BBC News | Technology | World Edition
Not bad, but not enough to cover the current levels of household debt in Norway, while a large portion of the debt is tied to mortgages the mortgage debt in the Norway have been increasing faster than income for quite a few years now. They can increase or decrease their own albeit large proportional supply. Monex Investindo Futures kaufen.
MarkMc on Sept 22, It's nearly a trillion dollars. Yes, a trillion dollars is market-making. If it all moved at once world economies would shit themselves for a time. Even beyond that, there are only about sovereign states in the world. Anecdotally; I spoke to a person from "Norges Bank Investment Management" today at a careers fair about this issue, and apparently this example of using active external investors is something that they have been avoiding since, and that the magnitudes of their internal bonuses are far more restrictive.
TuringNYC on Sept 21, This is a very good point. A very simple scenario would be that all the money is placed in super-thrifty ETFs with.
In this case, it would be M! FullMtlAlcoholc on Sept 22, If you're successfully managing nearly a trillion dollars, that's a bargain. There are CEO's who run billion dollar companies into the ground and receive more compensation than that! The fund has also started to become active in pushing for lower executive pay But how large returns was he generating?
You seem to feel strongly against asset managers being compensated well.. It's because financial transparency doesn't have allot of competition, it's a low bar to say and do some transparent things Anyway, that manager needs to negotiate a better deal if they only get 60m annually with almost a trillion AUM.
Assuming this asset manager is a Norwegian resident, he'll pay a ton of tax income or corporate tax, VAT, stamp duty on property purchases, capital gains, etc etc on that money, and eventually given enough time, most will just flow back to the government. The house always wins.. Also, it depends on how much he brings in. If the performance is there, they should get compensated well for that. Otherwise, why put up with the stress of managing billions of dollars?
Nobody has ever managed to do that. You'd be lucky if you could beat the market by a few points on average over a 20 years time period. Compensation well for good performance does not make sense when you aren't penalized for losses. That's just not true. That's almost 50 years! None of that matters if you can't pick the winning players in advance. With enough variance and enough players, someone will eventually have double-digit annualized returns over decades, it doesn't mean that they are necessarily superb investors.
Gustomaximus on Sept 22, The BIG difference is someone can go invest in Greenblatt or Icahn's fund with a reasonable expectation of these returns ongoing. Not so with a lottery winner. What would you think if you saw someone win the lottery 2 months out of every 3 for 20 years? Buffett has actually picked the winners in advance in his great essay: That said, a fund this size should be taking as passive of an approach as possible.
How would your position be falsified? You could always say that later someone will revert to the mean. Retric on Sept 22, Simple, compare a large number of investors based on some criteria with the overall average.
AKA, if you think there are people that do better than average, then picking people who have beaten the odds for 10 years and see how they do over the next 10 years. Repeat over a few decades. There are things that seem to work. The most common way to 'beat the market' is trading a low chance and ideally hidden chance of failure for inflated returns. This is really appealing when investing other peoples money as you don't share in their downside.
I have a hard time believing that. People have done it before. It has always turned out to be luck. Fantastic track record until they cease being lucky. So, cynicism and economic orthodoxy aside, that sounds like a really cool company. Has anyone tried just tossing a big dumb neural network on stock data and investigated whether it can make money? It sounds very obvious, but a quick googling returns little.
But I guess the investment industry is pretty secretive by nature. One of our Solutions Architects wrote this up for amusement: You've no idea what you're talking about. Renaissance technology is a quantitative trading company, meaning they use computers to trade; they probably do thousands of trades per day, and consistently make a profit. Now, you might say, they were lucky to stumble upon a strategy that works. You can also say that the strategy will stop working at some point because of competition , so their "luck" will run out, and they might not get "lucky" in time to find a new strategy.
But their past performance was most definitely not just "luck". Btw, in most other professions e. RenTec makes too many bets for their track record to be just luck. Are you seriously asking if hedge funds that pay hundreds of thousands of dollars salary to top experts from all kinds of fields have investigated using machine learning?
Obviously someone has, but I want to know the results. You can't just "toss a NN to stock market data" and expect good results. There's too little historical data, you can't easily "generate" more data for the network to learn from, making it really easy to overfit. In other fields e. Very few of these techniques can be applied generally. Dropout can certainly be applied generally - it's useful as a regularization technique especially in wide and deep networks to combat overfitting in other fields than computer vision.
CNNs can be used in other fields as well. It turns out to be rather difficult, because in most setups you see in the stock market, the market goes up roughly half the time, and down roughly half the time.
There are millions of investors. The chances of a few outliers getting a long streak of returns are pretty good, even if they picked stocks at random.
It's impossible to tell in advance who those lucky parties will be. But their existence is very likely. Retric on Sept 21, Which is still less than someone who bought dell stock at IPO and held for 9 years. You can't just pick one good company to invest in. These funds are not getting that kind of returns on 10B. Often you see "fund not seeking additional investment.
When you have so much money to invest you are forced to capture a more representative slice of the market and regress closer to the mean. And they used algorithms: For example in the s Berkshire returned In the s it returned In the s it averaged Nobody would hold their breath on another investor matching Buffett or Soros. It is in fact possible though. The big problem for the Norway fund is obviously the scale. The thing about both Buffett and Soros is that they get deals that the general investor, or even really good and kinda famous investor, would never get.
For example, Buffet did million in unsecured loans but with front-of-line payback with Harley Davidson in at 15 percent, essentially to cover customer financing i. You and I would be lucky to find that sort of return from the riskiest loan, let alone a profitable manufacturing company. AND, Buffet could have made more than a Billion extra if he'd bought stock instead of debt, so even when he's wrong he's still getting a sweetheart deal.
It's important to note that this discussion is about a massive sovereign wealth fund, not the average investor. I absolutely agree that the average person should stick to passive index funds. But if you have nearly a trillion dollars to invest, you'd be a fool to stick to passive strategies. Yeah, the oil fund averages just 0. Are you aware how much 0. So at this stage factoring in the active management cost they are outperforming the market.
Of course we don't know in the long run whether that will continue to be the case. It's hard to beat the market when you're bigger than many markets. The asset manager in question, Mattias Westman, wasn't Norwegian.
That seems extremely dubious. Do you have any sources? It's not controversial that there are funds with high returns over long periods. The problem is that there are also funds with high returns that suddenly nosedive, and new funds from people with high returns in the past that doesn't do well at all.
Or, in other words: Or it didn't happen. I dont have pics, but insight. Typically these are funds exclusively for high net worth individuals. They are not advertised. They get to invest in business etc before the open market via their relationships which is I assume why they can get these returns. My source is a friend who is a partner in one of these funds. And the sad thing for people like us is they are typically asked to preserve wealth aka make sure I'm never poor and and growth is secondary consideration.
So, by its very nature, investing based on access to privileged opportunities. Who's to say it is not based on leveraging privileged information too? In other words, a type of insider trading. Guess public sentiment hasn't caught up to such practices, yet, so they can get away with it. What is the failure rate for such private funds?
Obviously, we may never hear of their failures, just as we don't hear of their successes. Gustomaximus on Sept 23, Yes privilege exists, the same as you friend might tell you a job is opening before its open knowledge.
But deals will be shopped about. The big difference is many deals cant reasonably go to the public market. Costs for listing regulations would be significant and unnecessary. Consider, you need to be called as a 'sophisticated' investor even to trade options. This is to protect the public from unscrupulous pyramid schemes and business that carries high knowledge levels to understand what your buying into. It's as much about protecting the public keeping some deals away from open markets as being 'privileged'.
Bigger ones go to public news like Madoff. And those are just the popular ones that I know of, as a passive investor. It has viewed oil revenues as a temporary, collectively owned windfall that, instead of spurring consumption today, can be used to insulate the country from the storms of the global economy and provide a thick, goose-down cushion for the distant day when the oil wells run dry.
It's kind of funny that the classically Scandinavian solution was mostly the work of an Iraqi geologist http: I think similar ideas are found all over the world, but few countries outside of Northern Europe have the necessary political responsibility and lack of corruption to actually execute successfully on these ideas.
The government raided it to pay for budget shortfalls caused by offering a blanket, virtually unconditional guarantee to private sector bank debts, even unsecured bank debts, caused by the collapse in the Irish property market in The insane loans issued were made whole by the taxpayer at enormous cost to the wider economy. Of course, very little of those involved actually went to prison, although some higher ups in Anglo Irish described as the worst bank in the world, even worse than Icelandic banks were eventually, after many years, sent to prison .
The CEO of Anglo was even acquitted by a jury! I wish we had the competence and level of societal trust the Norwegians have. The Norwegians also had a very sensible approach to their banking crisis compared to the US and Ireland: Liquidity support was given to illiquid, but solvent institutions. The "Share capital was written down to zero before committing public funds.
At least if you wipe out the shareholders it's an incentive to behave better the next time. RestlessMind on Sept 22, I sincerely wonder - what would happen if USA were to receive such a short-duration windfall? In fact, California experienced such a windfall due to rising stock prices in recent years, and Jerry Brown had to fight with the legislature to save that in a rainy day fund instead of spending on welfare programs.
Now research the current state of the fund, there is a bit of controversy going on right now. The governor has unilaterally limited the payout this year and a lot of folks aren't happy. Our government hasn't hardly saved a dime of our Oil Income. Right, but the money was spent on something tho'. So the question - and I don't know the answer - is whether having that thing, at the time, was worth more than having something else, in the future.
It just seems like if we had of kept the money and re-invested it We could ask the same question in the UK. Successive governments believed in using the money to lower taxes instead. Not bad, but not enough to cover the current levels of household debt in Norway, while a large portion of the debt is tied to mortgages the mortgage debt in the Norway have been increasing faster than income for quite a few years now.
This isn't a problem unique to Norway, Norway is just one of the biggest offenders, even in the Nordic countries there is a trend of creating a new generation or class of indentured citizens. Many EU countries need to look at germany and start reducing housing prices, one of the main contributors to Germany's low household debt is a 10 year cap on mortgages. Countries like Sweden and Norway just now starting to cap it, Sweden capped the mortgage term to years no this isn't a typo this year and the current average mortgage term in Sweden is still over years, and Norway isn't much better off It was slightly higher than Sweden IIRC I just can't find a source atm.
While the Nordic countries take pride in their model the current economics are pretty bad under the surface, you have a combination of inflated housing prices, extreme housing shortages, and mortgages that can span over 3 generations.
To some extent the Nordic model isn't a choice it's an outcome of the economic policy to the point where a lot of people that appear to be wealthy are actually in dire debt and dependant on the state. Where did you get the idea of that cap?
See here for current mortgage interest rates up to 30 years: When you say " year mortgage term", what exactly are you talking about? Effective term or something? Because the banks only offer a choice between 20, 25 and 30 year mortgage terms usually. If you look at the rate they are being repaid, it represents a repayment period of years. Norway's been tightening the mortgage belt for years now.
That was set in IIRC. Overall the time you are allocated to clear the debt, the 30 years is the "nominal" max term offered, it can be extended. I'm not certain about some of those mortgages: From everything I've learned since I've been in Norway, after the whole financial crisis they took steps to minimize some of the housing stuff.
Housing is expensive where I'm at: It is much cheaper outside of the city. There is debt tied to the house, if you own a house. The average mortgage is years - what you are stating isn't the average. This isn't actually all that much outside of the rates in the US, and part of the reason is to keep housing affordable for people. What is different is that people tend to stay at a job for a much longer time frame.
In addition, housing comes with a required down payment, depending on your age. As far as debt goes, you can't really inherit debt here. You can inherit a bit of debt through inheritance - ie, tax on a house that had value. The other way to have that is for parents to co-sign on a loan, but that isn't the same sort of thing.
There are some laws to prevent children inheriting debt from what I understand. It's what inevitably happens when the balance between "owner-occupied housing as investment" and "housing as cost of living" gets out of whack. I have never heard about this in the Swedish news and I'm quite curious where The Telegraph got that information from.
There are also reports from various global banks and financial organizations, google is your friend. Will that be the reason why Germany has one of the lowest home ownership rates? Not the only reason, and most likely not the primary one. When adjusted for age Germany has a pretty solid house ownership rate.
Germany is big and has a pretty mobile workforce, in many other countries you are considerably less likely to be moving every years across large distances like you are in Germany. Overall the affordability of housing even when accounting for mortgages and required seed money is considerably better in Germany than in Norway, Sweden or Denmark, and while Germany does have about half the house ownership rate on paper it is also because rent is both available and affordable and is favored by the younger workforce.
With Reverso you can find the English translation, definition or synonym for high explosive bomb and thousands of other words. You can complete the translation of high explosive bomb given by the English-German Collins dictionary with other dictionaries such as: Orlov is a mathematician whose expertise is the geometry of high explosives inside a fission bomb. Orlow ist Gebiet ist die Geometrie des Sprengstoffes in einer Atombombe.
Each bomb has about 50 pounds of high-explosive material, blast radius of nearly 2, feet. Jede Bombe beinhaltet ungefähr 50 Pfund hochexplosives Material, Explosionsradius von fast Metern. Die Kilo Spreng- und Splitterbombe wurde gegen kleinere Ziele eingesetzt. Bombenaufh ä ngung erforderlich. For years Hamas rockets were fortunately more like fire-crackers than bombs , but since the start of , high-explosive rockets have been launched from Gaza.
Die BBC, nicht gerade als Freund Israels bekannt, berichtete, dass 15 der 16 von den israelischen Verteidigungskräften getöteten Palästinenser bekannte terroristische Kämpfer waren. Jahrelang waren die Raketen der Hamas glücklicherweise eher Feuerwerkskörper als Bomben , doch seit Beginn des Jahres wurden von Gaza aus hochexplosive Raketen abgeschossen.
The bouncing bomb , also known as the Highball, was a device with lbs.