|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
United States22883 Posts
On March 08 2016 14:24 wei2coolman wrote:http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-09-03/should-donald-trump-have-indexed-Here's a really good read for the financially inept who keep saying "Donald trump under performed compared to stock market" meme. With zero account of Brand value, along with zero context of investment environment at the time he received his money. (good choices does not always mean good outcome, and bad choices doesn't always mean bad outcomes).
The index fund comparison is meant to show that his wealth has basically grown at an average rate that normal citizens are capable of. If you actually started with $200 million or any multi million dollar sum, you almost certainly wouldn't put it in an index fund and you'd probably vastly outperform the index.
The index is the bare minimum of what should've happened to his money and, depending on the calculation and how much you want to value his brand, shows he did slightly above that line.
|
On March 08 2016 16:05 Jibba wrote:The index fund comparison is meant to show that his wealth has basically grown at an average rate that normal citizens are capable of. If you actually started with $200 million or any multi million dollar sum, you almost certainly wouldn't put it in an index fund and you'd probably vastly outperform the index. The index is the bare minimum of what should've happened to his money and, depending on the calculation and how much you want to value his brand, shows he did slightly above that line.
The index is assuming zero living expense along with full reinvestment, along with zero portfolio diversification outside of an index.
|
United States22883 Posts
On March 08 2016 15:12 oBlade wrote:
This is a bit of a rhetorical trick, but the way I see it, Trump will have an uphill battle, and Clinton will have nowhere to go but downhill.
Ah, yes. Clinton will be in the unfavorable position of being the favorite. This makes a lot of sense.
|
Trump is a shepherd of money, diligently tending to its careful growth, and now, perhaps, we likewise need him to shepherd the American flock. We need a careful hand in these rocky times that will slightly outperform European growth.
|
United States22883 Posts
On March 08 2016 16:10 wei2coolman wrote:Show nested quote +On March 08 2016 16:05 Jibba wrote:On March 08 2016 14:24 wei2coolman wrote:http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-09-03/should-donald-trump-have-indexed-Here's a really good read for the financially inept who keep saying "Donald trump under performed compared to stock market" meme. With zero account of Brand value, along with zero context of investment environment at the time he received his money. (good choices does not always mean good outcome, and bad choices doesn't always mean bad outcomes). The index fund comparison is meant to show that his wealth has basically grown at an average rate that normal citizens are capable of. If you actually started with $200 million or any multi million dollar sum, you almost certainly wouldn't put it in an index fund and you'd probably vastly outperform the index. The index is the bare minimum of what should've happened to his money and, depending on the calculation and how much you want to value his brand, shows he did slightly above that line. The index is assuming zero living expense along with full reinvestment, along with zero portfolio diversification outside of an index.
The index is your (somewhat) diversified portfolio. You don't pay for living expenses with illiquid assets either. He owns apartments but he doesn't live in them for free. His apartments have a cost.
Regardless, the idea is still that the every-man can return the index rate without much thought or effort.
|
On March 08 2016 15:12 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On March 08 2016 14:56 G5 wrote:On March 08 2016 14:50 ErectedZenith wrote:On March 08 2016 14:48 The_Templar wrote:On March 08 2016 14:09 wei2coolman wrote:On March 08 2016 14:08 Plansix wrote:
Yes, he has spent decades building up his brand and is cashing it in. He is mildly successful business man that managed not to lose all his families money. And now is running the "I will say anything you want to get elected" platform a defunked and fragmented party. Wait, are you still perpetuating the "If he had put his money in S&P 500 index" meme? On March 08 2016 14:09 Slaughter wrote:On March 08 2016 14:05 oBlade wrote:
So it's basically because he's a businessman and popular? Being widely known and being popular are not the same things. Have you seen the poll numbers? At worst he's the 3rd most popular overall candidate in America... I might be mistaken, but he loses to literally everyone head-to-head, no? By polls? I don't think polls actually matters, we've seen some interesting changes. They've been relatively accurate this year and yes, Trump loses to everyone except Republicans lol I believe what he means is that polls are not predictive except in the short term. For example, there was a time Carson was leading the GOP field. If you take a poll the day before a primary, you can be pretty confident about how people end up voting. Hillary usually leads Trump around, say, 5 points in polls (with lots of people not committing to either). But once we get into the general election, there will be that whole campaign to deal with. National TV ads, presidential debates. This is a bit of a rhetorical trick, but the way I see it, Trump will have an uphill battle, and Clinton will have nowhere to go but downhill. There are other metrics, like Obama's approval rating is 50% or less, and up to 2/3 of people say the USA is going in the wrong direction. I'm not saying one person or the other will definitely win, but I think it will be a very exciting election, even if it we're tired by the end of it. She projects the strong candidate vibe, but her weaknesses as already mentioned could easily put his small lead in doubt. The economy could very visibly turn down, and she's very connected to Obama's handling of the recession. The investigation into her mishandling of classified emails from the state department churns on; the FBI gained cooperation of a former staffer for immunity. I would be concerned if Trump or Generic GOP polls had them down 15 points against Clinton don't get me wrong (and one did have him down 15 against Sanders). Right now all that's concerning is Trump's unfavorables and how Trump may continue to alienate the supporters of other candidates just laying into Cruz etc. Current head to head polls not so much.
|
On March 08 2016 16:11 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +On March 08 2016 16:10 wei2coolman wrote:On March 08 2016 16:05 Jibba wrote:On March 08 2016 14:24 wei2coolman wrote:http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-09-03/should-donald-trump-have-indexed-Here's a really good read for the financially inept who keep saying "Donald trump under performed compared to stock market" meme. With zero account of Brand value, along with zero context of investment environment at the time he received his money. (good choices does not always mean good outcome, and bad choices doesn't always mean bad outcomes). The index fund comparison is meant to show that his wealth has basically grown at an average rate that normal citizens are capable of. If you actually started with $200 million or any multi million dollar sum, you almost certainly wouldn't put it in an index fund and you'd probably vastly outperform the index. The index is the bare minimum of what should've happened to his money and, depending on the calculation and how much you want to value his brand, shows he did slightly above that line. The index is assuming zero living expense along with full reinvestment, along with zero portfolio diversification outside of an index. The index is your (somewhat) diversified portfolio. You don't pay for living expenses with illiquid assets either. He owns apartments but he doesn't live in them for free. His apartments have a cost. Regardless, the idea is still that the every-man can return the index rate without much thought or effort.
The index is still a single point of failure since index alone is a singular company buying what they think is an index of said market.
It also completely ignores the fact that the index doesn't create anything. What do you think the index is made of? Money fairies that generate random value? No. It's people like Trump, and other companies creating value that people buy into.
|
Not sure how Michigan is going to go today but it won't be an ~20% gap like the polls showed.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
how much has nyc real estate grown during that span? prob double the s&p or more
|
On March 08 2016 19:53 GreenHorizons wrote:
Not sure how Michigan is going to go today but it won't be an ~20% gap like the polls showed.
The most recent poll showed 13 points not 20 which is better but not good because he kind of needs to win states like Michigan if he is going to make up this math.
|
On March 08 2016 20:44 Adreme wrote:Show nested quote +On March 08 2016 19:53 GreenHorizons wrote:
Not sure how Michigan is going to go today but it won't be an ~20% gap like the polls showed. The most recent poll showed 13 points not 20 which is better but still not good because he kind of needs to win states like Michigan if he is going to make up this math.
|
On March 08 2016 20:28 oneofthem wrote:
how much has nyc real estate grown during that span? prob double the s&p or more
NYC real estate overperformed in the 80s, underperformed in the 90s and slightly overperformed since 99.
I admire Trumps ability to grow his wealth at rates while extracting his lifestyle without eating into his principle.
|
These attacks on Trump's wealth and business acumen aren't sticking and never will. They aren't particularly well-grounded, and they are overwhelmed by the popular perception of Trump courtesy of his TV persona.
|
I don’t think anyone is advocating that it is a valid route to attack him. People are just responding that the claim of his success. That it is not clear cut and he has numerous failures, some that are borderline comical.
|
Trump did alright for himself, most people won't care for the nuance of returns and all that. If he'd dumped him money into PE and a variety of other investment vehicles available to HNWI's he'd be far richer though. But hey, absolute return isn't the end all be all. Like people said you gotta eat, and beyond that Trump honestly seems to enjoy the wheeling and dealing (self-fulfillment???) so in that respect more power to him. It's the same concept-- I work a job I really like, but I could be making significantly more as an investment banker cum excel monkey.
Interestingly, he is actually considered a bit player in the NY real estate market-- nowhere near the top 10. He owns a few places and has stakes in a few others, but the vast majority of his income comes from licensing his brand.
|
How bad does Bernie need to do tonight before it gets awkward for him to not be dropping out? I think he'll drop out when it gets weird. He's willing to fight up hill, but he won't do what Carson did.
|
On March 08 2016 23:34 ticklishmusic wrote:
Trump did alright for himself, most people won't care for the nuance of returns and all that. If he'd dumped him money into PE and a variety of other investment vehicles available to HNWI's he'd be far richer though. But hey, absolute return isn't the end all be all. Like people said you gotta eat, and beyond that Trump honestly seems to enjoy the wheeling and dealing (self-fulfillment???) so in that respect more power to him. It's the same concept-- I work a job I really like, but I could be making significantly more as an investment banker cum excel monkey.
Interestingly, he is actually considered a bit player in the NY real estate market-- nowhere near the top 10. He owns a few places and has stakes in a few others, but the vast majority of his income comes from licensing his brand.
I don't think anyone disagrees that Trump is at least half-way competent at what he does. But painting him as a business genius is really dishonest when you look at his starting point. Not losing a 200m inheritance, and growing it at a roughly reasonable rate shows some competence, but it is not really a good proof of being some sort of business genius. There are a lot of people who would have been able to achieve a similar end result from the same starting point, it is by no mean an outstanding success. Sure, there would also be a lot of people who would manage to fuck it up and waste all the money. But the claim is always that Trump is some sort of singular genius, not merely a roughly competent business guy. And his wealth is not something that logically leads to that conclusion.
|
On March 09 2016 00:02 Mohdoo wrote:
How bad does Bernie need to do tonight before it gets awkward for him to not be dropping out? I think he'll drop out when it gets weird. He's willing to fight up hill, but he won't do what Carson did.
Do Hillary supporters really want him to drop out? Hillary only gets media in relation to him or the multiple federal investigations she's got to think about.
She hasn't had a press conference in months?
She wouldn't even be asked questions by "journalists" if it weren't for town halls or debates. She has easily been the most reclusive candidate in many cycles.
|
On March 09 2016 00:15 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2016 00:02 Mohdoo wrote:
How bad does Bernie need to do tonight before it gets awkward for him to not be dropping out? I think he'll drop out when it gets weird. He's willing to fight up hill, but he won't do what Carson did. She hasn't had a press conference in months?
I'm fairly certain she did one recently. It was after ~84? days without a press appearance, so your point is still valid - but at this point that's no longer accurate.
|
On March 09 2016 00:02 Mohdoo wrote:
How bad does Bernie need to do tonight before it gets awkward for him to not be dropping out? I think he'll drop out when it gets weird. He's willing to fight up hill, but he won't do what Carson did.
His campaign is looking a bit quixotic now. I hope he knows when to bow out of gracefully, and I expect he's just posturing a bit before March 15th.
On March 09 2016 00:13 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On March 08 2016 23:34 ticklishmusic wrote:
Trump did alright for himself, most people won't care for the nuance of returns and all that. If he'd dumped him money into PE and a variety of other investment vehicles available to HNWI's he'd be far richer though. But hey, absolute return isn't the end all be all. Like people said you gotta eat, and beyond that Trump honestly seems to enjoy the wheeling and dealing (self-fulfillment???) so in that respect more power to him. It's the same concept-- I work a job I really like, but I could be making significantly more as an investment banker cum excel monkey.
Interestingly, he is actually considered a bit player in the NY real estate market-- nowhere near the top 10. He owns a few places and has stakes in a few others, but the vast majority of his income comes from licensing his brand. I don't think anyone disagrees that Trump is at least half-way competent at what he does. But painting him as a business genius is really dishonest when you look at his starting point. Not losing a 200m inheritance, and growing it at a roughly reasonable rate shows some competence, but it is not really a good proof of being some sort of business genius. There are a lot of people who would have been able to achieve a similar end result from the same starting point, it is by no mean an outstanding success. Sure, there would also be a lot of people who would manage to fuck it up and waste all the money. But the claim is always that Trump is some sort of singular genius, not merely a roughly competent business guy. And his wealth is not something that logically leads to that conclusion.
The average American has an awful grasp of personal finance-- average savings like 1K in the bank (or something, the statistic is pretty damning) and doesn't understand how retirement investing, compounding annual returns or anything like that. They see Donald Trump and all they hear and understand is billions of dollars. You know better, I know better, many others in this thread know better. The average American (or voter) doesn't really.
On a side note, this immense ignorance is also part of why the average guy sees Wall Street as some sort of evil money sucking black hole. It kind of is, but the rumors are greatly exaggerated.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
