Statistics: Posted by Cuchulainn — Today, 8:46 pm

]]>

https://www.rte.ie/news/ukraine/2023/06 ... 9-ukraine/

The orcsz are back in town..

Statistics: Posted by Cuchulainn — Today, 8:28 pm

]]>

Statistics: Posted by Cuchulainn — Today, 8:02 pm

]]>

Me:

I need a list of 50 institutional money managers located in southern California

ChatGPT:

Certainly! Here is a list of 50 institutional money managers located in Southern California:

1. Capital Group Companies

2. PIMCO

3. The TCW Group

4. Capital Research and Management Company

5. Dodge & Cox

6. Oaktree Capital Management

7. Western Asset Management Company

8. Ares Management

9. Franklin Templeton Investments

10. Causeway Capital Management

11. Kayne Anderson Rudnick Investment Management

12. Hotchkis & Wiley Capital Management

13. Brandes Investment Partners

14. First Pacific Advisors

15. DoubleLine Capital LP

16. Pacific Investment Management Company LLC

17. TimesSquare Capital Management

18. Aristotle Capital Management

19. ClearBridge Investments

20. Los Angeles Capital

21. Allianz Global Investors

22. BlackRock

23. J.P. Morgan Asset Management

24. Invesco

25. Dimensional Fund Advisors

26. Artisan Partners

27. Pacific Life Fund Advisors

28. Wilshire Associates

29. American Funds

30. Neuberger Berman

31. Waddell & Reed Investment Management Company

32. Loomis Sayles & Company

33. Glenmede Investment Management

34. Harbor Capital Advisors

35. Hotchkis & Wiley Capital Management

36. Payden & Rygel

37. Western Asset Management Company

38. Calamos Investments

39. TCW

40. Hancock Natural Resource Group

41. Blackstone Group

42. Oakwood Capital Management

43. City National Rochdale Investment Management

44. Sands Capital Management

45. ClearBridge Investments

46. GMO LLC

47. T. Rowe Price

48. Delaware Funds by Macquarie

49. Capital Innovations LLC

50. TIAA-CREF

Please note that this list is not exhaustive, and the inclusion of any specific money manager does not constitute an endorsement or recommendation. It is always advisable to conduct thorough research and due diligence when selecting a money manager or investment advisor.

Statistics: Posted by Alan — Today, 3:18 pm

]]>

It is all beautiful while you like your job, you have raises and all is rosy. I am more concerned is when you spend a few years there and things go south you basically have no other employer to turn to. Manhattan is full of firms of various size and caliber so you can always shop around and find another job possibly with a good bump in salary without that impacting your life, commute is still the same etc. Once you are in CA PIMCO has an upper hand on you as you really have no other option. Am I wrong?Speaking of Little Corona beach, it's the only one where I've seen dolphins in the surf line. So, I gave the Bing image creator the task of recreating that and it did a damn fine job. This is looking north, toward Big Corona beach, while the other shot I posted was looking south:

LittleCoronaWithDolphins.jpg

And I am curious who do you think will pay more? I can't even guess but for the fact I find real estate is more affordable in the north east and so as other expenses I would think too. Cost of living is higher in SoCal.

Re "no other option", track down a Money Market Directory (perhaps at a library) for a list of (institutional) money managers in Sothern California.

I think PIMCO will pay less, as a rational employer will adjust for "living in paradise"

Statistics: Posted by Alan — Today, 2:59 pm

]]>

John Guerard

Scientific Advisory Board, McKinley Capital Management,

Anchorage, Alaska

retired after 16 years in AK to Bluffton, SC

Statistics: Posted by JBGuerard — Today, 11:36 am

]]>

They are clearly both located in very expensive and (if you like that sort of thing) very nice areas. Both pay well, although I really don’t have much of an idea of which pays more. The cultures are probably very different, and important. You just have to research that. Bill Gross has been gone long enough that his toxic rule is probably mostly history, but who knows? Corporate DNA is a weird thing. Goldman remains Goldman, as far as I can tell, so you can take any Sunday morning off that you’d like, as long as it doesn’t become a habit. And Allianz is actually quite a bit bigger than GS by most measures. So, while I happen to be living in NYC and working awkwardly close to Goldman, if put back to scratch and given the opportunities, I’d probably go with Newport Beach. I have golfed Pelican Hill, which is beautiful.

I tried to research on google but could not find some summary or blogpost etc, I really don't know much about culture at PIMCO. I do have friends at GS so I know a bit more. Can you tell me what to be aware of when it comes to PIMCO? I am more concerned about a job being less valuable on the resume when it comes to making another jump at some point in the future.Statistics: Posted by Kamil90 — Today, 1:27 am

]]>

Speaking of Little Corona beach, it's the only one where I've seen dolphins in the surf line. So, I gave the Bing image creator the task of recreating that and it did a damn fine job. This is looking north, toward Big Corona beach, while the other shot I posted was looking south:

LittleCoronaWithDolphins.jpg

It is all beautiful while you like your job, you have raises and all is rosy. I am more concerned is when you spend a few years there and things go south you basically have no other employer to turn to. Manhattan is full of firms of various size and caliber so you can always shop around and find another job possibly with a good bump in salary without that impacting your life, commute is still the same etc. Once you are in CA PIMCO has an upper hand on you as you really have no other option. Am I wrong?LittleCoronaWithDolphins.jpg

And I am curious who do you think will pay more? I can't even guess but for the fact I find real estate is more affordable in the north east and so as other expenses I would think too. Cost of living is higher in SoCal.

Statistics: Posted by Kamil90 — Today, 1:24 am

]]>

Statistics: Posted by Alan — Yesterday, 8:26 pm

]]>

Statistics: Posted by tagoma — Yesterday, 8:23 pm

]]>

Statistics: Posted by Cuchulainn — Yesterday, 4:49 pm

]]>

]]>

Levi-Strauss 2.0

Statistics: Posted by Cuchulainn — Yesterday, 11:54 am

]]>

Some preliminaries first: As we recall from our work on SDEs and later research that when we transform the density of a random variable into density of its some function, the pints on original density are mapped on transformed density so that they share the same underlying Z or in other words they share the same CDF. Trying to explain in detail, let us suppose we have Z-series representation of a random variable given as

[$]\, X(Z) \, = \, a_0 \, + \, a_1 \, Z \, + \,a_2 \, Z^2 \, + \,a_3 \, Z^3 \, + \,a_4 \, Z^4 \, + \ldots [$]

While doing Z-series research, we spent quite some time how to find densities of functions of Z-Series random variables using Taylor Series around median, I would request friends to become familiar with that. Suppose we have a new random variable Y that is a function of random variable X above, the Z-series of Y could be given as

[$]\, Y(Z) \, =\, f(X(Z)) \, = \, b_0 \, + \, b_1 \, Z \, + \,b_2 \, Z^2 \, + \,b_3 \, Z^3 \, + \,b_4 \, Z^4 \, + \ldots [$]

Suppose we are given N data values of X shown as [$]X_1,\, X_2, \, X_3, \, \ldots \, ,X_N[$] and we apply the function on these data values of X to get corresponding values of Y given as [$]Y_1,\, Y_2, \, Y_3, \, \ldots \, ,Y_N[$]

As we learnt several times in the previous posts, that we can invert the Z-series of any random variable to find the corresponding value of underlying Z.

Suppose we apply this Z-series inversion to both the data values of X and Y (and we keep in mind that Y=f(X(Z)) )

If the inverted Z-values of random variable X data are given as [$]Z_1,\, Z_2, \, Z_3, \, \ldots \, ,Z_N[$], and the inverted Z-series values of random variable Y would be exactly the same and would be given again as [$]Z_1,\, Z_2, \, Z_3, \, \ldots \, ,Z_N[$]

Since underlying Z-values corresponding to data observations of a random variable depend only on their associated CDF, the underlying Z-values of any random variable and functions of the random variable would be exactly the same.

However, these functions that preserve the CDF have to follow the positivity condition that we discussed in earlier posts that [$]\frac{dX}{dZ} > 0[$] all along X-axis. Our results hold for only those functions that satisfy the positivity condition.

One very interesting ramification of the above observation is that when we do hermite orthogonal regressions, it will not matter if we use a random variable [$]X[$] or [$]X^2[$] as regressors, since our hermite orthogonal regressions depend on values of underlying Z's and underlying Z's are precisely the same for admissible functions of the original random variable. In fact adding [$]X[$] and [$]X^2[$] together in the regressions would give defective rank matrices with poor regressions. So we can add any admissible function of original random variable, that follows the positivity condition, in our regressions to get the same regressions result as we get from the original random variable.

But friends would have to consider in their experiments that common Z's for random variables and their functions would hold only when we do precise calculations. If series for [$]X[$] is truncated at [$]Z^4[$], for good results we have to truncate the series of X^2 at [$]Z^8[$]. If we truncate both series at [$]Z^4[$], resulting series might not give precisely the same Z's when inverted but I would still expect them to be highly collinear and close to rank defective in a regressors matrix. While making a comparison similar problems would have to be considered. Similarly when finding parameters of density of function (as we will need these parameters to invert the Z-series of the function), we would have to ensure that we take enough terms in Taylor series to keep precision in our calculations.

Statistics: Posted by Amin — Yesterday, 8:01 am

]]>

]]>