http://thereformedbroker.com/2017/06/15/id-like-to-solve-the-puzzle-pat/

There is a nugget in here that I agree with and hadn’t really formulated coherently in my mind.
Essentially, I believe there’s been a quiet regime change amongst who is making money in finance. The loud winners of the past are having their lunch eaten by quiet victors.
If the old winners used to be Wall Street/hedge funds/Ivy-league bros who celebrate their success with mansions in Greenwich, yacht parties, cocaine and Wolf-of-Wall-Street style behavior.
The new winners are techy/”quants”/introverted types who celebrate their success with… philanthropy?
Also, the first type of people were so brash and showy in their success, their behavior breed anger and resentment among the have-nots. The latter are doing it so quietly and understatedly that people aren’t even sure it’s happening at all. And I think this is a much more sustainable pattern.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-04-09/lopsided-stocks-and-the-math-explaining-active-manager-futility

 

This is a great summary of why stock pickers, active managers are doomed to underperforming the whole market (index).

The concept of skewness – that only a few stocks (AAPL, GOOG) are responsible for the majority of returns. Missing out on these stocks means the rest of your portfolio has no chance of matching the overall returns.

There’s a good analogy with poker chips in a bag from the article. Another one would be if the Lottery’s jackpot got so big that the expected winnings of each ticket was >$1. The index strategy is to buy every ticket possibility. If your strategy is just to buy a couple, your expected return is >$1, but if you don’t hit the winning ticket, your actual return is going to be terrible.

What Modern Democracies Didn’t Copy From Ancient Greece

This was an interesting part of their Democracy. The fear of any one demagogue becoming too powerful. I wonder if this system were in place, how would this change politican’s actions. They would have to walk a fine line of wanting to gain power/popularity, but not too much power.

BANISHMENT

Many modern politicians would surely relish the chance to see rivals banished by popular vote. In fifth century B.C. Athens, this was actually possible. Citizens met annually in the agora—a public center of commerce and politics—and voted on whether any individual was becoming too powerful. The person with the most votes was exiled from Athens for 10 years.

The names of candidates for exile were scratched onto small potsherds and tallied, with a minimum of 6,000 votes required to banish someone. Called ostraka in ancient Greek, these potsherds are the root of the English word “ostracize.”