Trapped on the third rock from the sun with billions of people suffering from Dunning-Kruger effect.
New York, USA
Joined December 2018
- Tweets9.8K
- Following1K
- Followers589
- Likes7.3K
Masters of Fintwit retweeted
So umpires are getting scrutinized and lambasted for missing pitches an 1/8” of an inch to an inch off the plate that really isn’t the plate as MLB only counts the back half of home plate. Imagine being told you are wrong by a computer that the pitch you called a strike because it caught the front half of the plate is actually a ball. Then getting crap from all the younger, nerdy generation because it’s so EZ to tell if a pitch is a strike at 100 mph or a ball from your fucking couch. Get a grip people. They won’t call the real zone because hitters would struggle more than they do now. Imagine that.
Masters of Fintwit retweeted
To visualize what I mean:
Here’s a simulated market where valuation has zero predictive power by construction.
Yet persistent valuations and overlapping 10-year windows can still produce a strikingly high in-sample R².
357 dots is not the same as 357 independent experiments.
Masters of Fintwit retweeted
I hadn’t looked at the Morningstar style box in a while. Did y’all realize large-cap Growth was losing to large cap Value even measured at 5 years? Hmm….
Masters of Fintwit retweeted
OpenAI and Anthropic oversold AI security breaches to pressure feds into protecting turf: insiders trib.al/Jo6xMk5
Masters of Fintwit retweeted
So let me get this straight: AI CEOs now say the end of the world is near because of what their AI bots have been doing - but they want an antitrust exemption as a reward? How about instead we make them liable for whatever bad stuff their bots do
Masters of Fintwit retweeted
EISMAN: “These companies are very nervous. They realize that there are no moats around their business .. they're trying to manufacture a crisis that will create regulation — that they think they can then manipulate to create .. the duopoly that they want."
Masters of Fintwit retweeted
As we've repeatedly emphasized from our Kitces Research for years, fee compression amongst advisors is a myth. More advisory firms have been RAISING fees than lowering them, for years.
Now even Schwab is rolling into the fee-increase outlook. Substantial changes underway for their in-house wealth advisory platform, specifically for their HNW clients:
- The $5M to $10M asset tier goes from 50bps to 55bps (which is a 10% increase in fee revenue)
- The $10M to $25M asset goal goes from 30bps to 45bps (which is a 50% increase in fees for those clients).
No change on the under $5M tiers (which tier 80bps down to 70bps) or over $25M tiers (still at 30bps).
This is for Schwab Wealth Advisory, which was their Schwab Private Client offering. These are non-discretionary accounts, but includes some financial planning from CFP professionals.
#Advicers: Does this impact how you think about your fee schedule for providing (discretionary) investment management plus (comprehensive) financial planning?
"Schwab hikes fees for clients of its in-house RIA" kitc.es/4hgWteu
Masters of Fintwit retweeted
One of the worst plays in football is rewarding underthrown balls by an offense. I have no solution for it but it just feels so underwhelming
Masters of Fintwit retweeted
Imagine someone telling you that in the mid 2020s we would invent possibly the smartest thing that has ever existed on the planet and that it would require massive capital spending to happen.
Then you decided not to invest because the CAPE ratio is too high.
Masters of Fintwit retweeted
Hey, totally cool you start your advisory search by seeking out ~only~ fixed-fee retainer arrangements or saying "I'm not paying AUM"
That's 100% your prerogative
Just understand the tradeoff you are making:
>> you are filtering out about 97% of the top-tier advisors in the country before you even begin interviewing <<
including those who may have specialized expertise for your exact situation
fee structure is a filter, but it probably shouldn’t be the first one...
and you should probably be more focused on value than some preconceived notion of the fairness of fees
Masters of Fintwit retweeted
Ed Yardeni, who coined the phrase "bond vigilantes," sees this move in US yields as reverting to normal, not necessarily a sign of true investor protest. That said, the fiscal doom loop makes higher yields more economically problematic than pre-crisis. youtube.com/watch?v=yGCoQPUW…
Masters of Fintwit retweeted
I’ve been watching sports for 28 years and can confidently say this…
FIFA needs to rework the offsides rule.
Let's start with the basics, a player is offsides if any part of the attackers body that can legally score is closer to the opponent's goal line than both the ball and the second-last defender at the exact moment the ball is passed to them.
That is an archaic rule that was created when the teams worst players were put on defense so they had a chance to defend against the faster and more skilled attackers.
This ruins the pace of play, creates controversial goal reviews, and is almost universally hated by soccer fans around the globe.
Hockey also has an offsides rule, but it does not ruin the pace of place AND allows for much better attacking and defensive breaks.
In hockey, you are offsides ONLY if both of your legs enter the attacking zone before the puck.
That means you can have a solid jump on the defender, who based on a lack of skill is out of position, and create much better attacking plays. It ensures people aren't camping the goal while keeping the pace of play high.
The same rule can be applied to soccer, if FIFA actually cared about their fans.
How?
It's simple.
At the time of the pass, at least ONE scoring part of the attackers body needs to be even with or behind the defender.
That allows for better offensive AND defensive bursts instead of trap plays designed to kill time because the defense is too cowardly to play a real match.
