When I read all the FCIC interviews, it was clear risk management is as much cultural as it is quantitative. That was specific to banks, but applies to investment organizations too. No spreadsheet will ever fully protect you. Ultimately it’s about people and process and judgment.
I don’t mean these to personally harp on the individuals. But culture starts at the top and risk management is a mindset. Blankfein and Viniar (especially in his emails released during the Abacus kerfuffle) set a very different standard than other banks.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
so is the totally made up sequence of events here that a highly levered fund was buying old media names on swap, making a killing, but then VIAC announced "hey we're not idiots thx for the money" and then the unwind was fast and far enough that the PBs had to seize the whole book
trying to understand how today's game of telephone fits together
basically VIAC got liquidity and the fund got liquidated
@kayvz 😂😂 "And I think it’s one of the most amazing things about Twitter. We get the gift of feedback on a minute-by-minute basis"
Love this:
"In my opinion, if we’re not seeing #RestInPeaceTwitter trend a few times a year, we’re not taking big enough swings"
Lot of analysts have asked doesn't Super Follows degrade the main feed. This was a good answer. Obviously to build and maintain a following you need to be tweeting for a general audience. And Super Follows can go beyond just paywalled tweets.
it’s important to understand how wrong this is and make sure it not get traction spreading misinformation. Real households in real pain are going to get real help and nothing about any of this will devalue their currency, as tho they have some FX mismatch in their life.
There is plenty of wasteful spending in government but people who can’t work and make money cause there’s a pandemic are about to get extra UI payments to bridge them to when they can work. That money wasn’t gonna come from cutting wasteful spending cause that’s not how it works.
Hold the same view today as a year ago. If we go too big, ok raise rates. But the asymmetry remains.
Will repeat what I said after reading LMND S-1, nothing makes me feel more like a boomer than these new age insurance cos and trying to figure out what the excitement is. They’re tiny, money losing, competing in commodity categories with historically shitty returns on capital.
I want to believe that better UX and CX can be a differentiator in a commodity product, but if it doesn’t allow you pricing power (which eg Chubb gets), you’re going to grow fast and consume capital to do so, in a low return business.
This is not about valuation. This is about trying to understand the microeconomic case for these businesses at scale sustainably earning excess returns on invested capital in an industry where almost no one does that.
"Advertising has replaced product recommendations and personalization on Amazon... They are no longer trying to guide product discovery, letting ads instead lead the journey"
“Sponsored products related to this item,” “Four stars and above” and “Brands related to this category on Amazon” advertising sections have all but replaced organic “Customers who bought this item also bought” and “Customers who viewed this item also viewed” suggestions.
Reminds me of a similar morph that has taken place over time
It's very interesting to see Grantham worry about declining working age population. I agree and have said under population is a much bigger threat than overpopulation. But very difficult to square that with his full blown malthusianism of the early 2010s.
His rants about phosphorus or whatever were just so strange