Jump to content

babysdaddy

Legacy Members
  • Posts

    2405
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by babysdaddy

  1. On 9/11/2018 at 5:30 PM, jimmyjazz said:

    Well, that looks a little less than impressive.  31% gain since inception (Aug 2012).  S&P has more than doubled in that time frame.  Call the S&P 12.9% per year, knock off 3% for the hedge, that's 9.9% per year net (yeah I know it's not exact) -- a 76% gain compared to 31% for SDRAX.  Both had similar drawdowns in the 2nd half of 2015.

    Hedging is not easy.  Still, I'll buy puts if the models work out like this.

    yeah, absolutely.  Main point for that fund is in another 2008/9.  Didn't know what you were looking for exactly.    

  2. 3 minutes ago, Rockethorn1978 said:

    Without the wins.

    Mack was 10-4 at this point in his coaching career at Texas.  He luckily had the heisman rb during his first year of coaching.  I'd argue our record could have been better last year had Foreman stayed but I digress.  What was fun checking Tom's record vs. Mack was getting to re-look at the 1999 NC State game that we lost.  Don't do it.

     

  3. On 9/7/2018 at 10:15 PM, jimmyjazz said:

    Totally agree, do not pay that kind of vig.  

    On a somewhat related topic:  I'm curious about systematic hedging of a portfolio.  Say one purchased a 10% out-of-the-money put 3 months until expiration on SPY.  It appears this would run about 3% per year as "insurance" (based on 100 shares of SPY).  No doubt that's well worse than the 1.2% fee quoted above, but at times that put is going to see short term gains.  There is no way over the course of a year there would be no opportunities to sell (or roll) that put for a profit.  So, less than 3% is the hedging cost.

    There must be good academic studies out there detailing this kind of strategy.  Different moneyness (% OTM), different expiries, etc.  Anybody know where to look?

     

    Check out Swan Defined Risk Fund.  SDRAX.  

  4. Watched a lot of football yesterday. I think we can beat SC, kst, Kansas, Baylor, Iowa state. Tech and ok st are a tossup. Ou and tcu are going to beat up on us. I think 6-6 most likely. Our dline is not great to watch. Oline looked like it regressed a touch. Ehlinger is not good. Only bright spots are rbs and a couple of our dbs. Sigh

  5. 2 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

    I get that you somehow see that video as proof her two identical hand signs two days in a row weren't intentional.  I don't know how a smart person comes to that conclusion, but what the fuck ever.  You're wrong.  It was intentional.

    What I can get on board with is that it's also irrelevant.  In the grand scheme of shit going on, this is somewhere below whale shit.

     

    6 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

    Wrong about what?

    Look, the video, which I asked for earlier to provide context to the super slow mo video, clearly shows she was having a text conversation with someone else in the room and she was saying "ok" to something that was just sent to her.  I can't help you guys see what is right in front of your face.  I don't know how a smart person can come to any other conclusion other than that, but what the fuck ever.  You're wrong, it was not intentional in the way you want it to be.  Even Brisket said so above.  I know you guys trust him since he's been apoplectic about everything the past 2 years

  6. Just now, Hugo Stiglitz said:

    Y’all have really gotta let this lady go.  

    You pushed it and you were wrong.  What you should say is 'sorry I got you guys all riled up which distracted from the confirmation hearing.  So did you guys see Brett perjured himself?'  

  7. Thanks for the video Art.  What I find most discouraging is some people are watching that and still concluding it was a purposeful and intentional white power signal. And LOL Hugo at warning against tactics of that group after someone (maybe you) posted the super slomo video of her hand signal that was clearly misleading.  

     

  8. Just now, jimmyjazz said:

    I'm not dying.  She's flashing a white power sign.  She's a non-player staffer with sometimes ties to a corrupt administration.

    How the fuck am I "dying" on this hill?

    You overstate things.

    Meaning, there is plenty of other things to focus on with respect to this confirmation hearing. Not the least of which is the perjury items you mentioned.  Focusing on her does not lend credibility to the rest of your (royal 'your') statements to less partisan individuals.

  9. Well me too.  What is the simplest explanation?  That this educated individual on the most watched confirmation hearing in history applied a sneaky white power sign on day one, got called out on it via twitter, and then decided to do it again because nobody could possibly believe she'd try it again?  Or it was nothing and then she mockingly said 'ok' to some political grandstanding statement? 

    I assume there is no longer video that could prove or disprove?  If i'm wrong I will apologize.  Or we can continue the circle jerk.

    Also, just finished "The Name of the Wind".  It's good if you haven't read it.

  10. why are you guys choosing this hill to die on?  there is nothing reasonable about this conclusion.  It's in the same vein as the the guys pushing the pizzagate theory or the obama was a muslim theory.  Goal is to to get to reasonable discussion, not this shit.  

×
×
  • Create New...