Currently studying CS and some other stuff. Best known for previously being top 50 (OCE) in LoL, expert RoN modder, and creator of RoN:EE’s community patch (CBP).

(header photo by Brian Maffitt)

  • 1.12K Posts
  • 909 Comments
Joined 2 years ago
Cake day: June 17th, 2023
  • MHLoppy@fedia.iotoAusFinance•Australians need government help to spend super, argues the Grattan Institute - ABC News
    3·
    3 days ago

    How a something works is surely representative of how it was designed.

    While there are certainly times when this is true, I don’t agree with it as a general statement. For example, archaic laws are sometimes used in ways that they were never intended for. That doesn’t mean that the design objectives are necessarily 100% aligned with that modern usage, it may just mean that whoever designed it had an imperfect ability to predict the future at the time of design (which is, well, everyone).

    On the video game side (which is more my wheelhouse than law), most games are designed to be fun and designed to be balanced. Well, it turns out that plenty of games turn out to not be that fun, and plenty of games turn out to be not that balanced when released. In games, patching has become common and (cynicism re: releasing incomplete games aside) allows the developers to better align reality with the intended objectives. Most software is released intending to be useful and relatively bug-free, but sometimes functionality is broken and sometimes bugs are nonetheless found.

    I’m not an expert on superannuation policy, but it does seem reasonable to want to “patch” superannuation if reality doesn’t align with its goals.

  • MHLoppy@fedia.ioOPtoMicroblog Memes@lemmy.world•Buying happiness
    4·
    7 days ago

    You’ve gotten a few replies from people who are talking about e-ink, which I can’t comment on without having used an e-reader, but I nearly universally prefer to read things on a screen bigger than a phone. I guess it’ll depend a bit on your phone’s screen size (mine is on the small side for recent phone generations), but it always feels like the screen is closer to my face than I want, the font is too small to be comfortable, and/or I can’t fit enough on the screen. Plus the aspect ratio of modern phones is very tall, meaning each line of text is pretty short which is kind of annoying for long-form content like books. If you have a big 6.5" screen that’s similar to a small e-reader’s screen size anyway then I guess it might not be as much of an issue though!

  • MHLoppy@fedia.iotoFediverse@lemmy.world•Fedi On Fire
    3·
    11 days ago

    The feeling is that simply having it be public isn’t an automatic license to re-use or “re-appropriate” the content outside of what’s required for normal network functionality. From that perspective, federating a post to a normal Mastodon / fediverse server = OK, viewing that post in your browser = OK, but many other uses = not OK.

    This subset of the userbase want the norm for “extracurricular uses” of people’s posts to be opt-in only, even for public posts. I kind of envy the idea in some ways (aggressive requirement of consent), though in the world we currently live in, it does seem unrealistic without a team of lawyers behind it.

  • MHLoppy@fedia.iotoAusFinance•Advice/opinions on ethically-conscious ETFs?
    3·
    15 days ago

    We loop back to what I first said: what are your goals?

    “Basic” ESG screening (that likely “lets through” a lot of companies you’re probably not fond of) can be quite cheap. For example, IESG (Australian market) has basic ESG screening and total fees of 0.11% the last time I checked, which is close to no extra cost compared to the fees of other Australian market ETFs with no ESG screening. VETH (also Australian market) has imo similarly basic screening but is at 0.16% last I checked, making me question what value it offers. In the mid-fee area of Aus market ESG ETFs you can find e.g., FAIR and GRNV with total fees of 0.36% and 0.50% the last time I checked, but with screening that’s more stringent than IESG or VETH.

    IWLD (World market ex-Aus) and IHWL (same thing as IWLD but hedged to AUD) have basic ESG screening and total fees of 0.09% and 0.12% the last time I checked. VESG again has screening that imo is only comparable but is up at 0.18% total fees last time I checked. On the higher end there’s e.g., ETHI/HETH and ESGI are at 0.63%, 0.68%, and 0.58% respectively the last time I checked, with more stringent screens than IWLD/IHWL/VESG.

    Some ESG ETFs are notably stronger on the engagement side (e.g., IMPQ - actively managed Aus small caps; I think BetaShares might do a bit more engagement on their ESG ETFs, but don’t quote me on that), but this seems to strongly correlate with higher fees than peer ETFs that are otherwise comparable. IMPQ’s total fees are 1.10% plus a 20% outperformance fee, though in that case you would be comparing it to other actively managed small cap ETFs, which is a more expensive type of ETF in general.

    A note on fees: the big number you’ll see advertised on the main ETF page online doesn’t always reflect the total fees which the ETF provider estimates you’ll be paying. Sometimes the number excludes stuff like transaction costs, indirect costs etc which aren’t strictly “management fees” - you unfortunately have to dive into the PDS to find what the “total fee” number is (it will also vary slightly over time).

    There are a couple of final things I want to underscore. First, complexity in a portfolio is generally considered to be “bad” all else being equal, as it makes it more difficult to manage and tends to correlate with higher fees which can cause significant financial drag, possibly more than you expect. Second, if you pick hastily then change your mind later, it can be expensive to do so due to capital gains. It is likely in your financial best interest to make financial decisions with a long-term time horizon. You are one of the biggest risks to the long-term performance of your portfolio by virtue of fear, greed, etc.

    Recap (much of this is at least somewhat subjective):

    • You need to figure out what your goals are, and how much you’re willing to compromise on them when they compete with each other. Unless your goals are made of wet paper, you’ll almost definitely have to compromise on them - the question is just which goals and how much.
    • ESG ETF investing seems unlikely to out-perform even if ignoring fees, because the stock market will already try to choose whatever makes the most money.
    • ESG ETFs, broadly speaking, have higher fees than their non-ESG counterparts. In some cases the difference is minimal (a few basis points), but in some cases it’s significant. All else being equal, higher fees will cause a drag on returns. The effect may be more significant than your intuition.
    • Some ESG ETF providers engage with the companies in their ETF to push them to be “better”. This usually also means higher fees for you, since it’s more work for them.
    • The past performance of an ETF is a good indicator of what the underlying holdings of the ETF are; it is not a good indicator of what future performance will be.
    • Generally speaking, it seems unlikely that paying ESG ETF providers higher fees is the best way to spend that extra money if your goal is to make the world better, which may mean significantly compromising on your ESG goals for the sake of not significantly compromising on your financial goals. If you’re more optimistic about the positive effect of ESG ETFs, you may have to make the opposite compromise to best achieve your goals.
    • A simple portfolio with goals that you understand and firmly believe in is likely to better meet your long-term financial goals because you’ll be comfortable sticking with it instead of constantly tinkering with it, panic-selling, etc.

    Disclosure: as of writing these comments I own >0 shares of IESG, ESGI, IHWL, IMPQ. This ownership is not an endorsement or recommendation.

Moderates