Neal Caffrey

562 posts

Neal Caffrey

Neal Caffrey

@NealCaffreyCap

Talent hits a target no one else can hit. Genius hits a target no one else can see

Manhattan, NY Katılım Nisan 2025
932 Takip Edilen134 Takipçiler
Neal Caffrey retweetledi
Eric Balchunas
Eric Balchunas@EricBalchunas·
THE EMPIRE STRIKES BACK: Since 2020 Capital Group has gone ranked 124th in ETF assets to 11th. Dimensional has gone from 12th to 7th. American Century, JPM and Franklin also climbing charts as legacy active MF cos steal share from ETF upstart veterans like Dimensional and WisdomTree. Altho everyone eats bc the lake is that full of fish. Nice table of the ETF asset leaderboard from @SirYappityyapp
Eric Balchunas tweet media
English
9
13
93
19.1K
Neal Caffrey retweetledi
Jared L Kubin
Jared L Kubin@JaredKubin·
Good read on HF v PE … the one thing I would add is a personality difference…I think people need to be real honest with themselves on who they are My best friend from school was European Army > OXFORD > McKinsey > top PE shop… so naturally he did not have to do any work in school and was top of the class. Me on the other hand had to work extremely hard nights and weekends to survive His personality: polished, methodical, long term, thoughtful, helpful, framework oriented, always looked at the big picture 5 years out, never liked being wrong (wasn’t often), risk to him was too much debt + liked making decisions with 95% of data…competitive in a Wimbledon sort of way, he would find my job noisy and headaches My personality: athlete / entrepreneur, more blunt, focused on “change”, short term detail oriented, being wrong doesn’t bother me, risk to me was probabilities+ likes having 60% of data, competitive in a street fight kinda way… I’d find his job slow and boring
Boring_Business@BoringBiz_

A lot of people here ask me about whether private equity or hedge fund is the right fit for them if they want to be in an investing seat Here is how I would think about the decision based on your personality and interests Private equity > better caters to someone who enjoys having control over their destiny. You will own majority stakes in businesses and be actively involved in putting together a management team and plan to run the business > good for someone who wants to run operations, not just investing. You will have to figure out value creation levers in the company to improve revenue and margins. You will have to understand capital structures and how much debt a business can support. You will be present in the Board discussions to see how the “sausage gets made” behind the scenes > good for someone who wants continuity of the hierarchy in banking. Private equity is set up to be much more of an apprenticeship model from a org structure standpoint. You will have layers of VPs and MDs above you before any direct interaction with PMs or IC members in most firms > much more relationship and face time heavy. You will have to coordinate with lawyers, consultants, accountants and third party vendors on diligence as you underwrite a business. You will have to gather bids from lenders and help them through their diligence. Many deals will have bankers running a process. Private equity, as a business, is much more relationship heavy than public market roles > stability. This one doesn’t get talked about enough but private equity inherently offers better career stability than most hedge funds. The career ladder is laid out for you and you know where you stand on it. It’s hard to get abruptly fired in PE land, which is something that happens quite often in public market world Hedge fund > caters to people who enjoy the immediate feedback loop of public markets. You like finding edge and figuring out analysis that the rest of the market has missed > better for folks who hate hierarchy and want flatter org structures. Most hedge funds tend to be relatively flat with direct line of access to PMs, even at the junior analyst level > less relationship driven but still matters since you will spend a lot of time talking to management and sellside research analysts > better for someone who wants to track a name or stock for long periods of time with changing your thesis along the way. In private equity, you might see one company come across for a transaction every 3-5 years. At a hedge fund, you underwrite the same business every quarter, or month for that matter, as new information comes out and you re-underwrite what you know > better for someone who is okay with career and earnings volatility. Hedge fund comp will swing widely every single year, even at the same firm, depending on how your fund performs. In good years, you might be making in the millions on your bonus but bad years will much worse vs your private equity peers. You are somewhat beholden to the broader market, especially for more beta strategies. Need to be okay with having to move firms every few years if things don’t go as expected > this is an odd one but all of my friends who enjoy their hedge fund seats also really enjoy poker. There are a lot of similarities between poker and investing in public markets, so thought I’d add this one in

English
8
3
318
106.4K
Neal Caffrey retweetledi
Jukan
Jukan@jukan05·
Why did xAI hand over a 220,000-GPU cluster to Anthropic? The technical backdrop to xAI's decision to hand Colossus 1 over to Anthropic in its entirety is more interesting than it appears. xAI deployed more than 220,000 NVIDIA GPUs at its Colossus 1 data center in Memphis. Of these, roughly 150,000 are estimated to be H100s, 50,000 H200s, and 20,000 GB200s. In other words, three different generations of silicon are mixed together inside a single cluster — a "heterogeneous architecture." For distributed training, however, this configuration is close to a disaster, according to engineers familiar with the setup. In distributed training, 100,000 GPUs must finish a single step simultaneously before the cluster can advance to the next one. Even if the GB200s finish their computation first, the remaining 99,999 chips have to wait for the slower H100s — or for any GPU that has hit a stack-related snag — to catch up. This is known as the straggler effect. The 11% GPU utilization rate (MFU: the share of theoretical FLOPs actually realized) at xAI recently reported by The Information can be read as the numerical fallout of this problem. It stands in stark contrast to the 40%-plus MFU figures achieved by Meta and Google. The problem runs deeper still. As discussed earlier, NVIDIA's NCCL has traditionally been optimized for a ring topology. It works beautifully at the 1,000–10,000 GPU scale, but once you push into the 100,000-unit range, the latency of data traversing the ring once around becomes punishingly long. GPUs need to churn through computations rapidly to keep MFU high, but while they sit waiting endlessly for data to arrive over the network fabric, more than half of the silicon falls into idle. Google sidestepped this bottleneck with its own custom topology (Google's OCS: Apollo/Palomar), but xAI, by my read, has not yet reached that stage. Layer Blackwell's (GB200) "power smoothing" issue on top, and the picture comes into focus. According to Zeeshan Patel, formerly in charge of multimodal pre-training at xAI, Blackwell GPUs draw power so aggressively that the chip itself includes a hardware feature for smoothing power delivery. xAI's existing software stack, however, was optimized for Hopper and does not understand the characteristics of the new hardware; when it imposes irregular loads on the chip, the silicon physically destructs — literally melts. That means the modeling stack must be rewritten from scratch, which in turn means scaling is far harder than most of us imagine. Pulling all of this together points to a single conclusion. xAI judged that training frontier models on Colossus 1 simply was not efficient enough to be worthwhile. It therefore moved its own training workloads wholesale onto Colossus 2, built as a 100% Blackwell homogeneous cluster. Colossus 1, on the other hand — whose mixed architecture is far less crippling for inference, which parallelizes more forgivingly — was leased in its entirety to an Anthropic that desperately needed inference capacity. Many observers point to what looks like a contradiction: Elon Musk poured enormous capital into building Colossus, only to hand the core asset over to a direct competitor in Anthropic. Others read it as xAI capitulating because it is a "middling frontier lab." But these are surface-level reads. Look at the numbers and a different picture emerges. xAI today holds roughly 550,000+ GPUs in total (on an H100-equivalent performance basis), and Colossus 1 (220,000 units) accounts for only about 40% of the total available capacity. Colossus 2 — built entirely on Blackwell — is already operational and continuing to expand. Elon kept the all-Blackwell homogeneous cluster (Colossus 2) for himself and leased out the older, mixed-generation Colossus 1. In other words, he handed the pain of rewriting the stack — the MFU-11% debacle — to Anthropic, while keeping his own focus on training the next generation of models. The real point, then, is this. Elon's objective appears to be positioning ahead of the SpaceXAI IPO at a $1.75 trillion valuation, currently floated for as early as June. The narrative SpaceXAI now needs is that xAI — long the "sore finger" — is not merely a research lab burning cash, but a business with a "neo-cloud" model in the mold of AWS, capable of leasing surplus assets at high yields. From a cost-of-capital perspective, an "AGI cash incinerator" is far less attractive to investors than a "data-center landlord generating cash." As noted above, the most important detail of the Colossus 1 lease is that it is for inference, not training. Unlike training, inference requires far less tightly synchronized inter-GPU communication. Even when the chips are heterogeneous, the workload parcels out cleanly across them in parallel. The straggler effect — the chief weakness of a mixed cluster — is essentially neutralized for inference workloads. Furthermore, with Anthropic occupying all 220,000 GPUs as a single tenant, the network-switch jitter (unanticipated latency) that arises under multi-tenancy disappears. The two sides' technical weaknesses end up complementing each other almost exactly. One insight follows. As a training cluster mixing H100/H200/GB200, Colossus 1 was an asset that could only deliver an MFU of 11%. The moment it was handed over to a single inference customer, however, that asset transformed into a cash-flow asset rented out at roughly $2.60 per GPU-hour (a weighted average of the lease rates across GPU types). For xAI, what was a "cluster from hell" for training has become a "golden goose" minting $5–6 billion in annual revenue when redeployed for inference. Elon's genius, I would argue, lies not in the model but in this asset-rotation structure. The weight of that $6 billion becomes clearer when set against xAI's income statement. Annualizing xAI's 1Q26 net loss yields roughly $6 billion in losses per year. The $5–6 billion in annual revenue generated by leasing Colossus 1 to Anthropic, in other words, almost perfectly hedges xAI's loss figure. This single deal effectively pulls xAI to break-even. Heading into the SpaceXAI IPO, this functions as a core line of financial defense. From a cost-of-capital standpoint, if the image shifts from "research lab burning cash" to "infrastructure tollgate stably printing $6 billion a year," the entire tone of the offering can change. (May 8, 2026, Mirae Asset Securities)
Jukan@jukan05

What the SpaceX–Anthropic Deal Means Two weeks ago, we published a note laying out what GPT-5.5's release implied. The conclusion was simple: whoever secures compute first, in greater volume, and with greater reliability ultimately takes the win. With OpenAI's 30GW roadmap dwarfing Anthropic's 7–8GW, we closed by arguing that the structural advantage on compute sat with OpenAI. Less than a fortnight later, that conclusion is being tested. On May 6, Anthropic signed a single-tenant lease for the entirety of Colossus 1 with SpaceXAI — the infrastructure subsidiary that consolidates Elon Musk's xAI and SpaceX. The asset carries more than 220,000 GPUs and 300MW of power, and crucially, is scheduled to come online within this month. It served as the capstone of Anthropic's April blitz, which added 13.8GW of cumulative capacity over the span of a single month. On headline numbers alone, OpenAI took more than a year to stack 18GW; Anthropic has put 13.8GW in the ground in thirty days. The takeaways break down into three. First, the compute pecking order has been redrawn again. Anthropic has now swept up the AWS expansion (5GW, with $100B+ in spend commitments over a decade), Google + Broadcom (3.5GW of TPU), Google Cloud (5GW alongside a $40B investment), and now SpaceXAI's Colossus 1 (0.3GW). Cumulative committed capacity, inclusive of pre-April allocations, sits at 14.8GW. This is still only half of OpenAI's 2030 target of 30GW, but the fact that the SpaceX lease will be live inside a month makes "deliverability" a qualitatively different proposition. Second, Elon Musk is the plaintiff in an active lawsuit against OpenAI — and at the same time, the supplier handing 220,000+ GPUs and 300MW of power, in one block, to OpenAI's most formidable competitor. The timing matters: the deal was struck in the middle of the Musk–Altman trial. We read this as a deliberate pincer with OpenAI in the middle. In the courtroom, Musk works to dismantle the moral legitimacy of OpenAI's leadership; in the market, he arms Anthropic to absorb OpenAI's revenue and user base. Third, the structure is financial-engineering perfection — a clean win-win for both sides. xAI can recognize $6B of annual revenue from a single contract, an amount that almost precisely offsets its Q1 2026 annualized net loss of $6B. It also accelerates the cleanup of SpaceXAI's pre-IPO balance sheet, with the entity now being floated at around $1.75T. Anthropic, on the other side, converts roughly $5B of spend into what it expects to be $15B of ARR via the coming inference-revenue surge. (Mirae Asset Securities, May 8, 2026)

English
201
513
4.2K
1.2M
Neal Caffrey retweetledi
Eric Balchunas
Eric Balchunas@EricBalchunas·
$DRAM has become the 2nd fastest ETF of all time to hit $5b, in just 35 days, just one day shy of $IBIT's record, which I never thought we'd see anyone challenge (altho tbf DRAM hitting $20b, $50b, $100b as fast as IBIT (or ever) is likely not going to happen). Still tho, hats off to what is arguably the best timed (and most heads-up) launch of all time. Here's look at 5 fastest ETFs to $5b from @JackiWang17
Eric Balchunas tweet media
English
23
54
504
87.5K
Neal Caffrey retweetledi
Joshua Kushner
Joshua Kushner@JoshuaKushner·
what if everything goes right
English
228
776
6.1K
436.8K
Neal Caffrey retweetledi
Unemployed Capital Allocator
Unemployed Capital Allocator@atelicinvest·
You see, there's a reason why I'm skeptical as fuck about all this token usage. The current narrative goes something like this - Opus 4.5 was an inflection point - That + Claude Code = you can create anything by just telling it what to do - tokens go brrr - anthropic can't meet demand. they planned for super duper crazy growth and are getting super duppper suuper duuuper over 9000 growth - everyone is using tokens to do amazing, productive things. getting things done that would have taken a team of people months in an afternoon while sucking on a lollipop - the future is here. token demand is infinite. we are still so early. this is the leading edge. everyone is gonna work like this soon. What I'm seeing in the real world - guys spending 50m tokens to show you a dashboard of their wedding - guys spending 100m tokens to organize their email inbox - claude deleting production database in one shot - claude 4.7 ignoring direct instructions in a relatively short claude.md file every 5 minutes - no I don't have bunch of other shit installed. - If I work on more than 2-3 things at a time, I get slopfest- not because of code quality, but because the product direction becomes incoherent. - Every time I see someone producing billions of tokens, their main business is selling skills file, or being an influencer, or producing slopware bordering on fraudware or are doing masturbatory slopfork that nobody uses. - Real engineers are doing real work with it - 100% - but usage is nowhere near as high as you think it is - Guys that output actual quality software such as anomalyco telling you how difficult it is - Real software companies are actually having a lot of trouble adopting agentic coding tools beyond fooling around with PoC creation. - Whenever I audit personal tools created there are tons of hallucinated features or errors - the creators of which are blissfully unaware because none of them are anal retentive enough to go in there and check shit manually - no no the bot told me it was all good man! - these things are really good at giving the appearance of getting stuff done ... until you actually go into what it did and it's just slopping all over themselves Yeah - I might be a boomer.
English
13
14
189
19.6K
Neal Caffrey retweetledi
Peter Girnus 🦅
Peter Girnus 🦅@gothburz·
I am the Chairman and CEO of Vornado Realty Trust. Eighty-four years old. Seven buildings in Midtown Manhattan. I said what I said. I said "tax the rich" is the equivalent of a racial slur. I said it at REBNY. Into the microphone. Eight hundred people. Median net worth in that room was north of $240 million, I know because our CFO ran the guest list through a Bloomberg terminal as a joke, and then it wasn't a joke. And when I said it, twelve people applauded. The rest nodded. One woman in the third row mouthed, "Finally." I saw her. Sharon, my communications advisor, Columbia, $430,000 a year, very bright, Sharon wants me to walk it back. She drafted something. "Mr. Roth's comments were intended to highlight the emotional impact of political rhetoric on business communities." I read it. I put it in the trash can on my desk. Not the recycling. The trash. Here's my clarification: I understated it. "Tax the rich" is worse than a slur. A slur is just a word. It doesn't come with a CBO score. Nobody is introducing a bill called the Racial Slur Implementation Act of 2026. But there are seventeen active proposals in Congress, I had Sharon count them, seventeen proposals designed to take more of my money. My money. Mine. Money I acquired by being better at acquiring Manhattan commercial real estate than anyone alive for four consecutive decades. That is not a crime. That is a record. I pay property taxes on $18.2 billion in assessed assets. $412 million a year. Say it again: four hundred and twelve million. I carry that number. It's the first thing I think about when I see a protest sign. I think: I pay more in property tax than the entire annual budget of the city of Fort Lauderdale. I looked this up. Fort Lauderdale: $408 million. Steve Roth: $412 million. I am a small city. And the city doesn't get screamed at. My effective tax rate last year was 11.4 percent. I say this because I believe in transparency and because I'm not ashamed of it. The rate reflects the legal structure of real estate investment trusts, depreciation schedules Congress established in 1986, and carried interest provisions that both parties have voted to preserve for forty years. I did not write these laws. I organized my entire financial existence around them with the help of nine full-time tax professionals who have offices on the 38th floor of 888 Seventh Avenue, which I also own. Their office is in my building. Their work protects my buildings. This is not a loophole. Sharon calls it a loophole. I've told her: a structure maintained by nine attorneys across four decades is not a loophole. A loophole is something you slip through once. This is architecture. This is the foundation. This is the building. Last Tuesday, same as every Tuesday, I walked past 1290 Sixth Avenue. My building. And there was a man. Same man as last week. Same sign: "Billionaires Pay Your Fair Share." He was standing on my sidewalk. My literal sidewalk — my company owns the ground lease. He was maybe thirty. He was wearing a jacket I would estimate cost $60. My lunch that day was $114. For one. I am telling you this not to boast but because these are facts. He has decided I'm his enemy. Based on a number he saw on a Forbes list. He doesn't know what I pay. He doesn't know what my buildings cost this city in construction jobs and lease revenue and foot traffic. He knows one number. He has made one judgment. I see him every Tuesday. I've started to notice things. He brings coffee from the cart, not the Starbucks. He has a backpack that looks heavy. He doesn't look unhealthy. He looks like he probably works somewhere, but not on Tuesdays. I've wondered: does he have a job? Does he have a building? Does he have anything that depends on him the way 4,200 employees depend on me? I suspect not. And yet he has opinions about my tax rate. I gave $22 million to charity last year. The Met. NYU Langone. Mount Sinai. I gave a building to NYU. Not money for a building — a building. The Steven Roth Residence Hall. It houses 400 students. That man with the sign has never housed 400 students. He hasn't housed one. He gives cardboard. I give structures. This is not a comparison I'm making to flatter myself. It's just arithmetic. When I said what I said at REBNY, I was saying what every person in that room believes and none of them will say publicly because they have communications advisors and the communications advisors all went to Columbia and they all say "unhelpful." I'm eighty-four. I'm too old for helpful. I'm too old to perform restraint for people who hate me for something I can't change. I didn't choose to be rich. I chose to be good at one thing for a very long time, and this is what happened. You don't punish someone for that. You don't legislate against someone for that. My net worth fluctuates between $3.8 and $4.1 billion depending on the quarter. I fluctuate more in a fiscal week than that man on my sidewalk will earn in his life. Both of these are facts. Only one of them is considered polite to say. They want me to apologize. I'll be dead in ten years. Twenty if I'm lucky. And they'll still be renting my buildings.
English
663
2K
12.1K
1.1M
Neal Caffrey retweetledi
Finn Hulse
Finn Hulse@finn_hulse·
one of the most beautiful realizations i made on the trading floor got me clowned big time i was watching the way my desk head balanced flows on total reflex. somehow, he just "knew" exactly how every counterparty would react to anything; quotes shifting, yield curve steepening, vol rising, spot dropping, big headlines/prints, etc. you could pessimistically chalk his adeptness up to decades of experience (with enough reps, maybe anything is automatic) but i'd like to think it's the same muscle that makes him a great father. the same subconscious empathy that lets you see things from the perspectives of 5 other people with ~0 computational overhead i've experienced it once professionally, as a novice waiter in a busy, understaffed college bar/restaurant. doing my job properly literally required me to reach a flow state where i could glance at 5 tables and 2 other waiters and put myself in their shoes instantly generally the job of any business is to anticipate demand and then meet it. scaling empathy is quite literally the entire game, and trading is perhaps the purest form of it. but i can see why people laughed when i commented that the whole thing seemed to reduce to "love" (even though i would argue that it's the underlying special sauce)
HydraDom@Hydra_Dom

@finn_hulse No one with a sharpe above 3 is interested in how much more open minded they are now compared to last year

English
1
4
99
17.3K
Neal Caffrey retweetledi
Anish Moonka
Anish Moonka@anishmoonka·
Winston Churchill fought his depression with bricks. He'd lay them for hours at his country home in Kent. He joined the bricklayers' union. And in 1921 he wrote about why it worked. It took psychology another 75 years to catch up. He called his depression the "Black Dog." It followed him for decades. His method for fighting it back was as basic as it sounds: laying brick after brick, hour after hour. Churchill spelled out his theory in a long essay for The Strand Magazine. People who think for a living, he wrote, can't fix a tired brain just by resting it. They have to use a different part of themselves. The part that moves the eyes and the hands. Woodworking, chemistry, bookbinding, bricklaying, painting. Anything that drags the body into a problem the mind can't solve by itself. Modern psychology now calls this behavioral activation. It's one of the most-studied depression treatments out there. Depression sets a behavior trap. You feel bad, so you stop doing things, and doing less means less to feel good about. Feeling worse makes you do even less. The loop tightens until you can't breathe inside it. Behavioral activation breaks the loop from the action side. You schedule the activity first, even when every part of you doesn't want to. Doing it produces small rewards: a wall gets straighter, a painting fills in, a messy room gets clean. Those small rewards slowly rewire the brain. Action comes first, and the feeling follows. Researchers at the University of Washington put this to the test in 2006. They studied 241 adults with major depression and compared three treatments: behavioral activation, regular talk therapy, and antidepressants. For the people who were most severely depressed, behavioral activation matched the drugs. It beat the talk therapy. A 2014 review of more than 1,500 patients across 26 trials backed up the result. Physical work like bricklaying does something extra on top of this. It crowds out rumination, the looping bad thoughts that grind people down during the worst stretches of depression. Bricklaying needs both hands and gives feedback brick by brick: each one is straight or crooked. After an hour you can see exactly how much wall you built. No room left for the mental chewing. The line George Mack used in his post, "depression hates a moving target," is good poetry. The science behind it is sharper. Depression hates a brain that has somewhere else to be.
George Mack@george__mack

Winston Churchill used to lay 200 bricks per day to keep his mind busy when feeling down. Depression hates a moving target.

English
854
11.6K
56.3K
6.9M
Neal Caffrey
Neal Caffrey@NealCaffreyCap·
Yup. I found myself surprisingly prepared for market making despite only taking 1 stats class in college. How? By reselling sneakers. There’s a trading instinct that can only be learned from experience.
Kris Sidial🇺🇸@Ksidiii

One thing I’ve come to realize is that the average watch dealer often understands trading, markets, and the human behavior that drives supply and demand better than most financial professionals that are actually in this business. Whether it’s watches, pencils, water bottles, or even complex derivatives, it all comes down to the same fundamental force: supply and demand.

English
0
0
0
43
Neal Caffrey retweetledi
Brett Caughran
Brett Caughran@FundamentEdge·
This is so true. I lived this. Functionally, my career as a "hedge fund guy" was over at 32. I built my ego around being a rising star, working at blue chip hedge funds, big bonuses, living the hedge fund lifestyle (fancy dinners, Hamptons share, brokers rolling out the red carpet). A bad career decision, a few bad trades, and not only did my self identity shift from "rising star" to "damaged goods", but my nervous system was so shot that I couldn't even muster the energy for a comeback attempt. I pulled the plug and moved my family from NYC to Arizona. I thought the change of scenery & lifestyle would be an immediate balm to the the angst I felt inside. Instead, things got dark, and really for the first time in my life, I struggled with depression. My advice to anyone who peaks early is the criticality of a new dimension of purpose. For me, three young sons (at that point, 6, 4 & 6 months) and a loving & supportive wife were the critical elements that kept me on track, and got me back on track. And, in retrospect, the pain was the biggest gift I've ever received, as it drove a deep exploration of spirituality & the true architecture of the universe. I had time and space to explore questions I never had time to explore before, like "Who am I and why am I here?".
Jared Sleeper@JaredSleeper

Any profession where people have decent odds of peaking early (i.e. 20s) can exact a big emotional toll on the unprepared. Professional athletes, hedge fund guys, etc.

English
60
95
2.6K
770.8K
Neal Caffrey retweetledi
𝗥𝗢𝗖𝗞𝗬
𝗥𝗢𝗖𝗞𝗬@TheWarKitchen·
Leisure is a lost art. Nobody knows how to relax anymore. You don't rest by endlessly scrolling. You need to be doing things. Go for an aimless walk. Discover new cafés. Play a game of tennis. Stretch. Peruse niche magazines. Listen to an album from start to finish. Write. Smell the flowers. Soak in a warm magnesium bath. Bask in the sun. You need to let your subconscious ruminate while your body completely disconnects from work. This is how the greatest ideas in the world are birthed.
𝗥𝗢𝗖𝗞𝗬 tweet media
English
20
186
2.2K
70K
Neal Caffrey
Neal Caffrey@NealCaffreyCap·
Yup. My old trading team used to buy desk lottos every Mon & Weds when the powerball was 1B+. No different than buying insurance.
English
0
0
1
39
Neal Caffrey retweetledi
Boring_Business
Boring_Business@BoringBiz_·
Spoke with a retired hedge fund portfolio manager who made millions for himself and grew out an entire strategy at one of the large pod shops Biggest takeaway from the conversation was that you need to learn to stop worrying about what you cannot control The public markets job is brutal. There are about a hundred variables that can move a stock. There is absolutely no way you will get comfortable with every single one Even when you know a stock cold and have your thesis locked down, there will be 10 other variables you missed or could go against you This freezes up a lot of successful analysts and PMs. At best, it causes many anxious nights where you spend all your time worrying about the variables you haven’t thought of Even when you are there at dinner with your family, you are not really present Your kid is talking about his school baseball game but the scenarios of what happens to the portfolio after earnings tomorrow is running through your head His biggest regret was spending too much time focusing on the items he can’t control and never really being present for his personal life Would go back in a heartbeat to truly live the moments where he was physically there, but not really mentally present
English
15
21
556
57.2K
Neal Caffrey retweetledi
Kpaxs
Kpaxs@Kpaxs·
Low-agency: “Can I do this?” High-agency: “I’m doing this unless someone stops me.” The high-agency person has realized that most permissions are granted retroactively. It’s easier to get forgiveness than permission because once something is already done, the default switches from “no” to “well, I guess it’s fine.”
Kpaxs@Kpaxs

Here a controversial take: most of the authority that exists in any organization was never formally granted to anyone. It was assumed, exercised, and then retroactively legitimized by the fact that it worked.

English
21
238
2.4K
125.7K
Neal Caffrey retweetledi
John Arnold
John Arnold@johnarnold·
Many years ago I hurt my knee playing sports. I was referred to the orthopedist for one of the local pro teams. After keeping me waiting for 2.5 hours, he diagnosed a cartilage tear and recommended surgery. I was so mad at his manner and tardiness I left without scheduling. The next week I got a second opinion from a much younger doc who was likely more current on the recent medical literature. He looked at the same MRI. He said he could do surgery now but his advice was to wait 30 days and see if it healed on its own. It did. Medical reversal is when a practice that became widely used is later shown to be ineffective or even harmful. Examples like meniscus surgery show the need to keep gathering evidence. A not immaterial part of the practice of modern medicine doesn't improve health, and may be net harmful.
John Arnold tweet media
English
183
250
4K
891.5K
Neal Caffrey retweetledi
Jukan
Jukan@jukan05·
Damn, my feed is full of people pumping Korean stocks these days. Let me give one piece of advice to foreign investors: don’t touch KOSDAQ carelessly. KOSDAQ is an abyss that has swallowed the money of countless Korean retail investors. How exactly are foreign investors supposed to verify KOSDAQ names? Korean brokerage reports? Korean brokerages are already understaffed, and they simply do not cover KOSDAQ companies properly. If a stock gets covered five times a year, that is already a lot. Then should you just read the news? That is not easy either. The Korean market is notorious for front-running issues. Even recently, people from major media outlets have been arrested and investigated on allegations of front-running. So that “positive news article” you saw might have been written by someone who had already bought the stock beforehand and wanted to pump it on purpose. Be extremely careful before entering KOSDAQ. Once you lose your money, it is too late to complain.
English
104
133
1.7K
255.3K
Neal Caffrey retweetledi
Michael J. Miraflor
Michael J. Miraflor@michaelmiraflor·
Getting paid to think is peak everything. If you’re getting paid well to think, don’t take it for granted. That’s 1% of civilization type stuff. Your ancestors are proud and jealous that you’ve gotten this far.
English
111
1.8K
16.5K
372.4K

Keşfet

@SirYappityyapp @JackiWang17 @elonmusk @BarackObama @taylorswift13 @cristiano @BillGates @NASA