Search results

Reasonable example of mispriced risk, rent seeking regulatory capture, and a black swan covering a full 50% of the "fat tail"

Oddly -They never get fat and - They never get old

Your stop is your net worth. Divide that by your estimated sexxual encounters. Compare it to hooker rates. There's your relative value trade.

You forget that sometimes he leaves her. She gets fat. You can do better. You pay her to leave. If you have a professional job - the payment, ironically, comes out roughly to hooker rates. One "service" per night, for each night of the marriage. Do the math. Everything is a trade.

It ups the stakes, it's kind of a suicide pill, or a doomsday device. It shows you'll literally risk everything for her. Unsure she's aware of it, but that is the material function of marriage in the west currently. For the higher earner, it's a statement of surrender.

Everything's a trade.

Thus... bitcoin physical, sell futures, escape before they flag your passport. Unwind at the foreign airport. Child support can put you in debtors prison. Happens everyday. * If you have no access to your kids anyway, where is the downside.

In many countries, the homosexuals had this changed, so they, who could not marry back then, were treated the same as married couples, if they were together for over two years. Unfortunately, this also applies to the rest of us, even if we are purposely unmarried. So, the state has effectively...

I agree with this. A vasectomy, and keeping future relationships to under two years (defacto duration), is the way to avoid the risk. Running a portfolio of women each for under two years, with occasional rebalancing is the way to optimize. Efficient frontier, etc. * It does suck, that the...

She will fight tooth and nail to be the primary carer, because more time with the kid, means she gets paid. Audit. lol, no. They'd probably say that's "financial abuse", invasion of her privacy, etc.

I give less of a sh*t than that about these people, and lack the motivation to engage in such games.

Just figured out hot to Ignore a poster.

The scorpion and the fox crossing the river.. I had this on my Facebook for a while, when I was in the thick of it. Quite apt. And, indeed, their nature.

Judges don't like a history of that when you're arranging parenting orders.

It's not real easy to be in a positive state of mind when the state that took your fortune is then taking most of your income, for "child support". Watching that money not be spent on the child is unpleasant. Not having proper access as not great. Doesn't feel especially free.

Refuse to let her use your daughter as a bargaining chip - as in don't see her any more? Any access to kids seems to require the mum to want to participate. Her not showing up, no penalty. Him no showing up, he's not committed to the relationship, and further access can be reviewed.

Because you may not be confident that you can earn back your fortune a second time. The state will block you from seeing your kid. While they require you to pay for that kid, as 30% of your pre tax income. Insane. Escape, keep it all, avoid child support (which is rarely spent on the child).

Above, Or: Transport your wealth you created, to a location where it remains yours. Today, this is done as follows: 1. Buy bitcoin 2. Sell bitcoin futures 3. Put bitcoin on USB 4. Flee to a non-reciprocating jurisdiction 5. Unwind 1 & 2 6. Continue trading 7. Realize it's a tropical...

Similar to equities. No one, I mean no one gives a care about the IT and algo side of it. But they do care that the commissions are lower. So the execution traders will die off, and the smallest clients will gravitate to DMA / electronic communication - the clients no one wanted to talk to...

The amusing part of this is the fine is based on what the regulator understands, rather than where the greater slice of the customer's slippage went. Politically .. HFT is bad, masking a tag is bad, giving a customer greater liquidity than the lit exchange is apparently not very good, and...