MBABullshitDotCom explains this really well if anyone is interested!
@its_cassiej10 жыл бұрын
I'm now more confused than when I got here...so complex
@drcinvests10 жыл бұрын
Correlation coefficient is given or from = Covariance / Both standard deviations (market & security)
@bokkenknuser10 жыл бұрын
How do you calculate the Correlation Coefficient (-0,5) ?
@rogda12312 жыл бұрын
your notation at 2.18 is very bad - the multiplications look like x's! otherwise a very nice video
@redarrowhead212 жыл бұрын
so basically... use debit cards. Got it.
@Hustlenom1k12 жыл бұрын
Superbe vidéo ... Merci beaucoup! -Christophe
@farid170512 жыл бұрын
GREAT VIDEO thanks!
@ghip3112 жыл бұрын
great video! very helpful!
@drcinvests13 жыл бұрын
The slope of any function is its derivative, be it max or min. For the minimum, the slope would be zero. Hence, going backwards from a zero slope for the derivative, we find the minimum (or sometimes max)
@sharishsss13 жыл бұрын
Amazing! Thanks Dr. C. Can you please explain why you used differentiation in the middle for getting the calues of K?
@galitein13 жыл бұрын
Great video thanks!
@Nicool33313 жыл бұрын
SO HELPFUL THANK YOU
@managerofwealth13 жыл бұрын
To learn about the basics of investing is very helpful.. Small thoughts and ideas will become broad by times come.. Great video.. very informational.
@drcinvests13 жыл бұрын
Some do argue DCA produces greater returns; I do not. I argue DCA has no real alternative in a functional sense. And I never would argue for timing. I do argue DCA seems to violate (yet then prove) the differences between arithmetic and geometric compounding.
@fliegeroh13 жыл бұрын
But no one ever said that dollar cost averaging produced "excess returns", only that it is for most people, the best way to be in the market. Dr. C calls this a "folly" but offers no alternative. Does he suggest trying to "time the market" which is sheer lunacy since most of the big gains over a year usually occur on only a few days.
@Romeowasbleeding113 жыл бұрын
Great voice
@drcinvests13 жыл бұрын
I'll take that as a compliment
@Tote1883gas13 жыл бұрын
This is by far the most complicated video ive seen so far on you tube
@EconMBAStudent13 жыл бұрын
Clear explanation, great adjust to reading the textbook
@thegoonist14 жыл бұрын
i have no idea what you just tried to prove. how did you even generate the graph.
@drcinvests14 жыл бұрын
Good catch, after all this time, you are absolutely right. When the stock rises the writer/seller of call loses.
@drcinvests14 жыл бұрын
Never argued for buying options save as insurance, and only selling options in lieu of limit orders to sell (selling calls) or to buy (selling puts). Graphs alone show the risks and they are indeed risky.
@falfred114 жыл бұрын
Dr C you are one crazy dude. You are giving the viewers of this video poor information about options. When you explain selling calls and puts you dont mention the risk involved. Buying naked calls and puts is very risky because you take in a small premium (the credit) for unlimited risk to the up side (naked calls) and limited risk to the downside (naked put) until the stock hit zero.
@drcinvests14 жыл бұрын
Common Intro is Kraftwerk "Autobahn," this one "Welcome to Future" came from a CD which lost the info when transferred or has a title/artist different/forgotten by me.
@drcinvests14 жыл бұрын
The individual companies trading in pennies then nickels are listed under Info and become visible when More is clicked.
@drcinvests14 жыл бұрын
Back testing (called data snooping by statisticians) should also require that the rate of return be the same for the passive cash account and steady investments vs. DCA which it likely does not. Yet again, like returns will produce like results. Yet again, DCA does not differ from a standard retirement investing anyhow so the issue is also moot.
@drcinvests14 жыл бұрын
A simulation with a normal distribution where Pt=Pt-1(1+r) where r is mean R and say a 5 percent monthly (.05) standard deviation; the cash account is a certain return of R. Purchase shares = $/Pt and compare that average to a constant share purchase average with the excess/loss to/from a cash account. If they are not equal your sample is too small or your programming is faulty. If the same returns are available, it is illogical to get anything but an equivalent result.
@drcinvests14 жыл бұрын
Hmm.... A good college math proof is that (1+r)^n = (1+r)*(1+r)...n times and does NOT equal the arithmetic return but the geometric return (see my separate video on the difference between the two). Again, regardless you have NO OTHER RELEVANT choice anyhow. You are confusing that a 50 percent drop is NOT offset by a 50 gain, but instead by a 100 percent gain, or that percents are NOT additive, but multiplicative which is a common mistake made by proponents of DCA...
@wordsworth72715 жыл бұрын
complex stuff- algebra not my subject
@Jakers200915 жыл бұрын
Why doesn't the government just let the banks go bust and start new banks with no toxic asstes on their balance sheets... 700 billion dollars could open at least 10 banks... and whats more - the shareholders of these new banks could be the american public by issuing the shares of these banks to the public since its their money going in...
@Jakers200915 жыл бұрын
What a guy!
@randpate15 жыл бұрын
So in the end... it just didn't make any difference. Thanks!
@Tuxster315 жыл бұрын
"Consider if you will...." You sound like the late, great Rod Serling. ;)
@drcinvests15 жыл бұрын
If one were to track firemen's success rates and you discovered one was actually worse, this outier would be an exception to the rule...and as then and now the Feds poured gasoline on the fire and these are indeed exceptional times
@drcinvests15 жыл бұрын
PE ratios are the reciprocal of the going yield or PE=1/k which with low interest rates now proves we are in anomalous times.
@drcinvests15 жыл бұрын
And 1931 1932 things were so similar to now as to also be scary... Point well taken and in a way goes to demonstrate my concerns
@kumaisobele15 жыл бұрын
Extremly helpful analysis, magnificently presented, please keep up the good work
@wmisc12315 жыл бұрын
wow, now i know!
@zohaibakhan15 жыл бұрын
everything simplified. Great!
@leapton8816 жыл бұрын
more people should watch this
@drcinvests16 жыл бұрын
...and to your other question: the minimum variance portfolio is just that, the optimal portfolios lie above it and to the right on the Efficient Frontier with higher returns and higher risks (these are varyingly optimal to different people who may like more risk and return until the risk free return is introduced which then creates a single tangency on the Frontier which is presumed to be the Market).
@ChuckJPC16 жыл бұрын
All dots (single securities) have some correlation with every dot. The extreme dots to the right are relevant but generally not desirable. The correlations and weighted portfolios to the left of the dots create the feasible set; the best of these are on the Efficient Frontier (up and to the left).
Пікірлер
MBABullshitDotCom explains this really well if anyone is interested!
I'm now more confused than when I got here...so complex
Correlation coefficient is given or from = Covariance / Both standard deviations (market & security)
How do you calculate the Correlation Coefficient (-0,5) ?
your notation at 2.18 is very bad - the multiplications look like x's! otherwise a very nice video
so basically... use debit cards. Got it.
Superbe vidéo ... Merci beaucoup! -Christophe
GREAT VIDEO thanks!
great video! very helpful!
The slope of any function is its derivative, be it max or min. For the minimum, the slope would be zero. Hence, going backwards from a zero slope for the derivative, we find the minimum (or sometimes max)
Amazing! Thanks Dr. C. Can you please explain why you used differentiation in the middle for getting the calues of K?
Great video thanks!
SO HELPFUL THANK YOU
To learn about the basics of investing is very helpful.. Small thoughts and ideas will become broad by times come.. Great video.. very informational.
Some do argue DCA produces greater returns; I do not. I argue DCA has no real alternative in a functional sense. And I never would argue for timing. I do argue DCA seems to violate (yet then prove) the differences between arithmetic and geometric compounding.
But no one ever said that dollar cost averaging produced "excess returns", only that it is for most people, the best way to be in the market. Dr. C calls this a "folly" but offers no alternative. Does he suggest trying to "time the market" which is sheer lunacy since most of the big gains over a year usually occur on only a few days.
Great voice
I'll take that as a compliment
This is by far the most complicated video ive seen so far on you tube
Clear explanation, great adjust to reading the textbook
i have no idea what you just tried to prove. how did you even generate the graph.
Good catch, after all this time, you are absolutely right. When the stock rises the writer/seller of call loses.
Never argued for buying options save as insurance, and only selling options in lieu of limit orders to sell (selling calls) or to buy (selling puts). Graphs alone show the risks and they are indeed risky.
Dr C you are one crazy dude. You are giving the viewers of this video poor information about options. When you explain selling calls and puts you dont mention the risk involved. Buying naked calls and puts is very risky because you take in a small premium (the credit) for unlimited risk to the up side (naked calls) and limited risk to the downside (naked put) until the stock hit zero.
Common Intro is Kraftwerk "Autobahn," this one "Welcome to Future" came from a CD which lost the info when transferred or has a title/artist different/forgotten by me.
The individual companies trading in pennies then nickels are listed under Info and become visible when More is clicked.
Back testing (called data snooping by statisticians) should also require that the rate of return be the same for the passive cash account and steady investments vs. DCA which it likely does not. Yet again, like returns will produce like results. Yet again, DCA does not differ from a standard retirement investing anyhow so the issue is also moot.
A simulation with a normal distribution where Pt=Pt-1(1+r) where r is mean R and say a 5 percent monthly (.05) standard deviation; the cash account is a certain return of R. Purchase shares = $/Pt and compare that average to a constant share purchase average with the excess/loss to/from a cash account. If they are not equal your sample is too small or your programming is faulty. If the same returns are available, it is illogical to get anything but an equivalent result.
Hmm.... A good college math proof is that (1+r)^n = (1+r)*(1+r)...n times and does NOT equal the arithmetic return but the geometric return (see my separate video on the difference between the two). Again, regardless you have NO OTHER RELEVANT choice anyhow. You are confusing that a 50 percent drop is NOT offset by a 50 gain, but instead by a 100 percent gain, or that percents are NOT additive, but multiplicative which is a common mistake made by proponents of DCA...
complex stuff- algebra not my subject
Why doesn't the government just let the banks go bust and start new banks with no toxic asstes on their balance sheets... 700 billion dollars could open at least 10 banks... and whats more - the shareholders of these new banks could be the american public by issuing the shares of these banks to the public since its their money going in...
What a guy!
So in the end... it just didn't make any difference. Thanks!
"Consider if you will...." You sound like the late, great Rod Serling. ;)
If one were to track firemen's success rates and you discovered one was actually worse, this outier would be an exception to the rule...and as then and now the Feds poured gasoline on the fire and these are indeed exceptional times
PE ratios are the reciprocal of the going yield or PE=1/k which with low interest rates now proves we are in anomalous times.
And 1931 1932 things were so similar to now as to also be scary... Point well taken and in a way goes to demonstrate my concerns
Extremly helpful analysis, magnificently presented, please keep up the good work
wow, now i know!
everything simplified. Great!
more people should watch this
...and to your other question: the minimum variance portfolio is just that, the optimal portfolios lie above it and to the right on the Efficient Frontier with higher returns and higher risks (these are varyingly optimal to different people who may like more risk and return until the risk free return is introduced which then creates a single tangency on the Frontier which is presumed to be the Market).
All dots (single securities) have some correlation with every dot. The extreme dots to the right are relevant but generally not desirable. The correlations and weighted portfolios to the left of the dots create the feasible set; the best of these are on the Efficient Frontier (up and to the left).