, or something? I'm still not clear on how wanting better returns is phrased as "must chase" better returns. Is this a semantic distinction that people who use it are not intending? I am curious because a system that legally requires that chase seems doomed to fail at the outset.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2016 16:36
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:Yeah, but that is why the way automation will replace retail store workers is by increasingly replacing retail stores. Other than some gimmick store in tokyo or something I bet you'll never walk into a retail store and see androids staffing it, but you just will increasingly walk into less retail stores as more and more automated mail order systems come into existence. Which is already a thing that has happened widely. If lack of "automated mail order systems" were the only reason that people kept going into stores then Sears would've cornered that market literally 150 years ago. There are a lot of items which people simply do not feel comfortable with buying online. It might be for price (e.g., you'll never buy a car online sight unseen unless you're real dumb), it might be because you want to keep it for years and years and don't want to hate it (hence why furniture stores are still a thing), or it might be simply logistically difficult to ship to you (e.g., UPS won't send you a bunch of 12 foot lumber through the mail). This isn't even getting into stores where the primary product is a service, which for obvious reasons you usually can't ship in the mail.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2016 16:39
|
|
|
Boot and Rally posted:So you're saying that they are legally obligated to chase the highest returns possible, or something? Kinda, this applies to all private funds and since the 90's, most public funds. Boot and Rally posted:I'm still not clear on how wanting better returns is phrased as "must chase" better returns. Is this a semantic distinction that people who use it are not intending? I am curious because a system that legally requires that chase seems doomed to fail at the outset. I think you just don't get modern finance as a concept. MiddleOne fucked around with this message at 16:47 on Nov 7, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2016 16:44
|
|
|
If anyone else here listens to Rich Rolls podcast (Ultraman athlete, has a lot of techbros on as well as Olympic athletes), Biz Stone was on today talking about Jelly, which sounds like a rehashed Yahoo Answers and hooooolly gently caress is it boring listening to this guy talk.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2016 16:46
|
|
|
MiddleOne posted:Kinda, this applies to all private funds and since the 90's, most public funds. Let me clarify: is the "force" a regulatory requirement or a market requirement? I get that in a market people will switch to the best performer, but is failure to perform subject to criminal penalties (not civil)? I guess this sounds insane, so I can't believe it is true, but the way it is posted of makes me unsure.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2016 17:06
|
|
|
Boot and Rally posted:Let me clarify: is the "force" a regulatory requirement or a market requirement? I get that in a market people will switch to the best performer, but is failure to perform subject to criminal penalties (not civil)? I guess this sounds insane, so I can't believe it is true, but the way it is posted of makes me unsure. It's the result of inflation. Money doing nothing loses value over time. What was traditionally considered a "safe" return is much riskier these days.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2016 17:16
|
|
|
Regulatory requirement. Part of the fund's fiduciary duty to the pension beneficiaries.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2016 17:20
|
|
|
Spacewolf posted:Regulatory requirement. Part of the fund's fiduciary duty to the pension beneficiaries. Do you have something I can read on the matter? I cannot find instances where the government gets involved when a firm simply under performs. I understand the fiduciary duty and that companies use it to sue each other all the time, but that is not what I am asking about. Maybe this is getting too far afield from the original point. I guess I should take my answer as "market forces". Still seems like requiring pensions to add more money due to low returns, highly correlated with a down market, is a terrible idea.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2016 17:33
|
|
|
computer parts posted:There are a lot of items which people simply do not feel comfortable with buying online. It might be for price (e.g., you'll never buy a car online sight unseen unless you're real dumb), it might be because you want to keep it for years and years and don't want to hate it (hence why furniture stores are still a thing), or it might be simply logistically difficult to ship to you (e.g., UPS won't send you a bunch of 12 foot lumber through the mail). I guess? Those all seem really niche issues. I doubt that I'll live to see a time that literally every retail store ceases to exist and everything is amazon, but we already live in a time that whole types of retail stores are basically dead and that is only going to continue.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2016 17:59
|
|
|
Boot and Rally posted:Do you have something I can read on the matter? I cannot find instances where the government gets involved when a firm simply under performs. I understand the fiduciary duty and that companies use it to sue each other all the time, but that is not what I am asking about. Maybe this is getting too far afield from the original point. Companies don't sue other companies for dereliction of fiduciary duty, that makes no sense. Boards oust and sometimes sue CEOs and CFOs for it. To be clear, the letter of the law when it comes to fiduciary duty can be summed up by "always acts in the best interest of the client". Fiduciary rules are written to prevent things like nepotism, embezzlement, outlandish management fees and corporate espionage. That doesn't necessarily preclude the fund losing money, as long as the trustees accept the loss as beneficial in the long run, or inevitable due to market forces. The problem is that boards are often short-sighted, want the most possible money and will fire anyone who doesn't get them what they want.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2016 18:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2024 06:57 |
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:I guess? Those all seem really niche issues. They're not. Let's put it this way - which specific retail stores do you see disappearing in the near future? You can specific stores (like Home Depot) or categories (like home improvement stores).
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2016 18:04
|
|