- Member for
- 2 years 50 weeks
- View recent blog entries
|1 week 19 hours ago||Best time to buy is as close||
Best time to buy is as close to game time as possible. StubHub has a feature for sellers that lets them automatically drop prices bit by bit within the last few days.
|1 week 2 days ago||As a Habs fan, I've seen all||
As a Habs fan, I've seen all of Pateryn's NHL games and he definitely playing like an NHL-caliber defenseman. He should absolutely stick. Next year may still not get to play a full season if Montreal keeps the sort of depth they have on the blueline, but he's on his way there.
|1 week 2 days ago||I thought that was||
I thought that was well-known? The waiting list disappeared after RR's 1st season.
|2 weeks 6 days ago||/mind not blown||
/mind not blown
|2 weeks 6 days ago||/end of discussion||
/end of discussion
|5 weeks 2 hours ago||He said with few NBA||
He said with few NBA starters, not that they didn't have good players. Plenty of very good college basketball teams have no players destined to be NBA starters.
|6 weeks 6 days ago||A couple things to consider||
A couple things to consider based on some of the comments here. MBA applicants are expected to have a very good idea of what they want to do post-MBA and be able to articulate that as part of their essays. My assumption with BBA applicants is that there is probably a little more flexibility there, but that's where I would play up that you may not be 100% settled on a particular career path (but definitely 'business'), but how you feel like being in the BBA program will help you find the exact right path for you. I'd probably try to narrow things downa bit from where it seems like you are now, but don't think the MBA advice of 'be extremely specific' is necessarily the case here. That said, I've never done BBA admissions.
Edit: and as the poster above mentioned, definitely don't make it seem like a process of elimination that got you here. That's not the kind of uncertainty in your goals that will probably be acceptable.
|8 weeks 1 day ago||Whatever you do, do not buy||
Whatever you do, do not buy them as soon as they start showing up online (assuming you're buying from StubHub or similar). Prices will drop the closer it gets to the game. Especially early in the season with the excitement around HARBAUGH. It's even programmed into StubHub, where you can have them automatically start dropping the price within the last several days leading up to the event. The only time I've seen the tickets prices increase closer to the event dates is when the teams are rising up the rankings from week-to-week; but that's not going to be much of a factor week 2 of the season. Maybe if the team annihilates Utah by a really large margin there could be more interest, but I still think you'd find tickets for a good price closer to game day.
|9 weeks 3 days ago||Investment "fees" on the||
Investment "fees" on the house (i.e., taxes) are also much higher.
|9 weeks 3 days ago||Paying off a house is almost||
Paying off a house is almost always one of the worst financial decisions someone can make. Mortgages tend to be the cheapest debt you can get, especially these days, and from a purely financial perspective your expected returns would be much higher over the long-term if you had that money at work for you in the market. If you invested that money for the long-term, chances are that as you got older you'd have enough money to pay the house off (which may actually make sense once you're in retirement and your portfolio mix starts to become more conservative), plus have additional funds.
That said, there are people who are seemingly pathologically anti-debt and if they derive significant unhappiness from carrying debt then I don't blame them from paying off their house. That decision just comes with an enormous financial cost.
|9 weeks 3 days ago||As others have implied, this||
As others have implied, this probably has more to do with your timing than making good picks. When the market is going up as a whole, it is very easy to be lulled into believing you know what you're doing. Making picks that go up in value the last several years is easy; the risk is that picks don't go up as much as the market itself, which many amateurs ignore when they're "doing well". The other risk being, how well do you do when the market starts heading down?
|9 weeks 3 days ago||Agree with what you're||
Agree with what you're saying, though with many true index funds having expense ratios sub-0.1%, the downside to index fund investing, even with large amounts of money, is pretty limited these days.
|9 weeks 3 days ago||Categorical statements like||
Categorical statements like this ignore certain realities. There are many circumstances in which a low-risk, low-reward place to put money is a good idea. But, yes, if long-term appreciation or income is desirable, then they are poor choices.
|9 weeks 3 days ago||double||
|9 weeks 3 days ago||Your reliance on beta to||
Your reliance on beta to recommend a single investment is downright scary. Betas are used for portfolio diversification, not for evaluation of a single stock. Beta is not a reflection of absolute risk; just of relative risk compared to the market (or another benchmark, as used by many funds). Many studies have shown that historical performance is not a good predictor of future performance, which undermines it, but more importantly a low beta can mean low correlation with the market, but still high risk.
Anything that delivers 15% returns with low risk is not low risk, or you're measuring it over too short of a period of time to provide meaningful data. If something like that were truly low risk and the return was not likely to go down by much, then everyone would put their money in it and the price would rise until the return fell.
|9 weeks 5 days ago||90% of current years tax||
90% of current years tax obligations or 100% of prior year, if I remember correctly. Though I can't recall whether it's the lesser or greater of the two... presumably the greater of the two.
|9 weeks 5 days ago||Though the odds are pretty||
Though the odds are pretty good that you get tickets. I found it interesting that in one of the AD's recent emails they acknowledged that 100% of people who have been on the list recently have been offered season tickets. Very different approach than what they had been trying the last few years, which was to scare you into thinking you had to make an enormous donation to get high enough on the priority list to be offered season tickets.
|9 weeks 6 days ago||Commonly known as||
Commonly known as "Pennsyltucky" according to my friend who is from those parts.
|10 weeks 4 days ago||You're missing the point.||
You're missing the point. People use the definition of "middle class" differently than you. That doesn't mean that they think they are making an average amount of money, because they're not using your definition.
I don't see people in this thread arguing that $250,000 and $60,000 are the same. I do see people using different standards to measure "middle class", and you seem to be the only one trying to impose a worldview where that has a precise definition. If you can get the whole world to agree to adopt your definition of "middle class" then you'd be absolutely right. But so long as others are using a different definition (and why is theirs wrong and yours right?), then you're having a semantic argument with people who largely agree with you.
|10 weeks 4 days ago||If you're going to nit-pick,||
If you're going to nit-pick, then worth pointing out that the overwhelming majority of the population in Santa Clara county is very close to Santa Clara. You've got 50,000 people down in Gilroy, 40,000 in Morgan Hill, and pretty much the remaining 1.75 million between Palo Alto and San Jose.
|10 weeks 4 days ago||To sum this up, there seems||
To sum this up, there seems to be more disagreement in this thread about semantics (how people use the term "middle class" differently) than there is on the underlying concepts.
|10 weeks 4 days ago||I don't really see any||
I don't really see any disagreement here that someone making $250,000 is in a better place than someone making $60,000, regardless of where they live. I see you have a very specific definition of "middle class" in your mind, and other people clearly have another definition, and even though the content of what they're saying is actually similar to what you're saying (except for the words "middle class"), you're disagreeing because you don't like their definition of middle class. Others seem to have a more flexible definition of "middle class" and acknowledge that if you're only classifying an entire population in three groups, then, by definition, there's going to be enormous variance even within those groups. Whereas you seem to be arguing that 'middle class' = 'median class', which is fine, but you're arguing something completely different (and very narrow).
Just my observation on the way this conversation seems to be going.
|10 weeks 5 days ago||There are a lot more jobs||
There are a lot more jobs than you'd think that don't adjust compensation significantly based on cost of living. Yes, you're going to make a little more for a similar job in NYC or SF, but not anywhere near as much to make up for the cost of living in those locations. There is all sorts of this information readily available, but here's the first one that shows up on Google:
You can see that Property Prices to Income ratios are over 8X in SF but 1.4X in Detroit.
But your larger paragraph is spot-on.
|10 weeks 5 days ago||Your new avatar is amazing.||
Your new avatar is amazing. Totally made me laugh.
|10 weeks 6 days ago||I'm confused about why you||
I'm confused about why you are more concerned with this now then you were at the time when you acknowledge you were concerned enough that you actually emailed Brandon about it? If it's a big deal to you, wouldn't you have only emailed him if you felt like it was a real thing, and not make-believe?
But since searching the Internet really isn't that hard:
Relevant quote, from a transcript of a Sam Webb interview of Brandon:
DAVID BRANDON: I think there's a distinct possibility that game will be a later game in the season, but not necessarily the last game of the season. And simply that's because... I don't think the coaches, or the players, or fans, networks or anyone would appreciate that match up to happen twice within a 7 day period. So however the division alignments occur... What you're really going to want is for that last game of the season to determine who's going to be the champion of that division and who is going to play for the Championship... Although I love playing OSU the last game of the year, I don't thinks it's necessarily a slam dunk.
|10 weeks 6 days ago||i think i read that soccer||
i think i read that soccer is at or near the highest level of concussions in sports. why is that, and are they tracking those folks?
Heading the ball and heads mistakenly (or not) coming in contact with people's knees and elbows have soccer at pretty much the top of the list for concussion problems. There have been studies showing that the more heading a player does, the worse their brains look and the worse they do on cognitive performance scores. I don't follow soccer all that closely, but read that around the time of the NFL lawsuits, FIFA (finally) started taking action.
|11 weeks 21 hours ago||Not nearly enough data to||
Not nearly enough data to assess position-by-position.
|11 weeks 1 day ago||Note: Marrone is now an||
Note: Marrone is now an assistant coach and OL coach for the Jaguars. Such a weird series of event with him quitting the HC job in Buffalo, presumably to take one elsewhere, and then became an assistant after bombing his interview with the Jets.
|11 weeks 1 day ago||I've read that (good, fast||
I've read that (good, fast read), but am generally interested in this and have read various other studies on the topic. For anyone else interested, here's a paper that isn't too technical of a read:
It finds that the long-term impact on your earnings has less (i.e., virtually zero) basis on whether you attended a highly selective school and more to do with whether you could have attended a highly selective school. i.e., if you applied to Harvard but chose to attend UMass, your long-term earnings were the same as whether you had matriculated at Harvard. The interesting exception was generally for minorities, where the author's postulated that groups of individuals who came from disadvantaged backgrounds had more to gain from the networks available at highly selective schools, whereas the non-minorities at those schools usually already had those networks in place through families and friends and thus gained nothing additional from attending the highly selective school.
|11 weeks 1 day ago||I agree with what you said||
I agree with what you said 100%. If your MBA is about the education only, and you don't need the networking or "high-profile" employers, then going to a top school is a really expensive proposition that may not pay off well.
Your comment about "lower-tier" made me think of a growing body of evidence in the world of academics: that being a big fish in a little pond is better than being a small fish in a big pond. Where fish = students and ponds = schools.