That's the thing though. The higher risk is not always rewarded by sufficient returns to compensate for the risk. Hedge funds and private capital are cases where the tradeoff is pretty questionable.
REITs though are one of the alternative investment classes that are most worthwhile.
Lack of liquidity also means higher risk. It means you cannot get out of the investment if it starts to go sour.
It is not a perfect marriage at all. It's taking on more risk than the more or less average returns justify.
Hedge funds are more or less in the same category as private capital. Poor disclosure, high expenses and poor liquidity. The result is a lot of risk that isn't justified by the returns. Ask the folks who had money in MF Global or Long-Term Capital Management how they feel about the importance of liquidity and I think you will get a very pithy answer.
In your defense it's a common misconception on Slashdot that you can patent genes, but the truth is that genes are not patentable without an application and a transformation outside the body. It is the same thing as the concept that an algorithm per se is not patentable, but if you come up with a nice implementation for using it then shezzam! you get a patent.
For details see the section on Utility Examination Guidelines in the following:
Whether or not the returns from private equity are better than the public markets has been controversial for a long time.
However it is well known that other aspects of these markets are undesirable for investors. Lack of disclosure, poor liquidity and negative scaling are some of these.
Given the lack of clear benefits and the well-known problems with these funds it's pretty obvious that pension funds should not be invested in these instruments.
So what do you tell people who have a dead child on their hands?
Oh sorry it's your fault because you didn't watch her 24x7x365?
Do you personally watch your child 24x7x365? Or do you have a job and sleep 8 hours a day like most people, and does your child visit other homes and attend schools?
The idea that a parent has strict control over everything a child is exposed to is hopelessly naive and incredibly stupid.
Yes, but at another level you cannot patent in vivo genes as these are a product of nature.
The genes covered by these patents all go through a process where they are isolated. Since the genes in your body are the result of natural processes any such patent suit would have much less than a 90% chance of success.
Slashdot Mirror
The 1.5T in US debt that China holds is NOT big enough to destroy the economy of the United States of America. The idea is preposterous.
To put it in perspective the US Treasury market daily volume is about $500 billion.
Get a grip people.
Actually I bet not. Most of the Cyprus banks are OK, only the two largest are in the toilet. And even then deposits up to 100000 euros are insured.
Got any insurance on those bitcoins?
How did your move to Cyprus work out?
> Gold is up because the dollar is inflating significantly
Nah. Gold is far more volatile than inflation would justify.
http://www.zerohedge.com/contributed/2012-12-07/hidden-dangers-gold
And gold itself is in a bubble.
The Federal Reserve != US Treasury.
Also, the Federal Reserve buying US debt is not the same as printing money because the bank reserves it creates are kept as.....
deposits at the Federal Reserve. The stuff doesn't circulate.
This is fundamentally why it hasn't triggered inflation. Look up the velocity of money for further information...
You may want to read Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds
MIT aggregates about a billion prices and comes out with pretty much the same number as the CPI, which has recently been around 2%.
http://bpp.mit.edu/
http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2010/billion-prices-project.html
Do they really circulate or do they just sit around in various basements?
> Why not pick a random, empty target inside North Korea and blow it the hell up?
Because China.
Huh?
Federal employment actually decreased during the Clinton administration.
And 50% during the past few years? I don't think so. Federal employment has increased a total of 6.2% under Obama.
That's the thing though. The higher risk is not always rewarded by sufficient returns to compensate for the risk. Hedge funds and private capital are cases where the tradeoff is pretty questionable.
REITs though are one of the alternative investment classes that are most worthwhile.
I agree with the idea of alternative investments as being worthwhile. For both personal and institutional investors.
However the fact is that there are not many alternative investments that are actually beneficial. Most just add risk without commensurate returns.
There is a really good introductory book on the topic if you are interested into getting in to the nitty gritty.
http://www.amazon.com/Only-Guide-Alternative-Investments-Youll/dp/1576603105/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1364494591&sr=8-1&keywords=alternative+investments
I recommend it quite highly.
Lack of liquidity also means higher risk. It means you cannot get out of the investment if it starts to go sour.
It is not a perfect marriage at all. It's taking on more risk than the more or less average returns justify.
Hedge funds are more or less in the same category as private capital. Poor disclosure, high expenses and poor liquidity. The result is a lot of risk that isn't justified by the returns. Ask the folks who had money in MF Global or Long-Term Capital Management how they feel about the importance of liquidity and I think you will get a very pithy answer.
In your defense it's a common misconception on Slashdot that you can patent genes, but the truth is that genes are not patentable without an application and a transformation outside the body. It is the same thing as the concept that an algorithm per se is not patentable, but if you come up with a nice implementation for using it then shezzam! you get a patent.
For details see the section on Utility Examination Guidelines in the following:
http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/com/sol/notices/utilexmguide.pdf
http://www.ucsusa.org/ssi/climate-change/scientific-consensus-on.html
Whether or not the returns from private equity are better than the public markets has been controversial for a long time.
However it is well known that other aspects of these markets are undesirable for investors. Lack of disclosure, poor liquidity and negative scaling are some of these.
http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2012/09/private-equity
Given the lack of clear benefits and the well-known problems with these funds it's pretty obvious that pension funds should not be invested in these instruments.
Some of the most severe problems with Genesis are the idea that there are a literal Adam and Eve, and that the Earth was created before the stars.
The scientific evidence for these being incorrect is very strong.
So what do you tell people who have a dead child on their hands?
Oh sorry it's your fault because you didn't watch her 24x7x365?
Do you personally watch your child 24x7x365? Or do you have a job and sleep 8 hours a day like most people, and does your child visit other homes and attend schools?
The idea that a parent has strict control over everything a child is exposed to is hopelessly naive and incredibly stupid.
So you have decided that YOUR opinion overrides that of consumer safety organizations on every continent on the entire planet?
Because that is how universal the ban on these magnets now is.
What a colossal megalomaniac you are.
Lots of things would be nicer if you didn't have to pay for them.
Just start feeding nitrogen in through the vents.
Most decent Java programmers have been using Joda for years. This is just bringing in something that is standard practice.
Anti-trust (i.e. competition laws) go back to Roman times, LONG before the modern corporation.
The Sherman act is based on 16th century common law.
Yes, but at another level you cannot patent in vivo genes as these are a product of nature.
The genes covered by these patents all go through a process where they are isolated. Since the genes in your body are the result of natural processes any such patent suit would have much less than a 90% chance of success.