5 ms·
>Presumably they failed to pay much more than that. I don't know how much, I doubt it would be possible to calculate. The exact amount is what the IRS figures
by SideQuark 4y ago
>Presumably they failed to pay much more than that. I don't know how much, I doubt it would be possible to calculate.
The exact amount is what the IRS figures out before damages are applied.
>I kinda doubt that this could be accurately assessed by Levin
Once someone starts to believe things that suit them without evidence they generally stop listening to actual evidence. This is exactly that pattern: an investigate, and likely the IRS also, did do an investigation likely of hundreds to thousands of man hours, reached the above conclusion, and you, an internet poster googling for a few minutes, disbelieves them?
Financial News London, a pretty solid source on such things states "Current and former executives of hedge fund Renaissance Technologies will personally pay as much as $7bn in back taxes, interest and penalties to settle a long-running dispute with the Internal Revenue Service, the firm said, a tax settlement that may be the largest in history." [1] I think I'll trust their (and similar financial research places) on the characterization of the payment, especially since the standard for back payment has always been back taxes + penalties + interest. The IRS doesn't just play around, especially when something this high profile is at stake.
>nearly half of that magic was tax fraud.
What? Provide your napkin math. I just presented numbers that show this "half" to be far out of reality.
If you're a programmer, simply set up a simple model (I just did that) and compute expected with or without paying that 7B over the past 30 years. The returns are vastly more than "half". Did you just claim half from any numerical checking, or just guessed it?
>Lastly I'd like to point out this linear, it's not like they would have returned 39% in a universe where they paid that $7
The naive compound growth is T=P(1+r)^n, which is exactly linear. Double the principal P, double the outcome. Taxes aren't paid on value, only on profit, and if you check the math (it's pretty easy), taking X % each year or at the end of profits is exactly the same number.
The practical reason profits are taxes yearly to to provide smoother income for govt and to get some of the profit before things tank and there is none left.
In real investment, this actually becomes sublinear, as the more invested in a market, the lower percent returns, since the ability to grow is an S-curve (as is all things), not an exponential. Buffet, for example, has talked exteneively about this.
This sublinear fact is also why Renaissance famously kicked out lots of early external investors - the funds under management were not able to grow since there was too much for the opportunities they chased.
So I do agree it's not linear - it's sublinear.
[1] https://www.fnlondon.com/articles/hedge-fund-renaissance-technologies-to-pay-7bn-to-settle-back-taxes-20210903 https://www.fnlondon.com/articles/hedge-fund-renaissance-tec...
- maxbond 4y agoPretty uncharitable reading of what I said; I made it pretty clear I accepted the premise that it was $7B. I thought this was an interesting and enlightening conversation until this point, I don't see why you felt the need to be sneering and rude. I might not be the only one commiting Internet poster sins. I just don't really care about your criticism after that, I'm not interested in having a discussion on these terms, and there's little to be learned from addressing the least charitable interpretation of what I was saying anyway.
- SideQuark 4y agoYou wrote: >Presumably they failed to pay much more than that. I read that as you believe these numbers are wrong, despite so many places stating this was what I first wrote: back taxes, interest, and penalties. Is it not also rude for you to write this, effectively writing my earlier (and documented everywhere, including your links) what the number represented is wrong? Since you appeared to have a belief against the reasonable things I posted, I read that as you not wanting to believe the evidence. So I posted more evidence. >I just don't really care about your criticism after that, Yeah, that part is pure math. Calling it "half" against all reasonable calculation (which I explained how to do) is certainly not "little to be learned". I asked where you got the "half" claim - I cannot for the life of me get that as an estimate. But now I see why you believe things despite evidence :)
- maxbond 4y agoLet me offer you my version of events. I say, "well, I have a certain notion." I then go out and look for evidence I might be wrong: I do find this evidence. So I add, "my earlier notion is contradicted by evidence. Being skeptical of that evidence, I would like to gather more, but I don't have the time presently. Being an empiricist, I accept the best available evidence, at least provisionally." You then go on a rant about how I'm a stupid idiot who ignores evidence. In my mind this is coming from nowhere, it's a reaction to a comment where I specifically sought out evidence I might be wrong and accepted it. My reaction is, "wow, this guy is being a jerk, I don't really want to engage with them anymore." You then proceed to say, "doesn't the fact that you don't want to engage with people who are acting like jerks prove you're a stupid idiot who ignores evidence?" As for your specific criticisms, they're founded in misreading what I had to say, and since I imagine the reward for discussing them further will be more rude remarks, the only thing I'm really interested in discussing anymore is why I'm heading for the door. Anything else would just seem to be handing you ammunition to use against me. I would be happy to explain myself further and to admit where I was incorrect if this was a good faith discussion, but it isn't. Note that doesn't mean I haven't privately changed my mind about things. Hope that's useful feedback for you. Take care.