All of johnjohn's Comments + Replies

It will be nice if posts that are links (e.g. "[Link] John Ioannidis: Why Most Clinical Research Is Not Useful (2016)") can have the link in the body too rather than only in the title.

With feed readers such as feedly, one cannot directly click the link if it is in the title.

0Douglas_Knight
Just to be clear, you probably want a change to the output of the rss feed, not the website, although changing the website is a kludgey way of doing so.
7Dagon
It would be awesome for link posts to require a description or reason it's posted here. Even if these were just a mandatory (or trivially-easy nudge) comment by the poster.

Is there a list of Scott Alexander's short stories somewhere?

6Rob Bensinger
You can find some here: http://raikoth.net/fiction.html
6CAE_Jones
Not that I'm aware, but you might check the "fiction" tag on Slatestarcodex. (I remember finding a similarly useful tag on his Livejournal, but I don't remember what it was called OTTOMH).

I made a couple of bets on https://www.predictious.com/ using bitcoin. It was pretty straightforward and easy to use.

1JohnGreer
Seconding https://www.predictious.com/ recommendation.

You imply that one should invest where economic growth is expected to be highest.

Note that it does not follow that shares in high growth companies (or countries) will lead to high returns. This is because the expected future growth may well be built into the current price.

That is, if everyone thinks something will be likely worth a lot in the future, the current price will be bid up to reflect this.

It is the uncertainty of the outcome that may arguably cause higher expected returns. If people have a distaste for uncertainty, then the price might be bid d... (read more)

0Cthulhoo
In theory, all financial institution optimize around something like the efficient frontier. This should ensure that higher risk corresponds to higher returns. In practice, quantitative finance goes through a lot of approximations, therefore some real portfolios could be strictly dominated by other choices. This is one of the reasons for the low-growth/low-variance profile of the more developed countries' markets compared to the high-growth/high-variance profile of the developing ones.

Putting six months worth of expenses in a money-market account seems like a needless 'mental accounting' bias. You can easily and quickly liquidate a portion of your " 70% in a stock index fund and 30% in a bond fund" if you need the cash in an emergency.

The 70% stocks 30% bonds seems somewhat arbitrary. I remember reading a paper once that advocated allocating 130% equities through the use of leverage. Of course, there is always the chance that the stockmarket underperforms over the long run. But, that's the risk that you are ostensibly being compensated for.

5Shmi
These are general guidelines/priorities for safe and effective financial planning, not the "best possible" investment. They are apparently vastly better than what most americans have now: no will, cc debt, unaffordable mortgage, no (liquid) savings, inappropriately conservative, reckless or high-fee investment etc. You can certainly optimize and customize these guidelines, but you have to know what you are doing, which most of us don't. These guidelines are probably not quite suitable for places other than the US.

that requires no upkeep, no worry, and good returns.

It is plausibly the "worry" (or discomfort) that is required for good expected returns. For instance, CAPM, implies you are being paid to hold undiversifiable risk. You get paid for it because of people's distaste for it.

Your expected returns for a corporate bond, for example, might be because of the worry that it defaults (the extent to which this is undiversifiable, as there is a tendency for bond defaults to co-occur in bad times.), and an illiquidity premium --- in bad times when you'd ... (read more)

0wubbles
CAPM explains 70% of equity returns, Fama French model 90%, but over the 20th century it's not clear what the Fama-French factors are. I fully agree with your minor quibbles. As for upkeep and worry, yes, risk leads to return. But it is an input, and like any sort of input it should be minimized for a given level of output.

According to the academic literature, the opposite is true:

"Do Financial Markets Reward Buying or Selling Insurance and Lottery Tickets?" Antti Ilmanen Financial Analysts Journal, September/October 2012, Vol. 68, No. 5: 26–36.

"The empirical evidence is unambiguous: Selling insurance and selling lottery tickets have delivered positive long-run rewards in a wide range of investment contexts. Conversely, buying financial catastrophe insurance and holding speculative lottery-like investments have delivered poor longrun rewards. Thus, bearing sma... (read more)

Antti Ilmanen's "Expected Returns" is probably one of the best attempts to answer these questions. This book is however quite pricy.

From the intro: "Finance theories have changed dramatically over the past 30 years away from the restrictive theories of the single-factor CAPM, efficient markets, and constant expected returns. Current academic views are more diverse, less tidy, and more realistic. Expected returns are now commonly seen as driven by multiple factors. Some determinants are rational (risk and liquidity premia), others irrational ... (read more)

Surely if a certain future payoff is expected a priori to be good (because of expected favorable business climate or whatever), then the price paid will adjust accordingly. This means that expected return (a function of price paid and payoff) will be comparable to other investments with similar payoffs, rather than being good.

If, say, business climate were unfavorable, and payoff is expected to be low, price paid for the investment should adjust for this so that expected return need not be low.

If there is large degree of uncertainty associated with a payo... (read more)