Which of you twits...

[KrazyHorse]

It's really hard for me to express what I was getting at. Capital gains only exist from securities that carry risk. There would be a statistical distribution of losses and gains in which the presence of a capital gains tax would be beneficial to encourage investment on the loss side up to the $3000 and cause a distortion against investment on the positive side. So if you want to look at it in aggregate (ie- not just with a single investor), it could be relevant.

Is this supposed to make some sort of ****ing sense as written? Let me translate this into non-****** for you:

1) The existence of a capital gains tax creates a distortion which discourages risk taking; investors basically give away a call option on the appreciation of their portfolio to the government (payoff = 0.15*Max(G,0))
2) Because capital gains are taxed at lower than earned income, the 3000$ window gives investors a free bear put spread option on the appreciation of their portfolio (payoff = 0.20*Min(Max(-G,0),3000)
3) There is some distortion in favor of risk-seeking due to (2)

Now, as anybody with a brain can see, (2) isn't really much of anything. It caps out at 600$. Anybody with a sizable equities portfolio will see annual volatility much bigger than 3000$. Therefore the effect of (2) is unimportant. (1) is not capped, so its effect remains important for all investors.

FFS, this is trivial. I can't believe I wasted 5 minutes writing that

[KrazyHorse]

Annual vol of the S&P is 20% or so. For an investor with 100k in the market, that 3000$ move represents 1/7 of a standard deviation.

For that investor, the marginal value of the bear put spread (how much more valuable it gets for an extra dollar invested) is 0.0002

The marginal value of the call option he gives away is 0.012

No big surprise. One is much bigger than the other. The situation gets even worse with non-zero rates

[MOBIUS]

I love these threads!

How much of your life have you wasted on threads like this with Al? How does that make you more clever than he is?

[KrazyHorse]

That's not what makes me more clever than him

[N35t0r]

You're not bringing anything helpful into this, then, N35t0r. You're acting very KH-like but worse. You're saying nothing meaningful after spewing insults.

Jag mentioned he used DVOA as a method to chose two out of four players. You go nuts arguing how DVOA is the worst ever possible thing to base you decision on, based on a list of players for which it isn't, and attempt to sound smart by using statistics terms.

I mention that Jag didn't use exclusively DVOA to chose players, and bring up the fact that a variable can be one of many that do explain something, but have very little correlation on its own.

To this, you bring up ONE SINGLE OTHER variable and proceed to show that it's not likely that both together can be useful. And then get upset when I react sarcastically to this.

And then you claim I didn't add anything meaningful because I don't know what other thing(!) he based himself on (HINT: If American Football is anything like any other team sport out there, then it's probably several tens of other things).

[MRT144]

FFS, this is trivial. I can't believe I wasted 5 minutes writing that

I can; you're nothing if not meticulous. You've got some sort OCD when it comes to proving people wrong on message boards. If words were grains of rice I could presumably distract you by throwing a couple hundred down willy nilly and then laugh as you scramble to scoop them up.

Of course you could just reply as such:

[Al B. Sure!]

There's also the fact that wealthier people are more able to re-allocate their savings at the first signs of inflationary pressure. How many low wage earners are buying commodities?

Holy **** you are stupid.



Your statement here is predicated on the assumption that somehow rich people can beat the market on timing. What ****ing planet do you live on, you twit?

NO! MY POINT IS THAT KUCI DID NOT KNOW OF THE EXISTENCE OF INFLATION-ADJUSTED SECURITIES!

He said ALL assets are denominated in cash so are subject to inflation.

Inflation represents a depreciation of all assets denominated in the relevant currency, not just cash.

NO! Not ALL assets are subject to inflation! TELL ME THAT IS WRONG, KH! TELL ME ALL ASSETS ARE SUBJECT TO INFLATION.

[Al B. Sure!]

Jag mentioned he used DVOA as a method to chose two out of four players. You go nuts arguing how DVOA is the worst ever possible thing to base you decision on, based on a list of players for which it isn't, and attempt to sound smart by using statistics terms.

I mention that Jag didn't use exclusively DVOA to chose players, and bring up the fact that a variable can be one of many that do explain something, but have very little correlation on its own.

To this, you bring up ONE SINGLE OTHER variable and proceed to show that it's not likely that both together can be useful. And then get upset when I react sarcastically to this.

And then you claim I didn't add anything meaningful because I don't know what other thing(!) he based himself on (HINT: If American Football is anything like any other team sport out there, then it's probably several tens of other things).

Yet that's not what Jaguar said. He just brought up DVOA as his explanation. Now, of course, if he responds, he will say something else (though not yards per touch because I quieted that one a bit), but that doesn't mean he did at the time.

I'm pretty sure Jaguar is using hindsight to make his statement. He got lucky. There's a bunch of reasons why any particular NFL player would have a great season/game or have a horrible season/game; no one's a slam-dunk. When they have a great season and people had them on their fantasy teams, they like to say look at X, Y, and Z and that's how I knew they would be good ignoring that A, B, and C said that player wouldn't be good and X, Y, and Z on another player was even better but he didn't do too hot.

[N35t0r]

So you're jealous and saying it's 100% blind luck then.

[edit:]

I mean, god forbid there were ways of roughly predicting how Football Players would perform!

[Al B. Sure!]

So you're jealous and saying it's 100% blind luck then.

[edit:]

I mean, god forbid there were ways of roughly predicting how Football Players would perform!

No but Jaguar, since the day the draft started, was presenting himself as a fantasy football genius, talking in 3rd person and what not, so I'm harping on the fair share of luck he had as well

[N35t0r]

So you're mad that he's not telling you his methods then?

[giblets]

NO! MY POINT IS THAT KUCI DID NOT KNOW OF THE EXISTENCE OF INFLATION-ADJUSTED SECURITIES!

He said ALL assets are denominated in cash so are subject to inflation.



NO! Not ALL assets are subject to inflation! TELL ME THAT IS WRONG, KH! TELL ME ALL ASSETS ARE SUBJECT TO INFLATION.

Well technically correct, it's a pretty minor detail and not really enough to refute the point Kuciwalker was making. I don't see why you're so desperate for such a tiny, insignificant victory.

[MRT144]

No but Jaguar, since the day the draft started, was presenting himself as a fantasy football genius, talking in 3rd person and what not, so I'm harping on the fair share of luck he had as well

He is a genius. And Im second only to his genius.

[MRT144]

Al thrives on the insignificant victory.

[MOBIUS]

I can; you're nothing if not meticulous. You've got some sort OCD when it comes to proving people wrong on message boards. If words were grains of rice I could presumably distract you by throwing a couple hundred down willy nilly and then laugh as you scramble to scoop them up.

Of course you could just reply as such:

This is basically my point about KH...