The below is the text from my latest blog post about bonds, if you want to see the original with pretty pictures, charts, graphs etc then click on this link.
Ok, the title is an obvious dad joke, but as it happens it still fits in with my naming convention for posts so happy days! On to more serious stuff.
The most common proposed asset allocation for people pursuing FIRE seems to involve having absolutely as much invested in equities (or to a lesser extent property) as possible, and reducing every other asset class to as little as possible. Which is certainly one way of doing things, and given the great performance of shares and property over the last 20 years or more there is an argument to be made for doing things this way.
It’s certainly not the only way of doing things though, and I will be trying to show why there is a case to be made for investing some money in other asset classes, in particular Fixed Income aka Bonds.
So what are bonds?
Bonds are a type of debt that is issued by governments, semi-government organisations, and corporations, so basically you’re lending them money. In Australia we also have what are called hybrid securities, but they’ve got some big enough differences that I’ll talk about them in a future post (probably).
Bonds are also one of those fun areas where there is an exception to every rule, so although what I’ve written below is broadly accurate there is always going to be some type of bond or a specific issue that breaks one of the rules.
So please don’t be an internet hero and “well ackshually” me about premium redemption/issue bonds, soft calls, hard calls, investor puts, floaters, PIK notes and all the rest of it because broadly speaking it isn’t going to make much difference for the purposes of explaining bonds. Basically play nice readers!
Talk numbers to me…
Bonds are all about math. As I’m sure regular readers of this blog can imagine this makes me very happy, and probably explains in part why I spent a large part of my career working in an area where understanding bonds was crucial, although to make things more interesting we added on a bunch of other stuff like equity options, credit derivatives, FX etc.
The main numbers to think about are the price you paid for the bond, the coupon on the bond, the yield on the bond, the time to maturity, and the maturity value of the bond. From those main numbers we also der
... keep reading on reddit ➡I was just thinking about the Bond movie License To Kill lately--for those of you not into the series, it's the one where Bond, instead of getting an assignment from M as usual, goes rogue from MI-6 to get revenge on the leader of a South American drug cartel for maiming his friend. There's little in the way of exotic locales, beautiful women being seduced, or colorful henchman, he's just taking out a glorified drug dealer. It's basically a Lethal Weapon movie. Fun, but not very Bondian.
I think there's a similar mistake in the ST. They tried to do something new and different with the series, without realizing they were taking away from the uniqueness of their own story and making it like every other work in the genre.
I'm referring here to Kylo Ren. It makes some sense to have another Darth Vader with the explicit possibility of being redeemed, but then to have him be irredeemable--subverted expectations!--but that just makes him like your average Marvel movie villain, all of whom get blowed up real good. Add to that--
-It's depressing as hell for the Solo/Skywalker story and lineage to end with an irredeemable mass murderer. I mean, that's even worse than Han and Leia's kid just dying or never having been born. I thought this was a children's movie about space wizards. What Pixar movie has the hero get murdered in cold blood by his own son?
-It's boring. And so is Kylo Ren reenacting Darth Vader's arc and sacrificing himself to be redeemed. Maybe if the second movie had redeemed him and the story had become about former enemies working together, that would've broke new ground, but by having him redeemed at the climax of the third movie, they just did Vader's arc in a more convoluted way.
-It makes no sense. If your villain is going to be even worse than Vader, it seems like you should have some explanation for that. Vader grew up a slave and ended up blaming himself for the death of the woman he loved. That would fuck anyone up. Kylo Ren... grew up in the lap of luxury with two loving parents and the coolest uncle in the galaxy to mentor him as a Jedi superhero? At most, I could see a guy like that becoming arrogant or a brat. Instead, he's a serial killer. Were Han and Leia just unlucky enough to have a child born a sociopath?
Does he need to get it renewed, are there forms to fill out? Is there an office he has to go to and stand in line to get it stamped, and by whom? Are there penalty points for unsafe killing or killing under the influence (something that's bound to happen given his fondness for Martinis)?
I never got a chance to see Timothy Dalton portrayal of Bond but I thoroughly enjoyed the films from start to finish. It's just a darn shame Dalton only starred in two films, I would love to see him more in the role. His tense look and focus gives Bond this atmosphere of suave, broodiness, and a man of action to kick ass which I find really entertaining as a viewer.
Are there any limitations? Could he kill M? The Queen?? And face no repercussions?
The attempt to create a good OC story continues! Slow burn relationship.
Story Summary:
Most children grow up wanting to be a hero for a heroic reason, others want to for less socially accepted reasons. Kano Pasufoji wants to be a hero to have a excuse to kill villains. Watch his struggles to befriend others with his fear of being rejected due to his ideals and see if Izuku along with the rest of Class 1-A can change him radical views on life
Chapter Summary: Things goes from 0 to 100 real quick.
https://www.fanfiction.net/s/13429061/6/A-Heroes-Desire-To-Gain-A-License-To-Kill
Which movie was better in your opinion?
