Loading video...

Video Failed to Load

Go Home

The best hedge fund managers know their factor exposure will get them fired just as fast as a bad stock pick. So they treat it accordingly: Rich Falk-Wallace (Rich Falk-Wallace, ex-Citadel PM, founder of Arcana) explains: "What I've seen people who nail the model do is they think of...

ethanrkho's profile picture

Ethan Kho

21,294 subscribers

16,171 views • 2 months ago •via X (Twitter)

LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

3 Comments

Crypto Briefing's profile picture
Crypto Briefing2 months ago

@richfalkwallace

L7 Weenie's profile picture
L7 Weenie2 months ago

@richfalkwallace @richfalkwallace when you talk about 80%+ idio risk, is that a % of total variance or a % of total active variance? If it’s the latter, do also look at market- and industry-matched active variance?

Jim Osman's profile picture
Jim Osman2 months ago

@richfalkwallace Risk management is often what separates good investors from great ones.

Related Videos

10 market-neutral PMs, each 80% idiosyncratic. Put them in one book and the math quietly breaks: Rich Falk-Wallace (Rich Falk-Wallace, ex-Citadel PM, founder of Arcana) explains: "Say you have 10 books with momentum exposure. They're long tech, long the latest exciting thing — but they're market neutral. Even if they each have 80% idio, at scale, that 80 comes down. If every one of your PMs has a similar-ish exposure, that book average — even though you've gotten more breadth — is actually much lower. Your idio might be 60. The reason is that factor bets compound on each other. They've been designed to be those things which are sources of correlation. So those things compound. Whereas the remainder — whatever's not a factor bet — diversifies. It becomes like a loaded coin with a 52% hit rate. Take 10,000 coin flips, and the average reduces to the hit rate. Those things diversify. The factor bets don't. You could add 100, you could add 10,000 — it wouldn't reduce the volatility driven by that similarly pointed factor exposure. The independent, idiosyncratic bets diversify away at scale."
1:14

10 market-neutral PMs, each 80% idiosyncratic. Put them in one book and the math quietly breaks: Rich Falk-Wallace (Rich Falk-Wallace, ex-Citadel PM, founder of Arcana) explains: "Say you have 10 books with momentum exposure. They're long tech, long the latest exciting thing — but they're market neutral. Even if they each have 80% idio, at scale, that 80 comes down. If every one of your PMs has a similar-ish exposure, that book average — even though you've gotten more breadth — is actually much lower. Your idio might be 60. The reason is that factor bets compound on each other. They've been designed to be those things which are sources of correlation. So those things compound. Whereas the remainder — whatever's not a factor bet — diversifies. It becomes like a loaded coin with a 52% hit rate. Take 10,000 coin flips, and the average reduces to the hit rate. Those things diversify. The factor bets don't. You could add 100, you could add 10,000 — it wouldn't reduce the volatility driven by that similarly pointed factor exposure. The independent, idiosyncratic bets diversify away at scale."

Ethan Kho

30,820 views • 2 months ago

The investors who say "I only look at fundamentals" are taking the biggest factor bets in the market. They just can't see them: Rich Falk-Wallace (Rich Falk-Wallace, ex-Citadel PM, founder of Arcana) explains: "There's a different bucket — that very concentrated person. And for that person, almost paradoxically, they're taking the biggest factor bets. Even though their discussion point is 'we're pure fundamental investors. I just look at company fundamentals.' In the reframing of it, they actually have the biggest factor bets. Their book's R-squared to factors is actually highest. It might be 80%. Because they're not comping to a benchmark, and they're not building a hedged portfolio. So they have the biggest leverage to each of those factors. And if you're going to take these huge factor bets, you ought to be intentional, thoughtful, aware of those pieces."
0:49

The investors who say "I only look at fundamentals" are taking the biggest factor bets in the market. They just can't see them: Rich Falk-Wallace (Rich Falk-Wallace, ex-Citadel PM, founder of Arcana) explains: "There's a different bucket — that very concentrated person. And for that person, almost paradoxically, they're taking the biggest factor bets. Even though their discussion point is 'we're pure fundamental investors. I just look at company fundamentals.' In the reframing of it, they actually have the biggest factor bets. Their book's R-squared to factors is actually highest. It might be 80%. Because they're not comping to a benchmark, and they're not building a hedged portfolio. So they have the biggest leverage to each of those factors. And if you're going to take these huge factor bets, you ought to be intentional, thoughtful, aware of those pieces."

Ethan Kho

55,391 views • 2 months ago

ex-Citadel portfolio manager, just explained why almost every fund actually blows up. "90% of hedge fund failures, PM failures, analyst failures, it's bad portfolio construction, sizing, all those things." the logic: alpha is competitive. one good idea barely moves the needle, because the moment you build a book, correlation starts eating you. "any amount of correlation in a portfolio drags your sharpe ratio toward the market's." and the market's sharpe you can buy for free from Vanguard. so the entire game collapses to two things: generate a positive hit rate across enough independent bets, and kill the correlation between them. the funds that survive run 80-90% of their risk in idiosyncratic, stock-specific bets. only 10-20% is allowed to be factor exposure. and they treat every factor bet, momentum, crowding, "long the AI trade", like a single stock position, with the same hard limits and the same diligence. the ones who blow up almost always had the ideas. they just leaked P&L on risk they never meant to take. "what they got wrong was risk and portfolio construction." clip from "Odds on Open"
1:32

ex-Citadel portfolio manager, just explained why almost every fund actually blows up. "90% of hedge fund failures, PM failures, analyst failures, it's bad portfolio construction, sizing, all those things." the logic: alpha is competitive. one good idea barely moves the needle, because the moment you build a book, correlation starts eating you. "any amount of correlation in a portfolio drags your sharpe ratio toward the market's." and the market's sharpe you can buy for free from Vanguard. so the entire game collapses to two things: generate a positive hit rate across enough independent bets, and kill the correlation between them. the funds that survive run 80-90% of their risk in idiosyncratic, stock-specific bets. only 10-20% is allowed to be factor exposure. and they treat every factor bet, momentum, crowding, "long the AI trade", like a single stock position, with the same hard limits and the same diligence. the ones who blow up almost always had the ideas. they just leaked P&L on risk they never meant to take. "what they got wrong was risk and portfolio construction." clip from "Odds on Open"

Goshawk Trades

39,792 views • 2 months ago

Ex-Citadel PM Rich Falk-Wallace (Rich Falk-Wallace) on why 90% of hedge fund blowups are portfolio construction — not bad ideas. Rich Falk-Wallace (PM @ Citadel | Viking Global | Silver Point | Now founder & CEO of Arcana Arcana — risk & portfolio software used by ~7 of the 10 largest multi-manager hedge funds) "When they blow up, the story is never 'Shucks, I actually am not as brilliant as I was before.' What they got wrong was risk, portfolio construction." We cover: - Why 90% of PM failures come from sizing & portfolio construction, not thesis quality - The only two ways to survive long-term: extreme hit rate/slugging, or managing ex-ante correlation - The math of 10 pods long the same trade: factor bets compound, idio bets diversify - Why LTCM is the classic backward-looking correlation failure — and why ex-ante is the whole job - The paradox: "pure fundamental" concentrated funds take the biggest factor bets (up to 80% R²) - Why the best PMs treat every factor exposure like a stock position — same limits, same diligence - Sharpe ratio as a t-statistic against the null hypothesis that you have no skill - The tiger cub who moved to a pod seat and said it felt like playing a video game - Are junior analysts screwed? Dispersion, not extinction - His contrarian take: capital is opening up beyond the Big Four via SMAs Highlights: (00:00) Intro (01:10) The real job of a hedge fund PM: a product sold to allocators (02:52) The 90% failure vector: risk leakage, not bad theses (10:25) Two ways out: hit rate/slugging vs. managing correlations (18:17) Factor bets compound, idio diversifies: why 80% idio becomes 60% at scale (27:33) Factor models as the "perfect benchmark" for every stock at every moment (38:57) The old-school PM who calls factors bullshit — Rich's answer (44:48) Treat factors like stock positions: limits, diligence, sizing (55:29) Why concentrated "pure fundamental" books take the biggest factor bets (01:05:34) Are junior analysts screwed? AI, mock books, & dispersion (01:15:52) Contrarian take: SMA capital opening up beyond the Big Four (01:19:42) The #1 new-launch killer: trying to do too many things at once
1:27:08

Ex-Citadel PM Rich Falk-Wallace (Rich Falk-Wallace) on why 90% of hedge fund blowups are portfolio construction — not bad ideas. Rich Falk-Wallace (PM @ Citadel | Viking Global | Silver Point | Now founder & CEO of Arcana Arcana — risk & portfolio software used by ~7 of the 10 largest multi-manager hedge funds) "When they blow up, the story is never 'Shucks, I actually am not as brilliant as I was before.' What they got wrong was risk, portfolio construction." We cover: - Why 90% of PM failures come from sizing & portfolio construction, not thesis quality - The only two ways to survive long-term: extreme hit rate/slugging, or managing ex-ante correlation - The math of 10 pods long the same trade: factor bets compound, idio bets diversify - Why LTCM is the classic backward-looking correlation failure — and why ex-ante is the whole job - The paradox: "pure fundamental" concentrated funds take the biggest factor bets (up to 80% R²) - Why the best PMs treat every factor exposure like a stock position — same limits, same diligence - Sharpe ratio as a t-statistic against the null hypothesis that you have no skill - The tiger cub who moved to a pod seat and said it felt like playing a video game - Are junior analysts screwed? Dispersion, not extinction - His contrarian take: capital is opening up beyond the Big Four via SMAs Highlights: (00:00) Intro (01:10) The real job of a hedge fund PM: a product sold to allocators (02:52) The 90% failure vector: risk leakage, not bad theses (10:25) Two ways out: hit rate/slugging vs. managing correlations (18:17) Factor bets compound, idio diversifies: why 80% idio becomes 60% at scale (27:33) Factor models as the "perfect benchmark" for every stock at every moment (38:57) The old-school PM who calls factors bullshit — Rich's answer (44:48) Treat factors like stock positions: limits, diligence, sizing (55:29) Why concentrated "pure fundamental" books take the biggest factor bets (01:05:34) Are junior analysts screwed? AI, mock books, & dispersion (01:15:52) Contrarian take: SMA capital opening up beyond the Big Four (01:19:42) The #1 new-launch killer: trying to do too many things at once

Ethan Kho

530,754 views • 2 months ago

The respect of capital. If you want to be wealthy, you have to respect money. You have to understand where it fits in your life. And you have to understand that the way to get rich is not to spend it, to save it and let it grow. This is the key to success. I've been saying it for decades. You save twenty percent of your income in perpetuity, put it into the market, and you leave it alone. You start doing it in your late twenties, even if you just got the average salary, by the time you're sixty-five, you have one and a half to two million bucks. Stock market does that. You do it. But the reason most people can't is they don't have the discipline to save. They buy too much stuff they don't need.
0:53

The respect of capital. If you want to be wealthy, you have to respect money. You have to understand where it fits in your life. And you have to understand that the way to get rich is not to spend it, to save it and let it grow. This is the key to success. I've been saying it for decades. You save twenty percent of your income in perpetuity, put it into the market, and you leave it alone. You start doing it in your late twenties, even if you just got the average salary, by the time you're sixty-five, you have one and a half to two million bucks. Stock market does that. You do it. But the reason most people can't is they don't have the discipline to save. They buy too much stuff they don't need.

Kevin O'Leary aka Mr. Wonderful

56,991 views • 3 months ago

“In small caps I have seen stocks go down 80-90% and then becoming 100x from those levels.” “People buy a stock at Rs. 50, it comes to Rs. 20, they wait and when it reaches Rs. 50, they sell it, as it covers their cost. But then the stock runs to Rs. 500.” “So, it’s important to keep your original thesis intact because when you see your stock at lower levels, you will go into self-doubt.” - Ashish Chugh
1:25

“In small caps I have seen stocks go down 80-90% and then becoming 100x from those levels.” “People buy a stock at Rs. 50, it comes to Rs. 20, they wait and when it reaches Rs. 50, they sell it, as it covers their cost. But then the stock runs to Rs. 500.” “So, it’s important to keep your original thesis intact because when you see your stock at lower levels, you will go into self-doubt.” - Ashish Chugh

Kushal Lodha

56,085 views • 2 months ago

The single best way to break into the Hedge Fund industry — and most people still won't do it: Derek Pilecki, 18-year track record, 21%+ annualized in financials, entire net worth in his own fund. "Since we have the internet, there's a way to break into the industry that didn't exist in the nineties." "You can write up stock ideas. You can research how to write up a stock idea. You can write up your own idea and post it to Seeking Alpha or create your own blog, post it to Twitter." "If you do that 10 times, you'll have a following." "There'll be professional money managers who will read your blog because you wrote up 10 small cap stocks and they own one or two of them." "They read your idea on this bank. They agreed with you. Now they wanna see what other banks you like." "You can find a job that way by just writing up stock ideas and posting them to the internet." "You can break into this industry if you're willing to do that work on your own and put yourself out there." You can just write up 10 stock ideas.
1:29

The single best way to break into the Hedge Fund industry — and most people still won't do it: Derek Pilecki, 18-year track record, 21%+ annualized in financials, entire net worth in his own fund. "Since we have the internet, there's a way to break into the industry that didn't exist in the nineties." "You can write up stock ideas. You can research how to write up a stock idea. You can write up your own idea and post it to Seeking Alpha or create your own blog, post it to Twitter." "If you do that 10 times, you'll have a following." "There'll be professional money managers who will read your blog because you wrote up 10 small cap stocks and they own one or two of them." "They read your idea on this bank. They agreed with you. Now they wanna see what other banks you like." "You can find a job that way by just writing up stock ideas and posting them to the internet." "You can break into this industry if you're willing to do that work on your own and put yourself out there." You can just write up 10 stock ideas.

Ethan Kho

200,481 views • 5 months ago

The best way is to put it into the index of the stock market and you let it do its thing for decades. Generally, the stock market returns about 8 to 12% a year. It's been doing it for almost 200 years. The key is not to touch it, to just let it grow. Let it compound. You get capital gains, you get dividends, and they just grow and grow and grow and grow, and the next thing you know, old Jed's a millionaire. That's what investing's all about.
0:33

The best way is to put it into the index of the stock market and you let it do its thing for decades. Generally, the stock market returns about 8 to 12% a year. It's been doing it for almost 200 years. The key is not to touch it, to just let it grow. Let it compound. You get capital gains, you get dividends, and they just grow and grow and grow and grow, and the next thing you know, old Jed's a millionaire. That's what investing's all about.

Kevin O'Leary aka Mr. Wonderful

109,364 views • 3 months ago

If you go back to Trump's first term and even in the second term, the number of people in the inner circle, it's very volatile. People come, people go. It's kind of like a rotation. You get too close to the sun, your wings melt and you fall out. It's not the end of the free world as we know it. I actually think these two men will get back together again. I know it's salacious, it's really an interesting story, but at the end of the day they both have attributes that the other wants. Elon is a unique individual and Trump is a unique individual. They both have huge egos. They had a bad date. It's like a marriage and they're having a fight. I'm over it already. I think this is noise frankly. I don't think it really matters long-term. They can call each other on their cell phones and work it out and they will.
2:04

If you go back to Trump's first term and even in the second term, the number of people in the inner circle, it's very volatile. People come, people go. It's kind of like a rotation. You get too close to the sun, your wings melt and you fall out. It's not the end of the free world as we know it. I actually think these two men will get back together again. I know it's salacious, it's really an interesting story, but at the end of the day they both have attributes that the other wants. Elon is a unique individual and Trump is a unique individual. They both have huge egos. They had a bad date. It's like a marriage and they're having a fight. I'm over it already. I think this is noise frankly. I don't think it really matters long-term. They can call each other on their cell phones and work it out and they will.

Kevin O'Leary aka Mr. Wonderful

267,461 views • 1 year ago

😼🔮💵📈 $GME “Now it's all about the transformation and that cash pile is growing, it seems to be growing, will they raise more money? We'll see, I don't know - I see it. But...if people, if you just change one factor and that's that you don't think Ryan Cohen is a doofus, alright? If you don't think he's a doofus and he's not a fool, if you don't think that - and all of a sudden, suddenly they're sitting on billions of dollars in cash, and you actually think not only is he not a doofus but - he's extremely talented in that he has the capability to turn this around, even if you don't agree with that, even if you don't believe it, that's fine, if you just pause for a moment and think about that - I think it really changes your mindset so that becomes the bet - that becomes the bet.”
0:45

😼🔮💵📈 $GME “Now it's all about the transformation and that cash pile is growing, it seems to be growing, will they raise more money? We'll see, I don't know - I see it. But...if people, if you just change one factor and that's that you don't think Ryan Cohen is a doofus, alright? If you don't think he's a doofus and he's not a fool, if you don't think that - and all of a sudden, suddenly they're sitting on billions of dollars in cash, and you actually think not only is he not a doofus but - he's extremely talented in that he has the capability to turn this around, even if you don't agree with that, even if you don't believe it, that's fine, if you just pause for a moment and think about that - I think it really changes your mindset so that becomes the bet - that becomes the bet.”

The GG Wizard Swami

32,029 views • 1 year ago

Steve Jobs literally gave a masterclass on how "stock options" actually work in 1983: "If somebody came to work for your company, you could let them buy some stock. The problem is they might have to shell out $100,000. If the company went broke, they'd lose all their life savings" "So when somebody comes to work, let's say the stock's trading at ten dollars a share, you give them the option to buy ten thousand shares at ten dollars. They have four years to exercise that option" "If the stock goes down or stays the same, they never exercise it. They don't put up any money, they don't lose anything" "But if it goes to a hundred dollars a share, they can borrow the money to buy it at ten because it's worth a hundred" "In exchange, we only dole out their ability to exercise 25% a year, locking in people really for four years if the stock goes up" "Before we went public, over 80% of Apple was owned by the employees. Right now, I'd say over 50% of Apple is owned by the employees" "I don't think finance is what drives people at Apple. I don't think it's money. But feeling like you own a piece of the company, and this is your damn company" "We always tell people, you work for Apple first and your boss second"
1:31

Steve Jobs literally gave a masterclass on how "stock options" actually work in 1983: "If somebody came to work for your company, you could let them buy some stock. The problem is they might have to shell out $100,000. If the company went broke, they'd lose all their life savings" "So when somebody comes to work, let's say the stock's trading at ten dollars a share, you give them the option to buy ten thousand shares at ten dollars. They have four years to exercise that option" "If the stock goes down or stays the same, they never exercise it. They don't put up any money, they don't lose anything" "But if it goes to a hundred dollars a share, they can borrow the money to buy it at ten because it's worth a hundred" "In exchange, we only dole out their ability to exercise 25% a year, locking in people really for four years if the stock goes up" "Before we went public, over 80% of Apple was owned by the employees. Right now, I'd say over 50% of Apple is owned by the employees" "I don't think finance is what drives people at Apple. I don't think it's money. But feeling like you own a piece of the company, and this is your damn company" "We always tell people, you work for Apple first and your boss second"

Jaynit

820,493 views • 3 months ago

.Starcloud CEO Philip Johnston: "Buy SpaceX stock." "It's like owning the railroads." " The SpaceX IPO is going to be viewed historically as the most undervalued IPO of all time." "They will tear through $10 trillion certainly within the next couple of years, and then have almost unlimited TAM for what they're building." "I'm not like regulated by anybody. So I'm going to tell people, 'Just buy SpaceX stock.' I think it's a great stock to buy." "They own what will be by far the most cost-effective launch vehicle, and that opens up every industry in space that will be possible beyond that: asteroid mining, lunar resource mining, all of the comms businesses that are going to be built. Everything else is going to have to go through SpaceX." "It's like owning the railroads. Lots of businesses will be built on top of it, like our business will be built on top of it." "The railroads are a great business to own." Elon Musk
1:08

.Starcloud CEO Philip Johnston: "Buy SpaceX stock." "It's like owning the railroads." " The SpaceX IPO is going to be viewed historically as the most undervalued IPO of all time." "They will tear through $10 trillion certainly within the next couple of years, and then have almost unlimited TAM for what they're building." "I'm not like regulated by anybody. So I'm going to tell people, 'Just buy SpaceX stock.' I think it's a great stock to buy." "They own what will be by far the most cost-effective launch vehicle, and that opens up every industry in space that will be possible beyond that: asteroid mining, lunar resource mining, all of the comms businesses that are going to be built. Everything else is going to have to go through SpaceX." "It's like owning the railroads. Lots of businesses will be built on top of it, like our business will be built on top of it." "The railroads are a great business to own." Elon Musk

sourcery

600,189 views • 2 months ago

Chamath says there's no such thing as failure, because no one is actually thinking about you "There is no failure. That is what other people think of you to keep you down." "If you were left on an island and it happened, you would just brush it off and move on. It's everybody else that you think is judging you." "But here's the secret: they don't give a fuck about you. They are living their own lives." "So it's your perception of what they think of you. There is no failure. There is do and learn, do and learn, do and learn."
0:32

Chamath says there's no such thing as failure, because no one is actually thinking about you "There is no failure. That is what other people think of you to keep you down." "If you were left on an island and it happened, you would just brush it off and move on. It's everybody else that you think is judging you." "But here's the secret: they don't give a fuck about you. They are living their own lives." "So it's your perception of what they think of you. There is no failure. There is do and learn, do and learn, do and learn."

Fireside Alpha

60,309 views • 29 days ago

David Sacks: The Chip Stock Crash is Based on Momentum, NOT Fundamentals David Sacks: “That is the key question here, this correction in the markets, is it driven by fundamentals or is it driven by momentum? I think it's driven by momentum. Meaning that over the past year, you've had this roughly 10x run up in memory chip stocks, and you've seen this overall huge rise in any stock that's related to the AI boom. And I think it was inevitable that you'd see a pullback. I think there was something like a 10% pullback in the Nasdaq from the peak. But when you look at this momentum trade, it was down like 30% or 40%. You look at what happened in South Korea, you look at what happened with Leopold's fund, and obviously there was a lot of leverage behind this momentum trade, so when it corrects, it's going to be brutal. But I think that the question again is, does this reveal anything about the fundamentals? Is the CapEx that's being invested in the AI boom eventually going to deliver ROI, or is this some sort of bubble? I think there will be a return on all of this CapEx, and this is temporary market volatility amplified by leverage.”
1:01

David Sacks: The Chip Stock Crash is Based on Momentum, NOT Fundamentals David Sacks: “That is the key question here, this correction in the markets, is it driven by fundamentals or is it driven by momentum? I think it's driven by momentum. Meaning that over the past year, you've had this roughly 10x run up in memory chip stocks, and you've seen this overall huge rise in any stock that's related to the AI boom. And I think it was inevitable that you'd see a pullback. I think there was something like a 10% pullback in the Nasdaq from the peak. But when you look at this momentum trade, it was down like 30% or 40%. You look at what happened in South Korea, you look at what happened with Leopold's fund, and obviously there was a lot of leverage behind this momentum trade, so when it corrects, it's going to be brutal. But I think that the question again is, does this reveal anything about the fundamentals? Is the CapEx that's being invested in the AI boom eventually going to deliver ROI, or is this some sort of bubble? I think there will be a return on all of this CapEx, and this is temporary market volatility amplified by leverage.”

The All-In Podcast

55,756 views • 1 month ago

Elon Musk Exposes the "Corporate Terrorists" Controlling Half of Wall Street's Voting Rights Elon Musk: “I do think we've got a fundamental issue with corporate governance in publicly traded companies, where you've got about half of the stock market controlled by passive index funds, and most of them outsource their decision to advisory firms, particularly Glass Lewis and ISS.” “I call them corporate ISIS. They’re just terrorists.” “Glass Lewis and ISS control the vote of half the stock market.” “They own no stock in any of these companies.” “Now, if you're a political activist, you know what a great place would be to go work? ISS and Glass Lewis. And they do.” “You know where political activists go? They go where the power is.” “I think that this is a fundamental breakdown of fiduciary responsibility here.” “You know, the Tesla thing is, it's called sort of compensation, but really it's not about compensation.” “It’s not like I'm gonna go out and buy, you know, a yacht with it or something.” “It's just that if I'm going to build up Optimus and have all these robots out there, I need to make sure we do not have a Terminator scenario, and I can maximize the safety of the robots.” “I feel like I need to have something like a 25% vote, which is enough of a vote to have a strong influence, but not so much of a vote that I can't be fired if I go insane.” “But my concern would be creating this army of robots and then being fired for political reasons because ISS and Glass Lewis fire me effectively, even though I've done everything right.” @jason: “If you don't get that vote, if it doesn't go your way, it looks like it's going to, would you leave?” “I mean, is that even in the cards? I heard the board was very concerned about that.” Elon: “Let's just say I'm not going to build a robot army if I can be easily kicked out by activist investors.”
1:19

Elon Musk Exposes the "Corporate Terrorists" Controlling Half of Wall Street's Voting Rights Elon Musk: “I do think we've got a fundamental issue with corporate governance in publicly traded companies, where you've got about half of the stock market controlled by passive index funds, and most of them outsource their decision to advisory firms, particularly Glass Lewis and ISS.” “I call them corporate ISIS. They’re just terrorists.” “Glass Lewis and ISS control the vote of half the stock market.” “They own no stock in any of these companies.” “Now, if you're a political activist, you know what a great place would be to go work? ISS and Glass Lewis. And they do.” “You know where political activists go? They go where the power is.” “I think that this is a fundamental breakdown of fiduciary responsibility here.” “You know, the Tesla thing is, it's called sort of compensation, but really it's not about compensation.” “It’s not like I'm gonna go out and buy, you know, a yacht with it or something.” “It's just that if I'm going to build up Optimus and have all these robots out there, I need to make sure we do not have a Terminator scenario, and I can maximize the safety of the robots.” “I feel like I need to have something like a 25% vote, which is enough of a vote to have a strong influence, but not so much of a vote that I can't be fired if I go insane.” “But my concern would be creating this army of robots and then being fired for political reasons because ISS and Glass Lewis fire me effectively, even though I've done everything right.” @jason: “If you don't get that vote, if it doesn't go your way, it looks like it's going to, would you leave?” “I mean, is that even in the cards? I heard the board was very concerned about that.” Elon: “Let's just say I'm not going to build a robot army if I can be easily kicked out by activist investors.”

The All-In Podcast

91,349 views • 10 months ago

My kids can be finicky when it comes to food, but my problem is with me. I don’t want them to be without so what ends up happening is if they like something, I will stock up on it. This is why I have two mega boxes of slim Jims in my pantry, this is why I have 4 Costco size boxes of Welch’s fruit snacks and so on. I have yet to find a healthy compromise when it comes to keeping a decent amount of the foods they like in stock. They change their mind too much and when they stop eating it the food expires so I have to throw it away. Almost like clockwork right after I threw it away, they ask for it again. I definitely know how it feels to try to make sure the kids have things they want to eat but with them changing their minds so much, that makes it quite challenging and I really don’t have a viable solution except to run to the store every time they want something. What do you do in this situation? I am willing to try anything at this point to avoid the waste of food and money.
2:33

My kids can be finicky when it comes to food, but my problem is with me. I don’t want them to be without so what ends up happening is if they like something, I will stock up on it. This is why I have two mega boxes of slim Jims in my pantry, this is why I have 4 Costco size boxes of Welch’s fruit snacks and so on. I have yet to find a healthy compromise when it comes to keeping a decent amount of the foods they like in stock. They change their mind too much and when they stop eating it the food expires so I have to throw it away. Almost like clockwork right after I threw it away, they ask for it again. I definitely know how it feels to try to make sure the kids have things they want to eat but with them changing their minds so much, that makes it quite challenging and I really don’t have a viable solution except to run to the store every time they want something. What do you do in this situation? I am willing to try anything at this point to avoid the waste of food and money.

SonnyBoy🇺🇸

30,215 views • 3 months ago

When they tell you what they think of you, listen to them. They are willing to deny the existence of the Irish as an ethnic group and claim our country belongs to everyone while demanding land and power, where do you think this ends? I need you all to understand this is about more than just crime and pressure on public services. Your brain might not be ready to accept the fact that people want to take what you have for no other reason than you are different to them, but it is happening. Ireland is great little island with a predictable climate, no dangerous wildlife and a wealth of resources. Of course people want to take it from us, that's the entirety of human history, people taking from each other, and it hasn't stopped. It's happening in your country, your cities, your towns and villages. Where do you think this ends?
3:06

When they tell you what they think of you, listen to them. They are willing to deny the existence of the Irish as an ethnic group and claim our country belongs to everyone while demanding land and power, where do you think this ends? I need you all to understand this is about more than just crime and pressure on public services. Your brain might not be ready to accept the fact that people want to take what you have for no other reason than you are different to them, but it is happening. Ireland is great little island with a predictable climate, no dangerous wildlife and a wealth of resources. Of course people want to take it from us, that's the entirety of human history, people taking from each other, and it hasn't stopped. It's happening in your country, your cities, your towns and villages. Where do you think this ends?

MichaeloKeeffe

31,918 views • 1 month ago