Total Posts:45|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Donald Trump said "Pu$$y"

Rosalie
Posts: 4,612
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2016 3:35:26 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/9/2016 3:28:48 AM, YYW wrote:
https://www.youtube.com...

roflmao

#makeamericagreatagain

Lmao. #trumptrain
" We need more videos of cat's playing the piano on the internet" - My art professor.

"Criticism is easier to take when you realize that the only people who aren't criticized are those who don't take risks." - Donald Trump

Officially Mrs. 16Kadams 8-30-16
YYW
Posts: 36,303
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2016 3:39:58 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
Ted Cruz is a disgusting filthy Canadian who lies to steal votes from other people, deceives people, and is the epitome of evil.

https://www.youtube.com...
Tsar of DDO
Rosalie
Posts: 4,612
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2016 3:43:00 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/9/2016 3:39:58 AM, YYW wrote:
Ted Cruz is a disgusting filthy Canadian who lies to steal votes from other people, deceives people, and is the epitome of evil.

https://www.youtube.com...

http://pokeme.com...
" We need more videos of cat's playing the piano on the internet" - My art professor.

"Criticism is easier to take when you realize that the only people who aren't criticized are those who don't take risks." - Donald Trump

Officially Mrs. 16Kadams 8-30-16
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2016 3:55:32 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/9/2016 3:28:48 AM, YYW wrote:
https://www.youtube.com...

roflmao

#makeamericagreatagain

This is enough. I am serious. I am not going to live in a country that has anything to do with a prick like this. The entire video was disgusting.
YYW
Posts: 36,303
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2016 3:57:09 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/9/2016 3:55:32 AM, TBR wrote:
At 2/9/2016 3:28:48 AM, YYW wrote:
https://www.youtube.com...

roflmao

#makeamericagreatagain

This is enough. I am serious. I am not going to live in a country that has anything to do with a prick like this. The entire video was disgusting.

What exactly do you take issue with there?
Tsar of DDO
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2016 4:00:19 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/9/2016 3:57:09 AM, YYW wrote:
At 2/9/2016 3:55:32 AM, TBR wrote:
At 2/9/2016 3:28:48 AM, YYW wrote:
https://www.youtube.com...

roflmao

#makeamericagreatagain

This is enough. I am serious. I am not going to live in a country that has anything to do with a prick like this. The entire video was disgusting.

What exactly do you take issue with there?

It is acting. Pandering. This is not the work of a statesmen, it's not the guy who I would take seriously in a f*cking meeting.

Someone on the radio was being interviewed today. He had some numbers to back a claim that if Trump had only invested his inherited money in the S&P he would have a higher net worth than Forbes estimates it to be currently. The guy has nothing but stick!
YYW
Posts: 36,303
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2016 4:03:53 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/9/2016 4:00:19 AM, TBR wrote:
At 2/9/2016 3:57:09 AM, YYW wrote:
At 2/9/2016 3:55:32 AM, TBR wrote:
At 2/9/2016 3:28:48 AM, YYW wrote:
https://www.youtube.com...

roflmao

#makeamericagreatagain

This is enough. I am serious. I am not going to live in a country that has anything to do with a prick like this. The entire video was disgusting.

What exactly do you take issue with there?

It is acting. Pandering. This is not the work of a statesmen, it's not the guy who I would take seriously in a f*cking meeting.


That's not acting... that's who he is...

Someone on the radio was being interviewed today. He had some numbers to back a claim that if Trump had only invested his inherited money in the S&P he would have a higher net worth than Forbes estimates it to be currently. The guy has nothing but stick!

Meh... I don't take that kind of thing seriously. I know enough about investing to know that that kind of speculation is mostly nonsense.
Tsar of DDO
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2016 4:09:10 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/9/2016 4:03:53 AM, YYW wrote:
At 2/9/2016 4:00:19 AM, TBR wrote:
At 2/9/2016 3:57:09 AM, YYW wrote:
At 2/9/2016 3:55:32 AM, TBR wrote:
At 2/9/2016 3:28:48 AM, YYW wrote:
https://www.youtube.com...

roflmao

#makeamericagreatagain

This is enough. I am serious. I am not going to live in a country that has anything to do with a prick like this. The entire video was disgusting.

What exactly do you take issue with there?

It is acting. Pandering. This is not the work of a statesmen, it's not the guy who I would take seriously in a f*cking meeting.



That's not acting... that's who he is...

Someone on the radio was being interviewed today. He had some numbers to back a claim that if Trump had only invested his inherited money in the S&P he would have a higher net worth than Forbes estimates it to be currently. The guy has nothing but stick!

Meh... I don't take that kind of thing seriously. I know enough about investing to know that that kind of speculation is mostly nonsense.

I have a friend who is an arrogant pr1ck. It's not hard to know how an M.D. AND PhD AND rich f*ck running his own investment firm can become a prick. We got into it one night about TED talks. He hates them, I love them. I want to be on the TED stage so damn bad (my brother did a TED-X one - he beat me). Point is, he thinks they are pseudo-intellectual masterbation preening. This is pseudo-political theater. I don't think HE takes himself seriously as a POTUS.
thett3
Posts: 14,349
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2016 4:09:39 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/9/2016 4:00:19 AM, TBR wrote:
At 2/9/2016 3:57:09 AM, YYW wrote:
At 2/9/2016 3:55:32 AM, TBR wrote:
At 2/9/2016 3:28:48 AM, YYW wrote:
https://www.youtube.com...

roflmao

#makeamericagreatagain

This is enough. I am serious. I am not going to live in a country that has anything to do with a prick like this. The entire video was disgusting.

What exactly do you take issue with there?

It is acting. Pandering. This is not the work of a statesmen, it's not the guy who I would take seriously in a f*cking meeting.

Someone on the radio was being interviewed today. He had some numbers to back a claim that if Trump had only invested his inherited money in the S&P he would have a higher net worth than Forbes estimates it to be currently. The guy has nothing but stick!

http://www.bloombergview.com...-
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
thett3
Posts: 14,349
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2016 4:10:42 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/9/2016 4:09:39 AM, thett3 wrote:
At 2/9/2016 4:00:19 AM, TBR wrote:
At 2/9/2016 3:57:09 AM, YYW wrote:
At 2/9/2016 3:55:32 AM, TBR wrote:
At 2/9/2016 3:28:48 AM, YYW wrote:
https://www.youtube.com...

roflmao

#makeamericagreatagain

This is enough. I am serious. I am not going to live in a country that has anything to do with a prick like this. The entire video was disgusting.

What exactly do you take issue with there?

It is acting. Pandering. This is not the work of a statesmen, it's not the guy who I would take seriously in a f*cking meeting.

Someone on the radio was being interviewed today. He had some numbers to back a claim that if Trump had only invested his inherited money in the S&P he would have a higher net worth than Forbes estimates it to be currently. The guy has nothing but stick!

http://www.bloombergview.com...

Weird, the link won't work. Look up "Should Donald Trump have Indexed" for a debunking of that nonsense
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2016 4:12:18 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/9/2016 4:09:39 AM, thett3 wrote:
At 2/9/2016 4:00:19 AM, TBR wrote:
At 2/9/2016 3:57:09 AM, YYW wrote:
At 2/9/2016 3:55:32 AM, TBR wrote:
At 2/9/2016 3:28:48 AM, YYW wrote:
https://www.youtube.com...

roflmao

#makeamericagreatagain

This is enough. I am serious. I am not going to live in a country that has anything to do with a prick like this. The entire video was disgusting.

What exactly do you take issue with there?

It is acting. Pandering. This is not the work of a statesmen, it's not the guy who I would take seriously in a f*cking meeting.

Someone on the radio was being interviewed today. He had some numbers to back a claim that if Trump had only invested his inherited money in the S&P he would have a higher net worth than Forbes estimates it to be currently. The guy has nothing but stick!

http://www.bloombergview.com...-

Bad link. Can you try again? I am interested if someone has run the numbers.
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2016 4:15:05 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/9/2016 4:10:42 AM, thett3 wrote:
At 2/9/2016 4:09:39 AM, thett3 wrote:
At 2/9/2016 4:00:19 AM, TBR wrote:
At 2/9/2016 3:57:09 AM, YYW wrote:
At 2/9/2016 3:55:32 AM, TBR wrote:
At 2/9/2016 3:28:48 AM, YYW wrote:
https://www.youtube.com...

roflmao

#makeamericagreatagain

This is enough. I am serious. I am not going to live in a country that has anything to do with a prick like this. The entire video was disgusting.

What exactly do you take issue with there?

It is acting. Pandering. This is not the work of a statesmen, it's not the guy who I would take seriously in a f*cking meeting.

Someone on the radio was being interviewed today. He had some numbers to back a claim that if Trump had only invested his inherited money in the S&P he would have a higher net worth than Forbes estimates it to be currently. The guy has nothing but stick!

http://www.bloombergview.com...

Weird, the link won't work. Look up "Should Donald Trump have Indexed" for a debunking of that nonsense

Yea, found it. He would have to have spent no money. That's tough.
thett3
Posts: 14,349
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2016 4:17:28 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/9/2016 4:15:05 AM, TBR wrote:
At 2/9/2016 4:10:42 AM, thett3 wrote:
At 2/9/2016 4:09:39 AM, thett3 wrote:
At 2/9/2016 4:00:19 AM, TBR wrote:
At 2/9/2016 3:57:09 AM, YYW wrote:
At 2/9/2016 3:55:32 AM, TBR wrote:
At 2/9/2016 3:28:48 AM, YYW wrote:
https://www.youtube.com...

roflmao

#makeamericagreatagain

This is enough. I am serious. I am not going to live in a country that has anything to do with a prick like this. The entire video was disgusting.

What exactly do you take issue with there?

It is acting. Pandering. This is not the work of a statesmen, it's not the guy who I would take seriously in a f*cking meeting.

Someone on the radio was being interviewed today. He had some numbers to back a claim that if Trump had only invested his inherited money in the S&P he would have a higher net worth than Forbes estimates it to be currently. The guy has nothing but stick!

http://www.bloombergview.com...

Weird, the link won't work. Look up "Should Donald Trump have Indexed" for a debunking of that nonsense

Yea, found it. He would have to have spent no money. That's tough.

It's even worse than that, but I couldn't find the article someone sent me a while ago that completely tore the S&P thing to shreds...namely, he didn't inherit $40 million from his father in 1974. His father was still alive and kicking in 1974 and didn't die for another 25 years
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
YYW
Posts: 36,303
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2016 4:19:26 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
Like I said, I know enough about investing to know that post hoc "if only he'd indexed" arguments are pretty much nonsense.
Tsar of DDO
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2016 4:21:31 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/9/2016 4:17:28 AM, thett3 wrote:
At 2/9/2016 4:15:05 AM, TBR wrote:
At 2/9/2016 4:10:42 AM, thett3 wrote:
At 2/9/2016 4:09:39 AM, thett3 wrote:
At 2/9/2016 4:00:19 AM, TBR wrote:
At 2/9/2016 3:57:09 AM, YYW wrote:
At 2/9/2016 3:55:32 AM, TBR wrote:
At 2/9/2016 3:28:48 AM, YYW wrote:
https://www.youtube.com...

roflmao

#makeamericagreatagain

This is enough. I am serious. I am not going to live in a country that has anything to do with a prick like this. The entire video was disgusting.

What exactly do you take issue with there?

It is acting. Pandering. This is not the work of a statesmen, it's not the guy who I would take seriously in a f*cking meeting.

Someone on the radio was being interviewed today. He had some numbers to back a claim that if Trump had only invested his inherited money in the S&P he would have a higher net worth than Forbes estimates it to be currently. The guy has nothing but stick!

http://www.bloombergview.com...

Weird, the link won't work. Look up "Should Donald Trump have Indexed" for a debunking of that nonsense

Yea, found it. He would have to have spent no money. That's tough.

It's even worse than that, but I couldn't find the article someone sent me a while ago that completely tore the S&P thing to shreds...namely, he didn't inherit $40 million from his father in 1974. His father was still alive and kicking in 1974 and didn't die for another 25 years

Looking at another. They are talking "self-described net worht of 200m in 1982, if he invested in S&P it would be 8.3b. So....
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2016 4:22:46 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/9/2016 4:17:28 AM, thett3 wrote:
At 2/9/2016 4:15:05 AM, TBR wrote:
At 2/9/2016 4:10:42 AM, thett3 wrote:
At 2/9/2016 4:09:39 AM, thett3 wrote:
At 2/9/2016 4:00:19 AM, TBR wrote:
At 2/9/2016 3:57:09 AM, YYW wrote:
At 2/9/2016 3:55:32 AM, TBR wrote:
At 2/9/2016 3:28:48 AM, YYW wrote:
https://www.youtube.com...

roflmao

#makeamericagreatagain

This is enough. I am serious. I am not going to live in a country that has anything to do with a prick like this. The entire video was disgusting.

What exactly do you take issue with there?

It is acting. Pandering. This is not the work of a statesmen, it's not the guy who I would take seriously in a f*cking meeting.

Someone on the radio was being interviewed today. He had some numbers to back a claim that if Trump had only invested his inherited money in the S&P he would have a higher net worth than Forbes estimates it to be currently. The guy has nothing but stick!

http://www.bloombergview.com...

Weird, the link won't work. Look up "Should Donald Trump have Indexed" for a debunking of that nonsense

Yea, found it. He would have to have spent no money. That's tough.

It's even worse than that, but I couldn't find the article someone sent me a while ago that completely tore the S&P thing to shreds...namely, he didn't inherit $40 million from his father in 1974. His father was still alive and kicking in 1974 and didn't die for another 25 years

Politifac calling false.

http://www.politifact.com...
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2016 4:32:29 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
Once you have that much, investing gets more tricky. Merely shoving it in the S&P 500 is a bad ideal. I looked at his investments and it seems like an odd portfolio, but I've always thought it had to do with him being a scatter brain and powering in random directions at random times. He really needs somebody to handle his portfolio while he does his thing, but who the hell can you trust other than yourself with that type of money
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2016 4:41:02 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/9/2016 4:32:29 AM, Wylted wrote:
Once you have that much, investing gets more tricky. Merely shoving it in the S&P 500 is a bad ideal. I looked at his investments and it seems like an odd portfolio, but I've always thought it had to do with him being a scatter brain and powering in random directions at random times. He really needs somebody to handle his portfolio while he does his thing, but who the hell can you trust other than yourself with that type of money

But that's the point. If he took the unofficiated and just shoved the entire thing into the most pedestrian investment model, he would have done better. That was the point of the thing, but it has its issues regardless. Like not taking ANY income, but still... He is not some midas turning everything he touches to gold.
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2016 5:27:06 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/9/2016 4:41:02 AM, TBR wrote:
At 2/9/2016 4:32:29 AM, Wylted wrote:
Once you have that much, investing gets more tricky. Merely shoving it in the S&P 500 is a bad ideal. I looked at his investments and it seems like an odd portfolio, but I've always thought it had to do with him being a scatter brain and powering in random directions at random times. He really needs somebody to handle his portfolio while he does his thing, but who the hell can you trust other than yourself with that type of money

But that's the point. If he took the unofficiated and just shoved the entire thing into the most pedestrian investment model, he would have done better. That was the point of the thing, but it has its issues regardless. Like not taking ANY income, but still... He is not some midas turning everything he touches to gold.

What I'm telling you is he would not have beat the market that way. When you have that much, noving it in means it takes a while to buy all the stock up, that much money going into it, actually causes the stock to rise, especially when people sees him doing it. It's easy for the average person to follow the S&P 500 like that. We actually have an advantage there. It is harder to get a good return on several billion dollars than several hundred.
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2016 3:22:46 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/9/2016 4:19:26 AM, YYW wrote:
Like I said, I know enough about investing to know that post hoc "if only he'd indexed" arguments are pretty much nonsense.

Sure it is an argument. Beating the S&P is a common metric for gauging the success or failure of any portfolio, why not use this metric?
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2016 3:25:31 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/9/2016 5:27:06 AM, Wylted wrote:
At 2/9/2016 4:41:02 AM, TBR wrote:
At 2/9/2016 4:32:29 AM, Wylted wrote:
Once you have that much, investing gets more tricky. Merely shoving it in the S&P 500 is a bad ideal. I looked at his investments and it seems like an odd portfolio, but I've always thought it had to do with him being a scatter brain and powering in random directions at random times. He really needs somebody to handle his portfolio while he does his thing, but who the hell can you trust other than yourself with that type of money

But that's the point. If he took the unofficiated and just shoved the entire thing into the most pedestrian investment model, he would have done better. That was the point of the thing, but it has its issues regardless. Like not taking ANY income, but still... He is not some midas turning everything he touches to gold.

What I'm telling you is he would not have beat the market that way. When you have that much, noving it in means it takes a while to buy all the stock up, that much money going into it, actually causes the stock to rise, especially when people sees him doing it. It's easy for the average person to follow the S&P 500 like that. We actually have an advantage there. It is harder to get a good return on several billion dollars than several hundred.

1) He would not have "beat the market" he would have followed the market.
2) You would be wrong. You can dump 200m into the S&P through various funds in a matter of weeks without it looking like anything, or effecting anything.
3) The return using 1m or 200m invested in the S&P is exactly the same.
YYW
Posts: 36,303
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2016 3:30:26 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/9/2016 3:22:46 PM, TBR wrote:
At 2/9/2016 4:19:26 AM, YYW wrote:
Like I said, I know enough about investing to know that post hoc "if only he'd indexed" arguments are pretty much nonsense.

Sure it is an argument. Beating the S&P is a common metric for gauging the success or failure of any portfolio, why not use this metric?

The methodology for making the determination of who beat the S&P and who did not becomes closer to witchcraft than economics, to the extent that the area of time is long. The reason for this is that the kind of "analysis" involved in that assessment makes all kinds of assumptions about who would have done what, when and where they would have done it, etc. that's too attenuated and speculative to serve as any real reliable metric once you get beyond a five year mark.

(That is to say nothing of Bloomberg's evaluation of Trump's net worth, which, itself, doesn't account for licensing, branding, future income flows from the same, etc.)

To compare it to something more concrete, suppose I was going to calculate the velocity of something, but I did that by only measuring wind speed around the object as it passed by. You'd fail physics, sure, but the difference is that in physics there is a right way and a wrong way to measure velocity.

There's a whole bunch of ways to "measure" economic performance relative to the S&P, or any other benchmark. The reality is that I could put ten economists in a room, and, depending on where they went to school, they would come up with ten different answers; and ten different reasons for their ten different answers. So, it's a fairly arbitrary undertaking.

(The stories I could tell you about stupid economists... although actuaries are worse... again, people I deal with every day in what I do. It's comical.)
Tsar of DDO
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2016 3:50:40 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/9/2016 3:30:26 PM, YYW wrote:
At 2/9/2016 3:22:46 PM, TBR wrote:
At 2/9/2016 4:19:26 AM, YYW wrote:
Like I said, I know enough about investing to know that post hoc "if only he'd indexed" arguments are pretty much nonsense.

Sure it is an argument. Beating the S&P is a common metric for gauging the success or failure of any portfolio, why not use this metric?

The methodology for making the determination of who beat the S&P and who did not becomes closer to witchcraft than economics, to the extent that the area of time is long. The reason for this is that the kind of "analysis" involved in that assessment makes all kinds of assumptions about who would have done what, when and where they would have done it, etc. that's too attenuated and speculative to serve as any real reliable metric once you get beyond a five year mark.

I understand your issue with it, however when you look backwards you see exactly the decisions they made, and can base the calculation on the decision made (good or bad).


(That is to say nothing of Bloomberg's evaluation of Trump's net worth, which, itself, doesn't account for licensing, branding, future income flows from the same, etc.)

As I posted, I have issues with the actual article once I found it. It's still very interesting.

Now, the value of his "brand" is a good point. That is without a doubt is a valuable asset. If Forbes has him at about 4b and he says its 10b, I can not accept that his brand is worth 6b.

Future income is never calculated in net worth.


To compare it to something more concrete, suppose I was going to calculate the velocity of something, but I did that by only measuring wind speed around the object as it passed by. You'd fail physics, sure, but the difference is that in physics there is a right way and a wrong way to measure velocity.

There's a whole bunch of ways to "measure" economic performance relative to the S&P, or any other benchmark. The reality is that I could put ten economists in a room, and, depending on where they went to school, they would come up with ten different answers; and ten different reasons for their ten different answers. So, it's a fairly arbitrary undertaking.

I can go both ways with this. One, yea, this is true to a great extent. Where it is NOT accurate is in running a single scenario as they did. Liquidate all assets, put all money in an index fund, reinvest all dividends, take no returns. That is a very simple case, and has a very clear answer.


(The stories I could tell you about stupid economists... although actuaries are worse... again, people I deal with every day in what I do. It's comical.)

I agree completely with this. Investment guys, and I have worked with all types, may be damn bright guys, but thinking they actually know anything or even can know anything about how the market will work is just hubris.
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2016 3:58:07 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
Let me put this another way. There is no ambiguity in looking backwards at the decisions made by Trump. All "deals" both in investment and all other businesses are locked in history. Even his expenses are locked (if we knew them, it would make this calculation very accurate). We could run these numbers through the algorithm and get a value based on "what could have been".

Expenses would get a touch muddled, but still could be made close. Like access to helicopters, private planes etc. all things that are owned by one of his business operations could be made "like" as private assets.
YYW
Posts: 36,303
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2016 3:59:01 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/9/2016 3:50:40 PM, TBR wrote:
At 2/9/2016 3:30:26 PM, YYW wrote:
At 2/9/2016 3:22:46 PM, TBR wrote:
At 2/9/2016 4:19:26 AM, YYW wrote:
Like I said, I know enough about investing to know that post hoc "if only he'd indexed" arguments are pretty much nonsense.

Sure it is an argument. Beating the S&P is a common metric for gauging the success or failure of any portfolio, why not use this metric?

The methodology for making the determination of who beat the S&P and who did not becomes closer to witchcraft than economics, to the extent that the area of time is long. The reason for this is that the kind of "analysis" involved in that assessment makes all kinds of assumptions about who would have done what, when and where they would have done it, etc. that's too attenuated and speculative to serve as any real reliable metric once you get beyond a five year mark.

I understand your issue with it, however when you look backwards you see exactly the decisions they made, and can base the calculation on the decision made (good or bad).


(That is to say nothing of Bloomberg's evaluation of Trump's net worth, which, itself, doesn't account for licensing, branding, future income flows from the same, etc.)

As I posted, I have issues with the actual article once I found it. It's still very interesting.

Now, the value of his "brand" is a good point. That is without a doubt is a valuable asset. If Forbes has him at about 4b and he says its 10b, I can not accept that his brand is worth 6b.

Future income is never calculated in net worth.

It is if you're calculating the value of licensing agreements... which is why the Bloomberg analysis was wrong.

To compare it to something more concrete, suppose I was going to calculate the velocity of something, but I did that by only measuring wind speed around the object as it passed by. You'd fail physics, sure, but the difference is that in physics there is a right way and a wrong way to measure velocity.

There's a whole bunch of ways to "measure" economic performance relative to the S&P, or any other benchmark. The reality is that I could put ten economists in a room, and, depending on where they went to school, they would come up with ten different answers; and ten different reasons for their ten different answers. So, it's a fairly arbitrary undertaking.

I can go both ways with this. One, yea, this is true to a great extent. Where it is NOT accurate is in running a single scenario as they did. Liquidate all assets, put all money in an index fund, reinvest all dividends, take no returns. That is a very simple case, and has a very clear answer.

lol... no, it's not.

(The stories I could tell you about stupid economists... although actuaries are worse... again, people I deal with every day in what I do. It's comical.)

I agree completely with this. Investment guys, and I have worked with all types, may be damn bright guys, but thinking they actually know anything or even can know anything about how the market will work is just hubris.

Pretty much. There are some economists I've worked with who are really bright people (I won't name names, but they all tend to come from one of three schools). There are even some economists from top-flight schools who, frankly, I don't know how they manage to tie their shoes in the morning (I'm being sarcastic, but you get the point).
Tsar of DDO
YYW
Posts: 36,303
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2016 4:00:12 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/9/2016 3:58:07 PM, TBR wrote:
Let me put this another way. There is no ambiguity in looking backwards at the decisions made by Trump. All "deals" both in investment and all other businesses are locked in history. Even his expenses are locked (if we knew them, it would make this calculation very accurate). We could run these numbers through the algorithm and get a value based on "what could have been".

Again, it seems simple, but that simplicity is illusory, because of the methodology involved in making that determination. What you're describing is not what the guy did.

Expenses would get a touch muddled, but still could be made close. Like access to helicopters, private planes etc. all things that are owned by one of his business operations could be made "like" as private assets.
Tsar of DDO
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2016 4:08:14 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/9/2016 3:59:01 PM, YYW wrote:
At 2/9/2016 3:50:40 PM, TBR wrote:
At 2/9/2016 3:30:26 PM, YYW wrote:
At 2/9/2016 3:22:46 PM, TBR wrote:
At 2/9/2016 4:19:26 AM, YYW wrote:
Like I said, I know enough about investing to know that post hoc "if only he'd indexed" arguments are pretty much nonsense.

Sure it is an argument. Beating the S&P is a common metric for gauging the success or failure of any portfolio, why not use this metric?

The methodology for making the determination of who beat the S&P and who did not becomes closer to witchcraft than economics, to the extent that the area of time is long. The reason for this is that the kind of "analysis" involved in that assessment makes all kinds of assumptions about who would have done what, when and where they would have done it, etc. that's too attenuated and speculative to serve as any real reliable metric once you get beyond a five year mark.

I understand your issue with it, however when you look backwards you see exactly the decisions they made, and can base the calculation on the decision made (good or bad).


(That is to say nothing of Bloomberg's evaluation of Trump's net worth, which, itself, doesn't account for licensing, branding, future income flows from the same, etc.)

As I posted, I have issues with the actual article once I found it. It's still very interesting.

Now, the value of his "brand" is a good point. That is without a doubt is a valuable asset. If Forbes has him at about 4b and he says its 10b, I can not accept that his brand is worth 6b.

Future income is never calculated in net worth.

It is if you're calculating the value of licensing agreements... which is why the Bloomberg analysis was wrong.

I agree completely with this. That it is an asset. I ask if you think it is reasonable to call it a 6b asset? I don't. In the famous Beatles catalog beef, the entire catalog today is worth only a couple billion.


To compare it to something more concrete, suppose I was going to calculate the velocity of something, but I did that by only measuring wind speed around the object as it passed by. You'd fail physics, sure, but the difference is that in physics there is a right way and a wrong way to measure velocity.

There's a whole bunch of ways to "measure" economic performance relative to the S&P, or any other benchmark. The reality is that I could put ten economists in a room, and, depending on where they went to school, they would come up with ten different answers; and ten different reasons for their ten different answers. So, it's a fairly arbitrary undertaking.

I can go both ways with this. One, yea, this is true to a great extent. Where it is NOT accurate is in running a single scenario as they did. Liquidate all assets, put all money in an index fund, reinvest all dividends, take no returns. That is a very simple case, and has a very clear answer.

lol... no, it's not.

(The stories I could tell you about stupid economists... although actuaries are worse... again, people I deal with every day in what I do. It's comical.)

I agree completely with this. Investment guys, and I have worked with all types, may be damn bright guys, but thinking they actually know anything or even can know anything about how the market will work is just hubris.

Pretty much. There are some economists I've worked with who are really bright people (I won't name names, but they all tend to come from one of three schools). There are even some economists from top-flight schools who, frankly, I don't know how they manage to tie their shoes in the morning (I'm being sarcastic, but you get the point).