This site uses cookies to improve your experience. To help us insure we adhere to various privacy regulations, please select your country/region of residence. If you do not select a country, we will assume you are from the United States. Select your Cookie Settings or view our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Used for the proper function of the website
Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Strictly Necessary: Used for the proper function of the website
Performance/Analytics: Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
Michael: So, it sounds like part of the challenge was, you live in a large company environment where, as is common for a lot of them, they organized study groups of top advisors, of top producers, of those that are doing well and growing well, and driving the business profitably. In fact, we probably would have been much more profitable.
I — I loved math, but really, I was going to go down that literature route more than anything else and — and study Spanish literature. The next question that you alluded to, which is really interesting about revenue and profits, how solid in inflation hedge are equities? BITTERLY MICHELL: … was — no, no.
.” RITHOLTZ: So people also should realize, for those of you who’ve never traded futures, it’s not like options where essentially you could put up your losses in advance and all they could do is go to zero. RITHOLTZ: Put up your losses in advance. And so it’s one of these things that math works.
It’s a matter of making better decisions and being more profitable. That’s an amazing lesson in life, right, to take failure and losses as business as usual. RITHOLTZ: Someone once said it’s not how often you lose, but it’s how big your losses are, which is really interesting. RITHOLTZ: It’s alpha.
And I found that subsegment really interesting because we did studies on kind of decision making biases, human biases like loss aversion and other biases that impact otherwise what should be rational decisions and make them less than rational. And I did a lot of options math, which I thought was interesting. Absolutely.
00:03:14 [Mike Greene] So that was actually an outgrowth from my experience coming out of Wharton and you mentioned the, the, you know, the transition of people who tended to be skilled at math or physics into finance. And so it is important that at least you’re able to entertain that. Peter is unbelievably brilliant, right?
So I think that resiliency piece, never giving up, never giving in, redefining, Barry, success as going from failure to failure without loss of enthusiasm, I think that’s everything. And like every business, they want revenue and they’d like to have a surplus profit. BRYANT: So money, unlike math, money is highly emotional.
That’s where you got your entertainment. 00:17:16 [Speaker Changed] And, and let’s be blunt and honest, Dave Portnoy is incredibly entertaining, even if that persona is an exaggeration of who he is, but no one wants him doing the payroll or the 00:17:30 [Speaker Changed] Healthcare. Was it a loss?
Sander Gerber : Well, actually I was good at math. And I kept roughly half the profits and there was no training. Oh my God profit. Not, not for me, $500 trading profit. Not, not for me, $500 trading profit. So you need to have multiple strategies to develop persistent profitability. Hey, congratulations.
So I, I did a math degree at Oxford, which is more pure math. You know, pure math can be very theoretical and detached from the real world, and it’s getting worse. Some people look at a casino as entertainment and hey, we’re gonna spend X dollars, pick a number, 500, 2000, whatever it is. And it, it snowballs.
But as a private equity owner, again, first of all, you do invest heavily of your own money in the transactions, plus you have additional ownership through, you know, the carried interest, the profits interests. You got 60 percent of losses ahead of you. RITHOLTZ: So it’s different math then I need 100x winner versus 99?
And I was a math nerd as a kid. They announced a $640 million loss and ouch. But if, if it has a history of not being profitable, you you really want to exclude that. The visibility on earnings they grew but they stayed profitable as, as they grew. So big loss. A 99% loss on 1.1% So I took that. Real money.
I’m good at math and science and you know, I always had an idea what go into business, but I felt that electrical engineering would be a good foundation. You know, I, it always, I I see different numbers all the time, so it’s always kinda like, who’s math if you will? What’s been been keeping you entertained?
And so, so we sort of felt pretty stupid for a while because we did a lot of losing trades in 2006 that were the, you know, that obviously didn’t come to fruition until the actual people could see the losses. So in mortgages, the borrower can stop paying maybe a year to two years before the lenders actually book a loss.
And, you know, therein began, I think the unraveling and, and a little bit of the, the loss of that, you know, cultural juice that had kind of historically made that firm special. 00:31:40 [Speaker Changed] So there’s the emotions and then there’s the math, right? I don’t wanna experience loss. Just extreme.
Ends up turning about $27 million of swap premiums into 2 billion plus in profit. I mean, you’re talking about, I don’t, I could do the math, it’s like a 10,000% return in like three weeks. HOFFMAN: And he’s talking about, you know, the seat back entertainment should be a streaming platform, right?
Colin Camerer : So I, some of it was when I was in college at Johns Hopkins, I, I studied physics and math. And there was people, Physics didn’t have, people, psychology didn’t have math, economics was kind of the right mix. The math doesn’t math. That was too abstract. Yeah, I’m gonna vote.
Jeffrey Sherman : Well, what it was was, so I, as I said, with applications, there’s many applications of math, and the usually obvious one is physics. Barry Ritholtz : It seems that some people are math people and some people are not. The, the math came easier. And I really hated physics, really. It’s so true.
So when I was at this very fancy private school that I was at as a kid, I did math because it gave me a huge amount of free time to do the things I really cared about. But when I got to Cambridge, you know, the math was sort of serious there. So, you know, I took my math into statistics and things. Am I getting right?
So it really leads to the question, what makes a form of entertainment have this sort of cultural resonance? It’s a power law, this is very slightly technical for yours truly, the English major, not technical for you, the math guy. Humans are rational profit-maximizers, we’re not. You mentioned Lucas got lucky.
We organize all of the trending information in your field so you don't have to. Join 39,000+ users and stay up to date on the latest articles your peers are reading.
You know about us, now we want to get to know you!
Let's personalize your content
Let's get even more personalized
We recognize your account from another site in our network, please click 'Send Email' below to continue with verifying your account and setting a password.
Let's personalize your content