Carnival of Wealth, Ockham’s Razor Edition

Includes an attachment for those hard-to-reach places

Includes an attachment for those hard-to-reach places

 

So the Malaysian government has determined that an airliner that was lost over the ocean did, in point of fact, crash into the ocean. Thanks for that. Next up, how was the Empire State Building erected: 1930s-era work crews, or visitors from Tau Ceti?

Excuse us as we go off on the absurdity of journalists in general. They deserve it. Last week a CNN anchor entertained the notion of Flight 370 being swallowed by a black hole. One localized entirely within a segment of the Indian Ocean. A Mother Jones writer blames the failure to find remnants of the flight on anthropogenic global warming. Sure, why not? How about this – be it resolved that it’s impossible to find a denser-than-water structure, the size of a baseball infield, in an area the size of Maryland? Oh, and let’s not forget the Fox News anchor who helpfully pointed out that the Indian Ocean is “one of the deepest oceans on Earth.” Well, it’s definitely in the top 5. And what does that mean: that it’s easier to find a plane in an ocean that averages 10,000 feet of depth than in one that averages 12,000 feet? The recovery effort, much like its Air France Flight 447 counterpart, represents millions of dollars spent purely for public relations without the intention of doing anything concrete. The proverbial needle in a haystack has a better chance of being found. The ocean is large. In Flight 447’s case, someone turned up some debris a year and 9 months after the crash. Not sure what the point of that was.

And now, the always awkward transition from a general knowledge topic to the Carnival of Wealth. We do this every Monday, in case this is your first time here. Personal finance blog posts from everywhere, varying in content from stellar to abysmal. Fortunately, most of the submitters whose posts are in the latter category have been shamed out of existence in recent months. What remains is the wheat. Let’s get started, shall we?

Pauline Paquin at Reach Financial Independence asks if you’re richer than your grandparents. Even though they’re had the capacity for building wealth for decades, while you’re young enough to have grandparents who are still alive. Pauline explains the concept of division of labor better than Adam Smith himself could do it, illustrating how a society that’s progressed beyond subsistence agriculture lets its denizens multiply their productivity just by doing whatever the marketplace offers rewards for. If this sounds like nothing more than an academic economics treatise, it isn’t. For millions of us, any productivity advantage enjoyed over our grandparents just by virtue of us being born later is more than negated by our appetite for buying (and financing) stuff we don’t need. Pauline, by the way, is richer than her grandparents ever dreamed of – both in terms of net fiscal worth and of the freedom that said worth brings.

SAFEMAX sounds like a prison classification. “Once they catch Robert William Fisher, he’ll be looking at 40-to-life in Florence, Colorado at SAFEMAX.” Not quite. It’s an attempt to measure how quickly you can withdraw money in retirement without being stuck with too many remaining heartbeats and too few dollars to spend maintaining them. Jason at Hull Financial Planning found one glaring flaw in the methodology behind the calculation of SAFEMAX, one that its originator either never thought of or never thought important.

Harry Campbell at Your PF Pro wrote a book, The Ultimate Guide to Understanding your 401(k). How many of you have only a vague understanding of your 401(k), and think of it as merely a place where a portion of your paycheck disappears to every couple of months, returning so far off in the future that you can’t even comprehend it with your human brain that’s inexorably wired for the short term? Best of all, Harry is giving the book away. Plenty of tips complemented by plenty of royalty-free illustrations.

Finally, a company called AccuTech submits every few weeks, and doesn’t seem to understand how this whole personal finance blog carnival thing works. That’s OK, many of our regular submitters don’t. Anyhow, AccuTech has “up-front pricing and 24-hour service”, making them “your top choice for air conditioning and heating services near Warrington, PA.” Do you need your AC unit fixed or your heating ducts cleaned? They’re here (well, there) to help.

And we’re done. (Do you want quantity, or quality?) As for our other appearances, we wrote one article after another on technical analysis at Investopedia in the last few weeks, but encourage you to take such numerical alchemy for what it is. Also, we’re on the Stacking Benjamins podcast more often than not. Back here tomorrow with an Anti-Tip of the Day, new posts every Wednesday and Friday, and a new Carnival of Wealth every Monday. ‘Til then.

Like Warren Buffett’s In This To Lose Money

You see, kids, back in 1982, color photography hadn't been invented yet

You see, kids, back in 1982, color photography hadn’t yet been invented

 

Humans are atrocious at assessing risk. That’s why there are mothers who won’t let their kids visit the house of a friend whose parents own a gun, but who have no problem allowing their friends to visit a house that features that child abattoir called a swimming pool, even though Junior is hundreds of times more likely to die at the latter house than the former.

Humans are also, for the most part, rotten at math. That’s why Quicken Loans can offer ONE BILLION DOLLARS (really, half a billion dollars) to someone who can select a perfect NCAA Division I Mens’ Basketball tournament bracket, and people will take it seriously. Here’s the truth:

You’re not going to win it, but on the other hand, nobody else will. That simple sentence alone isn’t enough to convince most people. They know that someone wins Powerball and Mega Millions every few weeks, so why should the Quicken Loans Bracket Challenge be any different?

(Note: Quicken Loans is offering the $500 million, but Warren Buffett is underwriting the promotion. He doesn’t need to underwrite it – your poor alcoholic cousin could do just as good a job, for the negligible risk incurred – but Quicken Loans is paying Buffett for the privilege of the insurance. $10 million. Yes, the one person who’s going to make f.u. money from this is the guy who already has $60 billion.)

The problem is that most people can’t distinguish between one large number and the next. After all, aren’t they all pretty much the same once you get past 1 million?

The odds of picking 64 games perfectly, straight-up, is 9,223,372,036,854,775,808-to-1. We can call that 9.2 quintillion-to-1 and it’s not going to alter our calculations significantly. The odds of winning Mega Millions are 258,890,850 to 1. It’s 36 billion times more likely you’ll win Mega Millions (which you won’t, but at least somebody will) than that you’ll fill out a perfect bracket.

Let’s say there’s a nationwide lottery in the United States. Every citizen gets one entry, and there are 2 drawings. The chance that the same person would win both drawings is about 1% of the chance that someone’s going to take Quicken Loans’ $500 million.

Some of you who are particularly sharp are thinking, “Come on. A 16-seed isn’t going to beat a 1-seed. That narrows the odds significantly.” And you’re right. Throughout history, the 1-seeds have won their opening games 100% of the time. The 2-seeds, 99%. If you take all the favorites in every round, the odds reduce to 7,419,071,319-to-1. Assuming not a single 9-seed beats an 8-seed. Which, you know, never happens.

Here’s Juliet Lapidos, a lady who works as a staff editor at the New York Times. Ms. Lapidos “holds a B.A. in comparative literature from Yale University and an M.Phil. in English literature from the University of Cambridge,” so if you’re looking for someone perfectly innumerate, the closest thing to an anti-Peter Lax, she’d be close to an optimal choice.

ESPN has run a March Madness contest for the last 13 years and no one has ever completed a perfect bracket.

That’s like saying no one has ever been trampled to death by a left-handed female African elephant on the inside lane of the southbound Lake Pontchartrain Causeway while whistling Ennio Morricone’s “Ecstasy of Gold” and spinning 11 plates on sticks, 9 of them clockwise and 2 counterclockwise. Of course it’s never happened in 13 years. It won’t happen in 13 trillion. That someone felt the need to point this out is part of the problem.

We can’t understand why Quicken Loans restricted the contest to the first 15 million entrants. Keep in mind, all the entrants have to submit personal information in their quest for money they’re never going to win. That’s a database of potential borrowers that no company this side of Facebook can put together easily. (Bonus: Facebook somehow gets information from people without offering them a chance at any money. Mark Zuckerberg is even smarter than you thought.)

Even assuming the favorites were going to win every matchup, is $500 million worth your while? Not a ridiculous question. Given the odds on completing a perfect bracket under the condition that every favorite win, then $500 million would be a fair payout on a wager of 13¢. Your information as a would-be customer is worth more than that to Quicken Loans, even assuming that you probably won’t get a mortgage from them. One more time, and we’ll say this until you’re sick of it: look at every transaction from the perspective of the other party. Why would Quicken Loans feel like giving money away for no reason at all? Does Warren Buffett make it a habit of losing money on investments? (Especially when he can determine the probabilities in advance?) This is a way for Quicken Loans to combine market research and data mining into one campaign, and get the media, primarily Yahoo, to do the work of promoting it. It’s also a way for Warren Buffett to profit off someone else’s inability to properly assess risk. Bet the NBA instead, the lines are truer.