This is the definition o dumb money. Of course most real investment (2) does informally include some appreciation of the underlying investment (1), but not in any way that is operationally specific. Few investors who play for even controlling stakes actually desire control.
-
-
Notably capital markets have a notion of seeking alpha (novel information to guide investment) but no notion of how long that information needs to be acted on to realize value. New alpha simply moves the money, regardless of whether or not it actually invalidates previous alpha.
Show this thread -
It’s obvious why. Because capital is so imitative, the primary payoff of alpha is convincing others there *is* alpha. Most invest (2) is a bigger-fool scheme that has zero structural interest in the actual meaning of a piece of alpha.
Show this thread -
Better mousetrap? Most value lies in convincing others it is better. Teleportation technology? Most value lies in convincing others it is exciting. Capital isn’t interested in either unless someone detains it by force for long enough.
Show this thread -
There have been ideas like long term stock market etc, but I think they’re too crude and give up too much information sensitivity. Kind of thing I have in mind would be stocks that act like bonds. What if stocks were priced based on how long you were willing to hold?
Show this thread -
Not RSUs or options per se. The same stock would cost $10 instead of $15 if you committed not to sell until next year etc. Ie invest (2) would effectively rent, not own equity. But not in the sense of options. A hotel room night costs more than a year lease on apartment for eg.
Show this thread -
One of the reasons I’m in indie consulting is I only have time to invest, not money. But the other reason is that it allows you to bridge invest (2) (abstract management theories, macro trends) and invest (1) (applying it to a specific company, going as deep as possible)
Show this thread -
Not all consultants do this. There are lazy equivalents to investors (2) who you can call consultants (2). Jump from client to client, never bothering to understand any business, shilling the same “process” workshop regardless of context. Lean, “design thinking”, holacracy
Show this thread -
Detest those types. They give the rest of us a bad name. There is no such thing as a context-independent business process or function. If you don’t care to learn about a business and adapt your offering, you’re lazily peddling fads the same way investors (2) lazily pump up stocks
Show this thread -
But back to economy after that bit of product placement. This whole point is why I’m not a socialist. I don’t think it matters much who “owns” the capital. Whether it is a workers coop or a fat-cat single rich person, the question is how hard they think.
Show this thread -
A single wealthy person might decide where to put a million dollars by spending 10 hours thinking about it. A collective of 100 people each with a 10k stake in a million might spend an hour each thinking about it, so 100 hours. 100 diverse hours or 10 single-mind hours?
Show this thread -
On paper that’s 10x the hours but most of it will go to solving the coordination problem. The collective will be smarter in some cases, he single mind will be smarter in others. The solution is a mix of concentrated and distributed capital pools driven by both kinds of smarts.
Show this thread -
I’m learning this the hard way with the
@yak_collective Some projects I’d take to that consulting collective hive-mind, others I’d do by myself. Very different challenges. Same with money. Distributed investing is very hard. This is why passive investment in everything works.Show this thread -
This tldrs the whole thread so far
https://twitter.com/jimyoull/status/1277286206997327872?s=21 … https://twitter.com/JimYoull/status/1277286206997327872 …This Tweet is unavailable.Show this thread -
You can’t fix the problems of markets and capitalism by changing who gets to be stupid and uninterested in the details of where it goes. Smart money is simply money that is paying attention to what it is doing. No matter what the mechanism and who is investing, attention is key.
Show this thread -
Radical thought: centrally planned Soviet communism and Chinese capitalism aren’t actually that different from Western markets. All suffer from the exact same divorce between invest (1) and invest (2) leading to dumb ADD money. They all just have different externalities.
Show this thread -
You could actually construct a Dictator’s Handbook style grand unified model comparing all three consistently. Selectorate theory can compare the substance of governance systems while ignoring their formal doctrinal differences. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selectorate_theory …
Show this thread -
In that theory you compare democracies and dictatorships in terms of 3 groups: nominal selectorate, real selectorate, winning coalition. Aka interchangeables, influentials, essentials. In my economic theory: passive investors, investor-2s, investor-1s.pic.twitter.com/rdATzMrFmu
Show this thread -
USSR, modern China, and modern West represent differences in degree, not kind. All 3 are just different points in the 3D vector space of investor-selectorate theory. For USSR, Spufford’s Red Plenty comes highly recommended. I’ve read summaries.https://www.amazon.com/Red-Plenty-Francis-Spufford/dp/1555976042 …
Show this thread -
Okay, after a run and a shower, I have more to say. I probably have among the biggest income source spans on the planet. I’ve been paid directly by billionaires and centimillionaires for consulting, and by starving artists who can barely make rent via newsletter subs/ebook buys
Show this thread -
This makes me part of the direct service class, not that different from butlers or restaurant waiters. Bridging two very different worlds. Each side unconsciously tries really hard to avoid direct, humanizing contact with the other.
Show this thread -
There is a motivated interest in doing this. Humanizing contact falsifies glib generalizations like “the poor are just lazy” or “the rich are just venal” and class-based theories of how things fail. This allows them to blame absolutely everything systemically wrong on other side.
Show this thread -
On both sides I listen more than I talk (which may seem impossible to some who complain that I talk too much), while making it clear that the counterparty should not assume my sympathies. One way or another I’m being paid to think on their behalf, not commiserate. Like a lawyer.
Show this thread -
To both sides I’m slightly suspect. The poor are suspicious of my work with the rich, and I’m often accused outright of being a petit bourgeoisie capitalist shill. Which is 100% true. Equally the rich often suggest I’m a commie in bourgeois disguise. Also 100% true.
Show this thread -
The opposite of every great truth is also a great truth. The poor are exploited. True. The poor are ressentiment driven identitarians who may or may not work hard. Also true. The rich are lazy venal rentiers. True. The rich are burdened with large responsibilities. Also true.
Show this thread -
This is class-based bothsidesism of course, which is why the worst of both sides are the ones who hate people like me the most (“vertical centrists” perhaps?). But for every systemic failure theres plenty of blame to distribute from top to bottom of pyramid.
Show this thread -
Every class is complicit in how the world works. Every class has its full complement of sociopaths, clueless and losers. Every class has lazy and hard working types. Every class has people with fixed and fluid class identities. It’s a fractal thing.
Show this thread -
Despite the fact that rewards of the system working are very unevenly distributed, ironically, every class winning or losing in terms of rewards seems super attached to the identities that keep the system the same. They want more rewards, but don’t want to change their identities
Show this thread -
To bring it back around to investing, there is investing in *yourself* to consider. Self-Investors (1) invest in their own growth, destroying last identities to forge new ones. Self-Investors (2) double down harder and harder on who they think they are.
Show this thread -
There’s also Self-Investors 1.5. People who “grow” in a limited way reducible to class mobility. Start rich, fall into poverty and go commie. Start poor, get rich, and go capitalist. They say you’re the mean of your 5 best friends. These class-movers just change their 5.
Show this thread -
In Great Tuth terms, these 1.5ers never achieve any sort of integration between opposed great truths. They just go from one great truth to its negation, by cherrypicking a different subset of confirmatory evidence from their experiences.
Show this thread - Show replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.