It’s the middle of the week and we’re approaching the end of the summer. Have no fear, though, our expertly-curated morning train reads are here to help you: (continues here):

• Buffett: If you’ve got 160 IQ, sell 30 points to somebody else because you won’t need it in investing (Farnam Street)
• Stock market bubble?  The warnings grow louder (CNN Money) but see Jim Cramer: This Stock Market Is Despised (The Street)
• Shiller’s CAPE and math (Statistical Ideas)
• The Cost of Looking for Luck (Chief Investment Officer) see also Do Superstitious Traders Lose Money? (SSRN)

Ccontinues here



Category: Financial Press

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.

5 Responses to “10 Wednesday AM Reads”

  1. VennData says:

    Ballmer quits

    Who gives a damn about this fat fuck?

    Among the most reviled by IT people, a monopolist, who slowed the march of progress with his greedy partner Bill Gates.

    Microsoft, the ISIS of IT.

  2. hue says:

    Found: Libertarians’ “Lying To Liberals” Guide Book (Mark Ames: nsfwcorp)

    ‘Paris Syndrome’ Drives Chinese Tourists Away (Bloomberg)

    Architects Of 20XX Market Crash Just Finished A Highly Productive Lunch (The Onion) People Keep Getting Into Strangers’ Cars Because They Think It’s An Uber (ValleyWag)

  3. RW says:

    @Admin: The Continues here link appears to be broken (11:15 AM EDT)

  4. RW says:

    Sort of on-topic (attempt at segue near the end)

    ‘Pro-Troop’ Charity Pays Off Tea Party Cronies Instead

    Move America Forward has collected millions to send care packages to U.S. troops. But its assets have been used to benefit conservative political consulting firms close to its Tea Party founder.

    NB: The “efficiency” of a charitable organization — the % of donations required to raise more donations vs the % that makes it to field — is a useful variable since it tells you a lot about how well a charity is run in addition to the impact it is likely to have on the cause that interests you; e.g., I give to a regional food-bank that applies 90% of donations to food, I also give to a global medical charity that can boast an efficiency greater than 100% in the field because they get all the supplies donated by corporations so money donations are mainly used for transport.

    Efficiency may not be the most important variable, particularly if a cause really energizes you — personally I won’t donate when efficiency falls below 60% no matter how strongly I feel because supporting some rear echelon pogue rather than the action in the field just doesn’t float my boat — but what this article highlights is interesting because it’s not clear this bullshit outfit could be found guilty of fraud; that is, the number spent on ‘operations’ can exceed 95% and include support for causes or individuals unrelated to the publicized cause and the worst that is likely to happen is it might initiate an IRS audit.

    There are a surprising number of so-called charities that pretty much do the same thing Move America does which is only to say that folks really should research charitable giving with the same attention they give to investments. National investigative resources include Charity Navigator and Better Business Bureau but individual states often have resources too if you look for them (not all charities are national so they may not appear in some of the big databases).

  5. Jojo says:

    Countdown to the unemployment of Uber, Lyft and most others who drive cars for a living. Also, a likely significant reduction in auto related deaths (around 30k+ people die in auto accidents each year).
    Look, no hands! Test driving a Google car
    By Paul Ingrassia
    Sun Aug 17, 2014

    MOUNTAIN VIEW Calif. (Reuters) – The car stopped at stop signs. It glided around curves. It didn’t lurch or jolt. The most remarkable thing about the drive was that it was utterly unremarkable.

    This isn’t damning with faint praise. It’s actually high praise for the car in question: Google Inc.’s driverless car.

    Most automotive test drives (of which I’ve done dozens while covering the car industry for nearly 30 years) are altogether different.

    There’s a high-horsepower car. A high-testosterone automotive engineer. And a high-speed race around a test track by a boy-racer journalist eager to prove that, with just a few more breaks, he really could have been, you know, a NASCAR driver.

    This test drive, in contrast, took place on the placid streets of Mountain View, the Silicon Valley town that houses Google’s headquarters.