patrick.net

curious2 says

when he catches a cold, doesn't it occur to him that he might benefit from a vaccine to prevent that? I mean, everyone catches colds, and everyone hates it, how do multi-billionaires blind themselves to the possibility of curing them?

Curious, the active ingredient in Garlic, Allicin, can treat many infections, including the common cold.

http://www.academia.edu/3385679/Antimicrobial_properties_of_allicin_from_garlic

Yet, despite Bill Gate's massive foundation, he's still believing that the only thing he can do is make big pharma products, cheaper for the third world.

Thus, a billionaire has missed the notion that making the active ingredient in Garlic, available to the public (max cost ~$1/day without a larger processing facility), could be an evolutionary idea in heath care without resorting to continuous anti-biotic derivatives.

curious2 says

New Renter says

I assumed Curious2 was referring to the "stupid....

I didn't call anybody stupid, I just don't understand the priorities of people who possess potentially life-changing wealth and yet can't figure out what to do with it beyond buying a bigger yacht. Paul Allen has a mega-yacht and an equally overbuilt football team, I like RealPlayer but seriously, when he catches a cold, doesn't it occur to him that he might benefit from a vaccine to prevent that? I mean, everyone catches colds, and everyone hates it, how do multi-billionaires blind themselves to the possibility of curing them?

No you did not, Rin did.

Anyway such people can afford the absolute cutting edge in healthcare. Blue blooded doctors with a HYP pedigree and the very latest drugs and equipment to make sure that annoying cold does not progress to something more. Why bother finding a cure for something that only really hurts the little people?

No better to invest that money in lobbyists to "guide" lawmakers towards your interests.

Actually, a lot of rich people get some of the worst care i.e. that doesn't mean the cheapest, because they often employ the doctors who will tell them what they want to hear and give them what they want.

You think Steve Jobs got the best care? He ignored medical advise to pursue his own superstitions, otherwise, may have lived longer or may have had remissions.

Also, just because they are rich, doesn't mean they don't catch colds, viruses and flu just like everybody else. Money doesn't really buy health, and that is precisely why it is so valuable.

Ceffer says

You think Steve Jobs got the best care? He ignored medical advise to pursue his own superstitions, otherwise, may have lived longer or may have had remissions.

Not getting the best care and ignoring the best care are two different things.

Ceffer says

Also, just because they are rich, doesn't mean they don't catch colds, viruses and flu just like everybody else. Money doesn't really buy health, and that is precisely why it is so valuable.

Yes it does.

People with money do not have to put themselves in harms way to put food on the table.

People with money can afford food and drink that is unlikely to itself cause illness as well as shelter away from environmental nasties.

People with money can afford treatment to prevent life ending complications from minor illnesses.

People with money can afford preventative care.

Some of this does not take a lot of money but it does take some and to those who don't have any money that amount makes those who do rich.

New Renter says

Not getting the best care and ignoring the best care are two different things.

True, but there is a lot of overlap. We have a medical system that maximizes revenues by victimizing patients. The bigger the markup, the harder the sale. Many people long to feel valued, and salesmen exploit that. In medicine, the most expensive treatment is rarely the best, and there are too many examples where people made themselves worse off because they could afford to. In Steve Jobs' case, he stayed in the American system, which is the most expensive, somehow getting "residence" in Tennessee so he could get a shorter waiting list for a liver transplant from a cadaver. He could have gone to India and got a liver transplant from a live donor at a fraction of the price, no waiting, same success rate, and he could have gone back to do the same thing again. The liver is a remarkable organ, you can cut half of it out of a live donor, and it will regrow in both the donor and the recipient, so they'll both have whole livers within around a month. A healthy liver can keep pancreatic cancer under control for years; it's when the liver fails that the patient dies. People say Steve Jobs died of pancreatic cancer, but in fact he died from a combination of (a) magical thinking, (b) salesmen selling him the most expensive treatment, (c) the cancer spreading unnecessarily from his pancreas to his liver and then beyond. At least Steve had the option to go to another country; most Americans remain trapped in the now mandatory American CAFO system, surrounded by border enforcement stepped up by Obamneycare.

Also, don't forget, one can get adult stem cell work done, the cells being extracted from one's own fatty tissues and then, re-activated from the dormant state, in Thailand or Japan.

By increasing the availability of these cells in one's aging body, keys organ systems and vascular tissues, get renewed and can function in top form, a lot better than prior to the treatment.

The happiest profession is being independently wealthy

Then explain your presence here...

Rin says

I don't believe that Ellison will want to meet with anyone, and I include myself in that category, as an intellectual equal or superior.

Rin says

The Darwins, Maxwells, and so forth ... don't mingle with the stupid types from the Hamptons

Very simple, I'm here because my entire work day is about being on the phone with clients & attending meetings. My eye is always on the IM, waiting for someone to ask me a stupid question.

As a former STEM person, that type of stuff drives one nuts, esp once you do 50 hours per week or more of it. I could deal with it, being 20% of the job but 100% is a lot of BS, even for a semi-patient person.

And thus, this forum with its off the 'cuff remarks about housing, tech, politics, etc, is the perfect release value from a day of abject mindlessness.

zzyzzx says

The happiest profession is being independently wealthy

Hold on... earlier weren't there all these posterers, saying that money doesn't bring happiness, as if somehow, the world was going to pay one, to perform one's hobbies?

Thus, it's Captain Obvious to the rescue.

Rin says

Very simple, I'm here because my entire work day is about being on the phone with clients & attending meetings. My eye is always on the IM, waiting for someone to ask me a stupid question.

As a former STEM person, that type of stuff drives one nuts, esp once you do 50 hours per week or more of it. I could deal with it, being 20% of the job but 100% is a lot of BS, even for a semi-patient person.

And thus, this forum with its off the cuff remarks about housing, tech, politics, etc, is the perfect release value from a day of abject mindlessness.

I love this guy.

curious2 says

When I read about today's multi-billionaires, I wonder seriously, why don't they think more like Rin? Even if they don't personally have the scientific background to do medical research themselves, they could hire a team of postdocs and claim credit for the results. Consider two multi-billionaires at a cocktail party:

A) "The market is up this week, so I have $7 billion."

B) "The market is up this week, so I have $5 billion in addition to my Nobel Prize in medicine, for curing cancer."

Maybe I need to understand better the Type A personality, because it seems to me that B wins that round.

The lifestyles of someone worth $5billion as opposed to $7billion cannot be that different. You can't spend that money, only invest it for someone else to spend it down the road.
I'd say "B" wins.

Love the title to the thread.
You can't get it more right.

This is why George Soros is way cooler than Warren Buffet. What is better than using the market as a platform of intellectual discoveries?

Rin says

curious2 says

Even if they don't personally have the scientific background to do medical research themselves, they could hire a team of postdocs and claim credit for the results.

I think in the beginning, Larry Ellison of Oracle wanted to be this type of guy but quickly, he became another showboat, spending all of his resources on winning the America's Cup. Ultimately, ppl like him don't like hiring someone, smarter than them. Their fragile egos can't handle it.

The best thing about bring INDEPENDENTLY wealthy is that one is not dependent on your opinions.

How is a man's passion in yachting any less than another man's desire to do medical research?

There is no right way. The very essense of success is the triumph of the will.

Peter P says

How is a man's passion in yachting any less than another man's desire to do medical research?

There is no right way. The very essense of success is the triumph of the will

Yes, I concur with this. Ellison was always a sporting type of person. One of his famous exploits was bodysurfing in Hawaii, during a hurricane. He'd busted a lung but survived to tell about it.

Still, between his adventures/misadventures, he'd attempted to portray himself as a polyglot, by hanging out in a gene transfer lab and a few other dog/pony shows in expert systems, etc. Like a lot of IT chiefs, he probably realized one thing... sure, he's physically tough et al, however, he's probably not all that bright.

I'd worked for someone, exactly like that and he could never deal with anyone working under him, who had any real intelligence. This particular VP made sure that any product architect, programmer, or consultant was made to feel inferior in his presence. Those who fought back and exerted themselves, were quietly put on *special projects*. All and all, I think that that's the real Ellison, a one dimensional alpha male, who doesn't like to see himself as 2nd or 3rd best at anything.

And since he's been Oracle's chief, all these decades, he's never had to deal with descent for quite some time.

I think Ellison wants to exceed himself. There is nothing wrong about trying to dominate. I doubt Genghis Khan would settle for 2nd best.

Peter P says

I think Ellison wants to exceed himself.

But that's the thing, I think real STEM work is actually hard.

IMO, Larry's had it easy for so long, being the Oracle chief, that entering a new area, like a genomics lab, is probably like starting over, with a lot of new terminologies, unread textbooks, etc.

And unlike ppl like New Renter here, I'm guessing that Larry doesn't buckle down and crack the textbooks open, for hours on end, to find out what he needs to actually learn. Instead, he'd rather do 200 pushups and run around the block. You see, a lot of execs do that stuff already, to get themselves pumped up for their next series of meetings. Former Navy Seals have actually sold BUDS training pow-wow *experiences* to managers in corporate America.

My theory is that executive types are actually quite ordinary, in terms of delving into technical subjects, but have a great ability to distill the information for a larger audience. Thus, their physical stamina translates into tasks like boating, climbing Mt Rainer, big presentations, etc, but doesn't lend itself towards introspection and intense learning.

So if Larry wants to 'exceed' himself, he needs to first accept his shortcomings but then, build himself a program to overcome them. If his concentration on real science sucks ... then he needs to cut the exercise routines from 2 hours straight to perhaps, 15 min interval tracks and then, study an incomprehensible subject like Stochastic Processes, and then go back to the exercise, with the idea of building his stamina at learning subjects out of his comfort zone of regular fitness.

Rin says

My theory is....

I like that theory better than your earlier one about intellectual insecurity, and there is more evidence to support it. If you look at President GW Bush, he loved to work out, and was in the top 1% physically for his age. He had no intellectual insecurities, in fact he got better grades at Yale than his classmate John Kerry, but Bush affected folksiness while Kerry affected intellectualism.

Peter P says

There is nothing wrong about trying to dominate. I doubt Genghis Khan would settle for 2nd best.

This is another theory with evidence to support it. Khan was notoriously sadistic, and wrote that the sweetest part of victory was the suffering of the vanquished; he survived and reproduced more successfully than the people he killed, so Darwinian evolution favored him. If you cure the common cold, everyone benefits, but that's the problem: if everybody has it, then you don't have any particular advantage. Orwell wrote about that in 1984, the idea that the privileges of wealth must be scarce in order to be coveted and keep others "insanely envious" and on the treadmill. The mega-yacht might cost more than proving a cure for the common cold, but it adds value in the envy that it inspires in others, and having a whole crew calling you Sir.

BTW, I added source links to my earlier comment about liver transplants, with no change to the text. People are so deeply conditioned to believe that the most expensive must be the best, that they become unable to comprehend that a cheaper solution might save their lives and spending more might kill them. Institutions evolve in a Darwinian virtual ecosystem that rewards complexity and predation; if they can make more money off something that kills you, they win out over "lesser" modalities that might save you both physically and financially. Sometimes I feel like one of the few dissenters in the last days of Jonestown, trying to resist drinking the Kool-Aid, but my words here are only anonymous comments, so I must remember to add source links.

curious2 says

Steve Jobs' case, he stayed in the American system, which is the most expensive, somehow getting "residence" in Tennessee so he could get a shorter waiting list for a liver transplant from a cadaver. He could have gone to India and got a liver transplant from a live donor at a fraction of the price, no waiting, same success rate, and he could have gone back to do the same thing again

And again that was his choice. He was rich enough that he could have had had hired a pack of healthy children as perpetual liver doners.

New Renter says

And again that was his choice.

Yes, that's the point. He chose the most expensive thing, sold by the most aggressive salesmen, and it cost him his life in addition to the money he paid. With Obamneycare, America has made a parallel choice, paying more for the "conventional wisdom" instead of genuine evidence based decision-making. Evidence-based decision making is hard, but succumbing to the credentialed salesmen is easier, it requires only substituting an easier question: not "what is the right answer" but rather "which salesman has the most impressive credentials?" Sometimes I wonder why Obamneycare bothers me so much, and I think it is the mandatory dependence on misinformed conformity; I care about evidence-based decision making, it means a lot to me, and I don't like seeing the phrase misused and subverted into yet another misguided crusade, as when McNamara and the other self-styled "best and the brightest" conscripted everyone into destroying Viet Nam in order to "save" it. (BTW, McNamara was also very bright, and rich, and his career at Defense illustrated yet again that smart and rich people can make terribly lethal mistakes.)

Rin says

So if Larry wants to 'exceed' himself, he needs to first accept his shortcomings but then, build himself a program to overcome them. If his concentration on real science sucks ... then he needs to cut the exercise routines from 2 hours straight to perhaps, 15 min interval tracks and then, study an incomprehensible subject like Stochastic Processes, and then go back to the exercise, with the idea of building his stamina at learning subjects out of his comfort zone of regular fitness.

He'd end up eating a gun.

Megayachts are the best stimulus package. A 300-footer can cost more than 150M to 200M and most of that is LABOR. Think highly-paid designers, naval architects, artisans, and skilled workers.

New Renter says

Rin says

So if Larry wants to 'exceed' himself, he needs to first accept his shortcomings but then, build himself a program to overcome them. If his concentration on real science sucks ... then he needs to cut the exercise routines from 2 hours straight to perhaps, 15 min interval tracks and then, study an incomprehensible subject like Stochastic Processes, and then go back to the exercise, with the idea of building his stamina at learning subjects out of his comfort zone of regular fitness.

He'd end up eating a gun.

How do you think I'm surviving this current job? I have a medicine ball and a set of dumbbells under my desk. When I finish this post, I'll do a few curls and wood-chopper set.

Trust me, talking to stupid ppl all day can do a job on one's intellect.

Rin says

How do you think I'm surviving this current job? I have a medicine ball and a set of dumbbells under my desk. When I finish this post, I'll do a few curls and wood-chopper set.

Trust me, talking to stupid ppl all day can do a job on one's intellect.

Ok, just finished my mini-workout.

Now I can get back to BS-ing with clients and re-explain the difference between Oracle databases and MS Excel and why business object layers are not the trade transaction recorded real-time. And how a proper audit trail, starts with the executed trade first, and then, the tax assignment/jurisdiction after the event is executed. And so on and so on ...

sbh says

Sounds like hell. I hope for you the pay is worth it when you make for the exit.

In the past, my client stuff was 35% of the time and that, I can deal with.

Today, it's ramped up to 100%, because the firm is looking to expand and eventually, do a merge and spinoff with another peer firm. Thus, ALL client issues are given full priority with no exceptions. All behavior patterns are observed and monitored. Even this posting is going through a VPN service.

The end result (or goal) is that the book value grows and then, the small stakeholders (which includes me) can be divested (our severance pkg) and then, the principals get to merge with a bigger house, quadrupling their platinum parachutes. I think the idea is that no HF stays small forever but at the same time, without a legitimate transition into a bigger operation, it'll appear that everyone's bailing which then lowers the book value.

Rin says

Rin says

How do you think I'm surviving this current job? I have a medicine ball and a set of dumbbells under my desk. When I finish this post, I'll do a few curls and wood-chopper set.

Trust me, talking to stupid ppl all day can do a job on one's intellect.

Ok, just finished my mini-workout.

Now I can get back to BS-ing with clients and re-explain the difference between Oracle databases and MS Excel and why business object layers are not the trade transaction recorded real-time. And how a proper audit trail, starts with the executed trade first, and then, the tax assignment/jurisdiction after the event is executed. And so on and so on ...

The way you describe it you could be replaced with a website FAQ.

Rin says

I think the idea is that no HF stays small forever but at the same time, without a legitimate transition into a bigger operation, it'll appear that everyone's bailing which then lowers the book value.

Most hedge funds are not true hedge funds anymore in the traditional sense and are prone to blow up whenever the next crisis hits, esp. when they become big, because they become harder to manage and they start sticking with certain strategies. A true hedge fund should stay small and split if necessary and be able to always open long and short positions and trade any asset class (from futures, soybeans, currencies, to gold) at any given day with plenty of international exposure. They make less in times like the past 5 years where index funds and dumb hedge funds ramp up on a long only market, but when it turns volatile they shine and the risk is always hedged.

New Renter says

The way you describe it you could be replaced with a website FAQ.

That's sort of the goal. The idea is that the sales force corrals the money but part of doing that is to up sell the exactness of our controls/internals.

But then, you don't want that to be openly disclosed on a FAQ sheet either, because you want to make the clients, and their tax and asset management service partners feel special so that they only want to form a relationship with you, over some other firm, who despite providing a lot of paper upfront, do all their own stuff w/o consulting with the clients.

This is all a game.

mell says

Most hedge funds are not true hedge funds anymore in the traditional sense and are prone to blow up whenever the next crisis hits, esp. when they become big, because they become harder to manage and they start sticking with certain strategies.

I concur and that's part of why we're so focused on keeping clients happy, so that we get through the years 4 to 5 issues and come out all right in the end.

Rin says

New Renter says

The way you describe it you could be replaced with a website FAQ.

That's sort of the goal.

I guess my question would be, for what Warren Buffett calls "the two and twenty crowd," why would an investor want to pay such high fees? I've heard the answer that "if you pay peanuts, you get monkeys," but I question that too. Suppose Harry Houdini starts a hedge fund that consists of him taking his investors' money and dividing it into two funds, deducting his 2% management fee from both, then bringing the remainder to a casino roulette wheel. He bets one fund on black, and to hedge the risk of loss he bets his "contra-fund" on red. His fee is 2% of principal plus 20% of gains, so after one round he gets:

2% of both funds+
20% of the "winning" fund,
= 12% of the entire principal invested.

There is a small risk of total loss, but that risk is mainly on the investors who put up the principal. I can see how this is a great model for the fund manager to get rich, but how do the investors believe in it? Is it like in medicine, where they are conditioned to believe that the most expensive must be the best, and they don't question it further? Isn't overpaying relative to value really the opposite of investing?

So from reading your threads, I gather that your current day job is a means to an end. In your case, to carry out your passion in STEM work. Which, as you've convincingly argued, is impossible if one must do so under the thumb of those that control their funding. Makes sense

Where I'm unclear, is your motive. You seem to espouse a desire to discover or invent something thru science, that would bring a societal windfall of betterment, no? And not for the money, but for the love of advancing science.

Sounds all well and good, however, you're not "that unique". There's plenty of humans on this planet capable of carrying out the work in sciences that could advance all of humanity, if not bound by the grips of politics. Would your time and efforts be better served, developing a means by which more people (interested in sciences) could become wealthy (enough) to carry out scientific research on their own?

How many quants and used hedge fund salespeople aren't in it for the money? I, for one, could see more utility in Rin developing a means to allow more people to devote their time to science, unmolested by political monied interests. Making it possible for more people to become "wealtthy" enough,,,, perhaps you've actually had a thread where you talked about this, if I recall. Stick to your knitting

@ curious

You'd better hope that no green zeros hit!

errc says

You'd better hope that no green zeros hit!

That's why I named the manager Houdini, and pointed out the risk of loss is mainly on the investors. He can still escape with his 2% management fee, perfectly legal as long as he's dealing with "accredited investors" (and almost anybody who owns even a 1br shack in Stockton is now rich enough to be "accredited", thanks to QE & ZIRP propping up the price of shacks).

BTW, I don't mean any disrespect for the original Harry Houdini, a great performer who took all the risks himself and died practicing a dangerous craft. I borrowed his name because it has become synonymous with great escapes. The last attempt didn't work out so well for him, but he remains worth remembering.

curious2 says

how do the investors believe in it?

My firm works with portfolio & asset management types and our pitch to their clients is that we provide the 'alpha' (meaning higher risk, higher profit, but with strict controls [ & some of that is proprietary knowledge ]) to a portfolio, which sticks with the basics, a.k.a. beta, where investors get a lot of their returns from dividends and ordinary cap gains. Thus, if a foundation is happy, risking 15% of their trading portfolio to our company, chances are they'll be adding a nice layer to their balance sheet when the year is up. Since some portfolio managers have several firms in mind, we also encourage splitting pools, so that some clients can test us out for a year, before increasing their commitment.

errc says

Making it possible for more people to become "wealtthy" enough,,,, perhaps you've actually had a thread where you talked about this, if I recall. Stick to your knitting

I think that was my idea of the science/engineering sponsorship state, where S&Es will get a basic stipend, if they pass a series of S&E exams.

As far as funding it goes, I don't think an ordinary financial firm can make it happen, including the Gates/Buffet foundations. It'll have to be lobbied through the Dept of Defense, since those are the deep pockets in DC.

errc says

you're not "that unique".

I had pondered that idea that perhaps ... I might not be all that good, despite my early research and publication success during college years.

I think that even if I'm no Gibbs, Bohr, Maxwell, or whomever, from science's luminary past, I don't think it really matters.

What matters is that ability to follow one's passions and be able to draw from intuition, inspiration, or what have you. Success or failure only matters if one needs a paycheck.

Yes, you don't want to fail in a career where your work results in a 1099 or W-2. And sure, many who're willing to study and log a few hours can become an accountant or nurse.

There are plenty of retired persons today who oil paint. Clearly, most of them will never expect their work to be seen in the Rembrandt, Van Gogh, or Picasso exhibits of the 22nd century but does it really matter to them?

"The happiest profession is being independently wealthy"

You mean I don't have to be someone else's bitch? I totally agree. Haven't had a W-2 job for over 4.5 years and don't plan on ever going back to the W-2 world. Not independently wealthy, but I'm quite happy with my profession, and that's being a stay-at-home dad while investing in real estate part-time.

E-man says

but I'm quite happy with my profession, and that's being a stay-at-home dad while investing in real estate part-time

However you can do it.

The thing is that there are all these clowns who say that 'money doesn't buy happiness' but yet, this clown contingency is working for some loser corporate (or academic) America entities and yet, they can't see the fact that they're little more than indentured servants, making a living, doing as they're told.

"The happiest profession is being independently wealthy"

"Independent" of what ? ever job is dependent on some
other parties and economic well being. When it goes bad
it goes bad for all... dont matter even if you are a RE investor
who rents out property.. with job loses come decline in incomes
and thus fall in rental income..