Meta
Categories
- accounting
- Announcements
- architecture
- art
- auctions
- bailouts
- banking
- bankruptcy
- ben stein watch
- blogonomics
- bonds and loans
- charts
- china
- cities
- climate change
- commercial property
- commodities
- consumers
- consumption
- corporatespeak
- credit ratings
- crime
- Culture
- Davos 2008
- Davos 2009
- defenestrations
- demographics
- derivatives
- design
- development
- drugs
- Econoblog
- economics
- education
- emerging markets
- employment
- energy
- entitlements
- eschatology
- euro
- facial hair
- fashion
- Film
- Finance
- fiscal and monetary policy
- food
- foreign exchange
- fraud
- gambling
- geopolitics
- governance
- healthcare
- hedge funds
- holidays
- housing
- humor
- Humour
- iceland
- IMF
- immigration
- infrastructure
- insurance
- intellectual property
- investing
- journalism
- labor
- language
- law
- leadership
- leaks
- M&A
- Media
- milken 2008
- Not economics
- pay
- personal finance
- philanthropy
- pirates
- Politics
- Portfolio
- prediction markets
- private banking
- private equity
- privatization
- productivity
- publishing
- race
- rants
- regulation
- remainders
- research
- Restaurants
- Rhian in Antarctica
- risk
- satire
- science
- shareholder activism
- sovereign debt
- sports
- statistics
- stocks
- taxes
- technocrats
- technology
- trade
- travel
- Uncategorized
- water
- wealth
- world bank
Archives
- December 2020
- November 2020
- October 2020
- September 2020
- August 2020
- July 2020
- June 2020
- May 2020
- April 2020
- March 2020
- February 2020
- January 2020
- December 2019
- November 2019
- October 2019
- September 2019
- August 2019
- July 2019
- June 2019
- May 2019
- April 2019
- March 2019
- February 2019
- January 2019
- December 2018
- November 2018
- October 2018
- September 2018
- August 2018
- July 2018
- June 2018
- May 2018
- April 2018
- March 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018
- December 2017
- November 2017
- October 2017
- September 2017
- August 2017
- July 2017
- June 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017
- December 2016
- November 2016
- October 2016
- September 2016
- August 2016
- July 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- April 2016
- March 2016
- February 2016
- January 2016
- December 2015
- November 2015
- October 2015
- September 2015
- August 2015
- July 2015
- June 2015
- May 2015
- April 2015
- March 2015
- February 2015
- January 2015
- December 2014
- November 2014
- October 2014
- September 2014
- August 2014
- July 2014
- June 2014
- May 2014
- December 2012
- August 2012
- June 2012
- March 2012
- April 2011
- August 2010
- June 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- September 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
- July 2006
- June 2006
- May 2006
- April 2006
- March 2006
- February 2006
- January 2006
- December 2005
- November 2005
- October 2005
- September 2005
- August 2005
- July 2005
- June 2005
- May 2005
- April 2005
- March 2005
- February 2005
- January 2005
- December 2004
- November 2004
- October 2004
- September 2004
- August 2004
- July 2004
- June 2004
- May 2004
- April 2004
- March 2004
- February 2004
- January 2004
- December 2003
- November 2003
- October 2003
- September 2003
- August 2003
- July 2003
- June 2003
- May 2003
- April 2003
- March 2003
- February 2003
- January 2003
- December 2002
- November 2002
- October 2002
- September 2002
- August 2002
- July 2002
- June 2002
- May 2002
- March 2002
- February 2002
- January 2002
- December 2001
- November 2001
- October 2001
- September 2001
- August 2001
- July 2001
- June 2001
- May 2001
- April 2001
- March 2001
- February 2001
- January 2001
- December 2000
- September 2000
- July 2000
- March 2000
- July 1999
Axios Capital: The transatlantic divide
In this week’s newsletter, I look at the differences between how the U.S. and Europe are approaching the current coronavirus wave; the weirdness that is the current stock market; Visa’s status as a monopoly; the sale of Supreme; podcast wars; and much more.
Posted in Uncategorized
Comments Off on Axios Capital: The transatlantic divide
Axios Capital: America’s rebound
Posted in Uncategorized
Comments Off on Axios Capital: America’s rebound
Axios Capital: The highest bidder wins
Posted in Uncategorized
Comments Off on Axios Capital: The highest bidder wins
Axios Capital: Theatre of the absurd
Posted in Uncategorized
Comments Off on Axios Capital: Theatre of the absurd
Axios Capital: America’s rebound
It’s the rebound economists didn’t see coming.
Posted in Uncategorized
Comments Off on Axios Capital: America’s rebound
Axios Capital: When stocks become ironic
There have been moments of market euphoria in the past, moments when stocks stop being a serious mechanism for the allocation of scarce capital, and start being a fun, positive-sum casino.
There have also been moments of national crisis, with tens of millions on the unemployment rolls and an implacable enemy killing hundreds of thousands of innocent Americans.
- Never before have we seen both at the same time.
Posted in Uncategorized
Comments Off on Axios Capital: When stocks become ironic
Dice thoughts
A few weeks ago, while I was going for a walk in the woods, I came up with a thought experiment. Later, I tweeted it out, and later still, I asked the listeners of Slate Money to write in with their answers.
The question:
I will roll a die as many times as you like. Every time it comes up 1/2/3/4/5, I double your money. If it’s a 6 you lose everything. You need to specify ex ante how much your initial stake is, and how many times I roll. What do you choose?
The obvious conditions apply: I am a gazillionaire with no counterparty risk, and you can only play the game once, on your own, with no partners.
This question is interesting on a bunch of different levels.
First, by forcing you to state up front how many times I am going to roll, this question is mathematically equivalent to me just rolling that number of dice at the same time — with you getting zero if at least one of those dice comes up 6. Psychologically, however, there’s a big difference.
Let’s say you choose 5 rolls on a stake of $100. You immediately think of a scenario where your money doubles four times in a row — you’re up to $1,600 — and then a 6 comes on the fifth roll. It feels as though you’ve lost $1,600 rather than just $100, and that outcome is psychologically worse than if a 6 came on the first roll.
Second, the question forces people to think hard about what it means to “expect” a certain outcome. Take that choice of 5 rolls on a stake of $100 again. The median outcome is that you end up with $0: there’s roughly a 60% chance of that happening. On the other hand, you have a 40% chance of winning $3,200, which means the “expected value” of the bet is $1,286.
What’s more, the more rolls you specify, the higher the expected value becomes. If you roll 20 times, your 2.6% chance of winning $105 million works out to an “average” payout (whatever that means) of $2.7 million. But few of us would consider it rational to expect to win $2.7 million if we specified $100 and 20 rolls. In fact, one thing we know for certain is that we won’t win $2.7 million! It’s either $105 million or nothing.
Third is the utility of money. For most of us, the utility of having $40 million is not so far removed from the utility of having $20 million. So it doesn’t make a lot of sense to take an 86% chance of doubling $20 million into $40 million. Better to just stop at $20 million.
Indeed, for many people the utility of money turns negative after a certain point. Just ask most lottery winners, or Johnny Depp. Getting enough money to buy a house and thereby have shelter for the rest of your life — that’s great. But getting enough money to buy 10 houses — that can create more misery than happiness, and even surprisingly rapid bankruptcy.
Almost no one has the self-awareness to know their own utility-of-money curve. But it’s not hard to think of people, from gambling addicts to Warren Buffett, who would not be better off if they won this bet. Such people might well do best by not playing at all.
Fourth is the question of whether this is an investment or a gamble. Most people’s answers fall into one of two broad buckets: There are the people who will stake roughly as much as they might risk at a poker game, and then there are the people who will stake roughly as much as they might invest in the stock market.
For the people who choose a poker-sized bet, the obvious question is whether and why they would ever invest in, say, stocks. The expected return characteristics of this bet are vastly superior to anything you can get in the stock market, so if you’re OK with stocks, shouldn’t you be OK with this? Is the difference that stocks go to zero slowly, if they go to zero? But that still implies that most people have a point at which they will sell a stock that is slowly declining. Which in turn violates the tenets of buy-and-hold investing.
For people making an investment-sized bet, the obvious question is how much to bet. That’s where the Kelly criterion comes in. Ian Chan on Twitter helpfully did a bunch of the mathematics so I don’t have to, but if you have a set amount of money, then according to the Kelly criterion the amount you should bet starts at 67% of that amount for 1 roll, and then declines to 59% for 2 rolls, 52% for 3 rolls, and so on down to 2.6% for 20 rolls. (From about 6 rolls onwards, the Kelly criterion percentage is very close to the probability of winning.)
Ian works backwards from that number, and basically asks: How much are you willing to tolerate losing, expressed as a percentage of the amount of money you have? If it’s, say, 9% of your wealth, then you should work backwards from there and decide to go for 13 rolls.
I take a different tack, which is to ask: How much money would you like to win? This is, after all, by far the best and most generous opportunity you will ever receive in your life. If you could sell this opportunity on the open market, there’s any number of individuals who would pay you hundreds of millions or even billions of dollars for it. So it seems a bit of a waste to just try to win $100 or so.
So I start by asking: What is an amount of money that would significantly improve my life and livelihood? To bet for any less than that seems silly, given the incredible opportunity in front of me. But to bet for more than that also seems like a bit of a waste: I’m risking losing more money, or a higher probability of ending up with zero, for a relatively marginal improvement in utility.
Let’s say the amount I alight upon is the aforementioned $20 million. And let’s say I have $250,000 in liquid assets. (Should people include non-liquid assets, or expected future income, in this calculation? Let’s say no for the time being, although that’s a question that can be debated.)
In order to get to $20 million in 7 rolls I would need to bet $156,000, which is 62% of my wealth. But according to the Kelly criterion at 7 rolls I shouldn’t bet more than 27% of my wealth, so that’s a non-starter. So increase the rolls: To get there in 10 rolls I’d need to bet $19,531, which is 7.8% of my wealth. That’s well below the 16% Kelly criterion, so that’s one option.
On the other hand, at 10 rolls I only have a 16% chance of winning. I can improve that to 19% by betting $39,000 on 9 rolls. That’s 15% of my wealth, which is still within the Kelly criterion of 19%.
So in this case I would probably bet either $19,500 on 10 rolls, or $39,000 on 9 rolls. In both cases I’ll expect to lose a sum that I could easily suffer in the stock market. This bet, however, comes with much higher expected returns. It’s a gain that will really transform my life if I hit, so the bargain seems like a good one.
All of which raises the toughest question of all: How on earth am I going to persuade my wife that I should spend $39,000 on a roll of the dice?
Posted in Uncategorized
2 Comments
Axios Capital: A brand-new Fed
Posted in Uncategorized
Comments Off on Axios Capital: A brand-new Fed
Axios Capital: The government’s cash crunch
Posted in Uncategorized
Comments Off on Axios Capital: The government’s cash crunch
Axios Capital: Humility at scale
Posted in Uncategorized
Comments Off on Axios Capital: Humility at scale
Axios Edge: Only one car company matters
Posted in Uncategorized
Comments Off on Axios Edge: Only one car company matters
Axios Edge: A new hegemon
Posted in Uncategorized
Comments Off on Axios Edge: A new hegemon
Axios Edge: Swimming in cash
Posted in Uncategorized
Comments Off on Axios Edge: Swimming in cash
The meta-crisis
Posted in Uncategorized
Comments Off on The meta-crisis
Axios Edge: Explaining the markets’ insouciance
Posted in Uncategorized
Comments Off on Axios Edge: Explaining the markets’ insouciance
Axios Edge: Fancy a bet?
Posted in Uncategorized
Comments Off on Axios Edge: Fancy a bet?
Axios Edge: How insurers dodged the crisis
Posted in Uncategorized
Comments Off on Axios Edge: How insurers dodged the crisis
Axios Edge: Saying no to free money
Posted in Uncategorized
Comments Off on Axios Edge: Saying no to free money
Axios Edge: The crash diet
Posted in Uncategorized
Comments Off on Axios Edge: The crash diet
Axios Edge: Rewriting the rules of finance
Posted in Uncategorized
Comments Off on Axios Edge: Rewriting the rules of finance