paradossista
mediocrità strategica
Questo tipo di grafici sono molto amati nei circoli dei bitcoin aficionados. Non hanno alcun valore predittivo.
Much of the discourse about passive investing is simply misguided. Since passive investors mostly do not trade, it is mostly true that they do not impact market prices; what really matters is what the non-passive investors are doing.
What matters is the existence of a sufficient number of informed active investors with a sufficient number of dollars and the existence of a liquid market with multiple types of interacting traders. As long as those conditions hold, you can have a well-functioning, efficient market with informative prices, and it doesn’t matter whether passive is 1% or 99% of the market.
Suppose there are 100 investors in a stock market. We start with zero passive investors. Now suppose that 50 of the investors decide to switch to passively holding the market. Does that make the market less efficient, crushing price discovery and paving the way for Marxism? Well, it depends on who switches. If the 50 smartest and best-informed investors switch to passive, then yes, it could make prices less informative. If the 50 craziest and least informed investors switch, then maybe market prices get more informative. What matters is who stays in the market, providing price discovery and liquidity.
BNY Mellon, America’s largest custodian bank, appears to have received SEC approval to offer institutional crypto custody services, according to testimony at a Wyoming public hearing.
This variance could clear the way for BNY Mellon and other banks to start offering crypto custody services to institutional clients.
The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission has approved listing and trading of options for asset manager BlackRock's (BLK.N), opens new tab spot bitcoin exchange-traded fund on the Nasdaq.
The approval for listing and trading options tied to a bitcoin ETF represents another positive step for cryptocurrency, once considered a nascent asset class.
It’s surprisingly easy to make character judgements about someone based on how they interact with money, but when we do, we wade into some dangerous territory. While there certainly are scenarios where someone’s behavior with money is symptomatic of something deeper that may require a therapeutic solution, it’s more likely that our financial decisions are simply representative of how we are wired, how we were raised, and how our life experiences have shaped us.
When we really listen, there should be a break before we respond.
Dare to lay down your defenses, give your chosen life partner the benefit of the doubt, and remember that, in relationships, if anyone “wins” an argument, both suffer a loss.
Recognize that money management is more an exercise in mistake management than a pursuit of perfection. We can plan for those mistakes through margins in our budgeting.
In una coppia dove una persona è minimalista e l’altra è spendacciona, la persona frugale si trova spesso a dire di no ad un certo acquisto ma prima o poi cederà alla richiesta dell’altra persona più propensa a spendere, per cui il minimalista può vincere molte battaglie ma nel lungo termine perderà la guerra. Per evitare conflitti non necessari sul modo di spendere, per una coppia sarebbe consigliabile avere un conto comune per le spese, il mutuo e gli investimenti della famiglia, ma ciascuno dovrebbe avere anche un proprio conto individuale per mantenere una certa privacy sulle proprie spese individuali e personali.
In today’s post we looked at the average relationship between subjective uncertainty and forecast errors.