My afternoon train reading:

• Your Brain in Love (Scientific American)
• Big Wall Street Buyouts Might Be a Bullish Sign (The Slant)
• Less-Trusting Millennial Investors Pose Challenge to Advisors (Advisor One)
• The Biggest Financial Asset in Your Portfolio Is You (NYT)
• Why Inflation Doves Are Really Hawks (Employment, Interest, and Money)
• Housing as an Investment? Yes, That Idea Is Back (Businessweek)
• Backdated Mortgage Assignment Comes Back To Haunt Foreclosure Lender in Juarez v. Select Portfolio (The Massachusetts Real Estate Blog )
• The Seven Habits of Highly Effective Mediocre People (The Rumpus)
• Want to Dump Your Bank? Now There Is an App for That (WSJ)
• The Brilliance of the Dog Mind (Scientific American)

What are you reading?


Global financial assets

Source: Deutsche Bank via

Category: Markets, Mathematics

Please use the comments to demonstrate your own ignorance, unfamiliarity with empirical data and lack of respect for scientific knowledge. Be sure to create straw men and argue against things I have neither said nor implied. If you could repeat previously discredited memes or steer the conversation into irrelevant, off topic discussions, it would be appreciated. Lastly, kindly forgo all civility in your discourse . . . you are, after all, anonymous.

6 Responses to “10 Thursday PM Reads”

  1. moobycow says:

    On real estate as an investment … Forgetting about local markets etc. it seems to me the benefit is forced savings. People might well be better off putting their down-payment and any money they save from not having repairs into the market, but that’s not generally what people do. Additionally you should get a relatively fixed payment over time while rent will go up in line with inflation. When my 1.5k mortgage payment is still around 1.5k while your 1.5k rent has gone up to 2k I’m doing OK.

    Real estate is a hedge against human behavior (somewhat as refinancing can blow this up but good) and a hedge against inflation which can make pretty good sense over time. Appreciation is a bit of a side benefit.

  2. hue says:

    Can the GOP be saved from Obsolescence? “They were playing chess while we were playing checkers,” a senior member of the campaign’s digital team somberly told another top Romney aide shortly after the election.

    “Let me tell you something. The Hispanic voters in Nevada, Colorado and New Mexico don’t give a damn about Marco Rubio, the Tea Party Cuban-American from Florida. You know what? We won the Cuban vote! And it’s because younger Cubans are behaving differently than their parents. It’s probably my favorite stat of the whole campaign. So this notion that Marco Rubio is going to heal their problems — it’s not even sophomoric; it’s juvenile! And by the way: the bigger problem they’ve got with Latinos isn’t immigration. It’s their economic policies and health care. The group that supported the president’s health care bill the most? Latinos.”

  3. Anonymous Jones says:

    Semantics just gets so silly sometimes.

    When you decide to purchase real estate, it is an investment. It fits the plain meaning of the word “investment”. There can be *no* reasonable dispute about this.

    I understand that people get really confused, because of the conflation of purchasing a real estate investment and using that investment as shelter. But there is no need to use a real estate investment as shelter, just as there is no need to purchase real estate if you need shelter.

    I understand that people do in fact dispute this; they are just not reasonable when doing so.

    I work with people who buy apartment buildings, office buildings, industrial buildings, land. I can assure you that these are all investments by the plain meaning of that word.

    And if you purchase a single family residence, that is also an investment, whether you live in it or not. I mean, seriously, it is not just an investment, but it is likely (aside from human capital) the largest investment you will ever make. You might make money, or you might lose money — just like in any other investment.

    I know people who have made spectacular amounts buying SFRs, just as I’ve known people who’ve gone bankrupt buying SFRs. Sometimes it’s good; sometimes it’s bad; sometimes it’s great; sometimes it’s disastrous. It’s an investment. It’s somewhat “crummy” over a (VERY) long period of time, but over reasonable periods, it can be excellent.

    This redefinition of “investment” is almost Orwellian.

  4. constantnormal says:

    nice chart from Deutsche Bank … some thoughts that rushed through my head …

    … whoa … that’s a whole lotta debt/debt-based stuff, and not a lotta equity …
    … although proportionally, it eyeballs out as fairly consistent …
    … where is all the “deleveraging” that I keep reading about?
    And how much of it is essential to running the businesses, as how much is merely because “money is cheap”?
    … this chart shoulda gone back into the 1970s to encompass times when money was not “cheap” …

  5. cowboyinthejungle says:

    I love real estate as a generator of cash flow. Personally, this type of asset makes much more sense to me than traditional ones (stocks, bonds, etc.). Providing you have the tolerance to deal with their management, cash flow investments provide an average person an improved quality of life as you live it, rather than simply a promise of some future ROI. Don’t get me wrong, diversity is good, and so I reluctantly participate in paper asset investing, too. But they seem far closer to gambling vs. ownership of hard assets.

    Also, I have to laugh at the end of that housing article. Apparently, evaluating a primary residence in non-finacial terms is “holistic.” You see the same when people throw in a sideways comment on the non-financial benefits in investing in your human capital. I appreciate that these articles are written by financial analysts, but unless we’ve completely switched to algo-journalism, they’re presumably human, too.

    Are we to believe that economic reasoning must underlie all human values? Asset appreciation is not very high on my list of benefits of (working toward) home ownership. The story is similar with human capital. Do we only seek degrees, learn skills, engage in entrepreneurship, etc. for financial benefit, or do we leverage those things we inherently value into financial benefit? I’d say it’s the latter.

  6. VennData says:

    Russian meteorite: Why didn’t scientists see it coming?

    “…The only logical thing to do is to move to the Urals, because the odds of getting hit twice by a meteorite are astronomical…”

    Sequester these dorks!

    Wacky scientists shouldn’t be listened to when they speak, but if they’re quiet, watch out!