So using the example above. You lost USD 10,000 and you get USD 10,000 Credit that you have to earn out. You happen to face bad luck and a series of bad trading decisions. Instead of earning USD 10,000, you actually lose USD 2000 more. The next month, the USD 2000 is credited given the period to earn back the USD 10,000 has lapsed and now you have a chance to earn back USD 2,000.
I think one of the major things missing from this post is that if you are going to drop a ball, you should communicate you are dropping it to the relevant stakeholders / family / friends / etc. That generally lessens the blow of dropping it significantly in my experience.
Sometimes, but sometimes that communication is itself a plastic ball that you can drop without issue. Even if that person never speaks to you again, if you are not close it may not matter.
What does matter is reputation though. If you have promised to do something than communication becomes a glass ball if you want to be "a man of your word". Have a good reputation is important, but exactly what good reputation means to everyone is different and that is okay.
3 throws per second is the rate of action required to perform juggling literally. The implication is that communicating between the miss that causes the fall and the event of dropping the ball must happen in less than 1 second. Translating back to the metaphor, communicating that the ball is being dropped before it hits the ground is a task as hard as the juggling itself.
Yeah but only in earth gravity. Depending on your remote work location things change substantially, though I’m not sure exactly how in your mixed metaphor.
Remote work is like juggling scarves -- especially if there are more than a few time zones in between. Things can stay in the air a bit longer which also can mean juggling more.. and moving your hands twice as fast.
Gotta love the regulatory capture that will come with this for that one single news collective. They'll extract a nice little rent for not really providing a ton of benefit
This Is The Way with Canada. Always has been. Regulatory capture, privileged monopoly state that simply replaced its British colonial masters with local ones. From the Hudson's Bay Company to Bell/Rogers or Suncor or Postmedia today. Doug Ford in the pocket of housing developers, Daniel Smith & PP in the pocket of the O&G sector, Trudeau in the pocket of Bay St. The two major parties are just warring clans over which sector will get to dominate us at any particular moment.
I think the US is f'd up, and I don't want to be a part of it. But I also don't want to be a part of the gross kleptocratic mediocracy that's been built here.
> In 2017, The Wall Street Journal reported on the difficulties faced by the firm. At that point, Voleon had an annualized return since inception of 10.5%, below the S&P 500 index return of 10.7% over the same period. One of the problems encountered was that financial markets were chaotic, and machine learning systems were best applied where patterns were more repeating in nature. In addition, patterns that are found can be easily made redundant after investors notice them and take advantage on them. Gary Smith writes that patterns discovered by the algorithms are often simply coincidences rather than actual correlations.[2][3][7]
> In 2018, Voleon had a return of 14% during a market turndown where the S&P 500 index dropped 6.2%. However, in 2019, its returns dropped to 7%, below the returns of its hedge fund peers of 9.2%. In 2020, Voleon's flagship fund lost 9%.[6][8]
Given their returns, how do they have 7.6 billion AUM?
They nearly matched the market in a good year, and beat it very well in a bad one. Hard to say for 2019 since the quote switches to comparing them to "hedge fund peers" instead of the broader market.
As someone else is pointing out that's very close to the intended behavior of hedge funds. Entities with money in hedge funds also have money in indexes. They aren't necessarily looking for just "the market, but more" they want uncorrelated behavior to hedge their exposure.
Not defending this fund or any other hedge and I do not know the defined purpose of this fund but they generally exist to hedge your risks and are not there to beat the S&P500. Thats why they exist for accredited investors and not your regular investor saving for retirement.
They are called “hedge funds” because, as opposed to other stock funds they were allowed to take short positions while mutual funds could not, and so they could hedge some of their risk.
Yes but what market? That was my point, nothing to do with why they are named as they are. Sure, many in the 2-20 bubble had this weird existence where they did not really do much but in general its hard to make a statement about their AUM and returns compared to the S&P500 without know what they were trying to achieve.
>Given their returns, how do they have 7.6 billion AUM?
Am I missing something? Don't most of these funds under-perform index funds over the long and even medium term? The idea that they wouldn't have customers if this were the case is another Econ 101 fantasy. It's like any pyramid scheme, just with better record-keeping and marketing.
I think the problem with the promotion culture is that you can't demote someone after they've been promoted. If you just focus on showing impact and cross team projects, your engineers will naturally build more complex projects than needed to hit those targets. The key is to track the long term maintainability and quality of the systems built. E.g. time to land diffs, incidents, performance metrics, etc. If a system starts to quickly fail these things or don't last then it is a pretty good sign that the project wasn't actually built well. Things aren't always under a single person's control but a lot of people will work on a big complex (seemingly good) project and then bounce after they've gotten their promo.
I do think there is a balance though because at a lot of startups the incentive is to just crank out a lot of product code but not really think about multiplier type work.
I think the main point this article is missing is that having to work extremely hard (10-12 hrs+) usually implies there is something structurally wrong with the team. Your team is criminally understaffed, you aren't getting enough time to fix tech debt, etc. While understaffed, there are times that you just have to work hard to keep things together, but if you don't surface these issues up the chain then you will for sure burn out.
A study by Roy Williams from the Williams Group which is a wealth consultancy:
"In 2002, Roy Williams of The Williams Group published the results of a 25-year survey of 3,250 instances of generational wealth transfer. He concluded that 70% of those transitions failed, where failure was defined as involuntary loss of control of the assets. That finding underscores and even quantifies the observation that Smith made centuries ago, but Williams took the analysis a step further and explored the reasons for those failures"
He wrote a book with Vic Preisser titled "Preparing Heirs: Five Steps to a Successful Transition of Family Wealth and Values" that has the results of the study. Looks like you can get a copy for $3.51 on Amazon.
"Approximately 70% of second-generation family firm successors are likely to close the family firm post succession due to succession process-related issues"
- How do they define wealth 5/10 million or 100 million
- How do they define lost it? Bill Gates is giving away most of his fortune if his daughter doesn't generate similiar wealth has she lost it or can she safely live on her 500 million and be considered rich
- If you had 10 million and split between 4 kids does that make the next generation lose it because they are only worth 2.5 million or do they combine everyone's value
- Do death taxes play a large part?
She argued India hit herd immunity right before their delta wave. And about a month ago said the pandemic was finally done. (She says this every few months)
