Win and lose

It's been said that some want privatization of profit and socialization of loss. That is, the gains go into the pockets while the payouts require a handout. We've seen a lot of this the past year.

However, we also see that the current rally makes, for some, an argument that we need to get into the gaming in order to have a future. A recent article out of Silicon Valley (newspaper) had such a message (usual equity/debt issue) essentially saying that stocks were necessary.

Well, that story is not quite right, however we need better support to show why. We'll work on getting that.

But, knowing about Harvard and Yale can help, as they both have lost this past year. And, their earlier success made others follow suite. We'll look for more analysis there.

In the meantime, here is a summary of references in this blog to those paragons of everything.

• Oops and more oops (Sep 08) -- A Remarks to this post mentioned how Harvard's success, and its being highly touted, caused jealous bones to try to duplicate. However, that is human nature. But, you would think that those running organizations, like CALPERS, would have a better foundation. Oh, why would I say that since there is no good foundation?
• Lessons to be learned (Jan 09) -- By this time, Harvard was waking up to the problem and crying poor. Well, they did recognize the issues early. Can't fault them for that?
• Hedge funds (Jan 09) -- By this time, we knew a little more about Madoff's shenanigans. He was still free, though. But, the issue is that any return beyond something reasonable is by necessity the result of things that stink, categorically. Why? Near zero! One would think that the brains of Harvard, et al, could figure out a way to help lead things to other than perdition.

We'll be getting back to this as things unfold.

Note: Of course, how public is all this? But, wasn't this an example of some best-and-brightest making oodles? Didn't one even leave to start some other endeavor? Claw back comes to mind. When will that ever be? Too, though, over the years of the big returns, these organizations were spending a lot besides building their nest egg. So, to see the real lost, it's not the case where we look at only one year; actually, there needs to be some balance across a lot of time. Yet, even though that would reduce some of the notions about the losses this year, the fact remains that you win and you lose. The maturity is to not lose more than what you've gained. That is true growth. But, experimentation ought to be lab-based.

Remarks:

05/17/2011 -- Hedge funds need some of our attention.

02/05/2010 -- See Lehman's guy report (toxic shock) on Harvard losses.

10/11/2009 -- Discussion has gone over to FED-aerated. Note the 10/11/2009 Remarks about the Business Week article on India's progress' inhibitors. 'Near zero' recognizes that some always suffer more than others, especially in win-win situations, as the whole notion of characterization minimizes visceral reactions by diminishing the real in favor of the abstracted (ah, the modern world, you say?).

09/13/2009 -- Need to pause for a bit, to look at Bookstaber's work.

09/12/2009 -- Sandbox was used without definition. Let's discuss that concept.

Modified: 05/17/2011