ask Dcifrths...well, anything...about finance/mkts/ports that is.

[DcifrThs]

[ QUOTE ]
If you don't mind, along the lines of your background, as I am now studying for the GMAT/preparing to enter grad school in the next 2 years:

Where is your MBA from? FT or Part time?

[/ QUOTE ]

washington university in st.louis olin school of business. full time.

[ QUOTE ]

Did you work while pursuing MBA?

[/ QUOTE ]

well, poker (duh!). but also as a part time employee for a start up firm that valued intellectual property (i did modeling for the founder).

[ QUOTE ]

If you could go back, would you change anything about your MBA process?

[/ QUOTE ]

hmmm. good one.

i think i would have used my alumni more. i don't think i took full advantage of that resource. partly my school's fault. mostly my fault.

while there i was told a story about a classmate's friend who went to harvard. this person wrote over 1,000 letters to alumni. when asked why, he said "well, i got all these resources, why not use them."

Barron

[DcifrThs]

[ QUOTE ]
stinkypete,
aha! of course. Forgot that the money raised belongs essentially to the stakeholders.

Thanks you both for the explanation.

[/ QUOTE ]

thank pete, he got it. i missed it.

but you're welcome lol.

Barron

[DcifrThs]

SM,

i'd love to field more in depth questions from you. i've been quite impressed by your contributions to this forum.

Barron

[pig4bill]

[ QUOTE ]
Here is a n00b question that maybe you can answer.

As I understand it, a company goes public to raise capital.
Now let's say I buy 10% of the share so I'm basically owning 10% of that company. So how is it that some years after the IPO, the company can decide to "release more shares" to raise more capital. Surely that's not fair to the current shareholders because once they do that I own less than 10% of the company.

[/ QUOTE ]

There are a couple important difference here. If they are "releasing" more shares, they are only selling shares that were already issued. Your percentage ownership changes not one iota. The only difference is who holds those shares. That's what happened with Google. They just sold more stock that was held by venture investors and other insiders.

A different situation is when a company files to register new shares. When those shares are sold, you are diluted. It's true that as was posted above that you still own that money that paid for the new shares, but not for long. When a company has to issue new stock, it's usually their last resort. It usually means they were unable to borrow the money they need. The cash from the stock sale is usually burned in short order. Be wary of this sort of situation.

[KDuff]

If you thought you were the best (pure/skilled/technological/whatever) trader in the world with $10B AUM, but could only trade in one market, what would you trade?

[APXG]

[ QUOTE ]
more importantly though, i think i learned a good process for improving and constantly learning.


[/ QUOTE ]

Is this general reading / seeking out smart people or anything new / interesting?

[DcifrThs]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Lastly, do you agree that economists (that was my major) are "non experts" as described in the Black Swan and basically worthless, particularly as it relates to prediction (I subscribe to this belief, FWIW).

[/ QUOTE ]


well i haven't finished or gotten far enough in black swan yet but i think i understand your and taleb's beef.


in terms of prediction, they are pretty worthless. but ironically, the use of the fundamental drivers that come from understanding what is trying to be conveyed by predictive models can be hugely useful in trading. especially where there are non-profit seeking participants.


the fed, though, does a pretty good job as far as managemnet goes and they use predictive models to think about this stuff, so that is aplus for "economists."


but yes...i think that they are for the most part "non expert" experts. i love the FDR quotation: "bring me a one handed economist!" (i think it was FDR)


as always, let me know if i can go deeper anywhere or if i missed your points.


thanks,
Barron

[/ QUOTE ]

and just to be clear, by haven't finished, i meant havn't started.

and by haven't started, i mean i've just now read enough to know that i'll want to answer your question again.

the tentative answer in general still stands: economists (i.e. us), can't predit anything significantly important.

we, both humans and economists though, seem to be doing quite well, so far.

Barron

PS- i can't seem to be able to learn how to spell rediculous. ridiculous just doesn't ever look write [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img].

PPS- the invention of fire and the "number" zero are pretty cool black swans, though the invention of fire i don't think is ever thought of as predictable.

[DcifrThs]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
more importantly though, i think i learned a good process for improving and constantly learning.


[/ QUOTE ]

Is this general reading / seeking out smart people or anything new / interesting?

[/ QUOTE ]

my vote is general reading... and randomly encountering smart people...edit: in terms of new/interesting, i'd guess no

Barron

[Sniper]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Also...why aren't you returning there.

[/ QUOTE ]

well firstly, i was let go so returning isn't an option. if given the choice though, i'd do it again (i.e. work there and get fired). i think this will probably work out best as the requirements there didn't play optimally into my strengths. i can't wait to see what lies ahead.

on the plus side, i learned a lot (vast understatement). more importantly though, i think i learned a good process for improving and constantly learning.

further, my managers will all give me solid recommendations and the fact that many highly successful people worked there and left or got fired (including former fed economists) means that it doesn't say much about the quality of the employee, only the fit with the firm.

[/ QUOTE ]

Barron, what was the basis for your being fired? (not for surfing 2+2 from work, I hope)

[wiseheart]

Barron,

Thanks a lot for answering my questions!
Im studying for my final in International Political
Economy, and this part made me laugh a lot:
[ QUOTE ]
im socially libral, fiscally conservative, geopolitically realist, and internationally economically libral.

[/ QUOTE ]
Of course, if push comes to shove I might have described
myself the same way so I shouldn't laugh too much [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]
As I discussed in the thread I made about choosing a career,
I kind of want to be an economist, and it is nice to see
that you can work in D.C. and not have too much politics,
although it still influences some things. (I still couldn't
live in D.C. though)

Thanks again.