Trivia question #4 of 108: Who is the only player in major league baseball
history to pitch in 10 ga
Notes from the Diamond #4: Less Is More
To learn more about Epsilon Theory and be notified when we release new content sign up here. You’ll receive an email every week and your information will never be shared with anyone else.
Continue the discussion at the Epsilon Theory Forum
Participants
The Latest From Epsilon Theory
DISCLOSURES
This commentary is being provided to you as general information only and should not be taken as investment advice. The opinions expressed in these materials represent the personal views of the author(s). It is not investment research or a research recommendation, as it does not constitute substantive research or analysis. Any action that you take as a result of information contained in this document is ultimately your responsibility. Epsilon Theory will not accept liability for any loss or damage, including without limitation to any loss of profit, which may arise directly or indirectly from use of or reliance on such information. Consult your investment advisor before making any investment decisions. It must be noted, that no one can accurately predict the future of the market with certainty or guarantee future investment performance. Past performance is not a guarantee of future results.
Statements in this communication are forward-looking statements. The forward-looking statements and other views expressed herein are as of the date of this publication. Actual future results or occurrences may differ significantly from those anticipated in any forward-looking statements, and there is no guarantee that any predictions will come to pass. The views expressed herein are subject to change at any time, due to numerous market and other factors. Epsilon Theory disclaims any obligation to update publicly or revise any forward-looking statements or views expressed herein. This information is neither an offer to sell nor a solicitation of any offer to buy any securities. This commentary has been prepared without regard to the individual financial circumstances and objectives of persons who receive it. Epsilon Theory recommends that investors independently evaluate particular investments and strategies, and encourages investors to seek the advice of a financial advisor. The appropriateness of a particular investment or strategy will depend on an investor’s individual circumstances and objectives.
Hi David, have you spent any time reviewing FI360 or CEFEX’s IPS practices and guidelines? In case you aren’t familiar with those organizations, they are marketing themselves as the leaders in the fiduciary standard-setting space. In my limited time helping clients implement those standards, I get the feeling they would find your IPS grossly inadequate. Thoughts?
Jason: Thanks for your comments, which are well taken. “Grossly inadequate” might constitute understatement, as I can’t imagine any such arbiter of best practices in institutional investing deeming my bare bones IPS anything other than scandalous. As with so many aspects of investing, the challenge of fashioning agreement on the essential elements of a well-crafted IPS is rooted partly if not primarily in semantics. By my lights, an investment POLICY statement should be concise enough such that all members of the governing body whose actions it governs (investment committee and/or full board) should be able to recite it more or less from memory. This doesn’t mean that other documents governing deployment of the capital in question shouldn’t be created and put into practice, nor that these other documents must meet the standard of brevity (for IPSs) just suggested. By way of example, permit me to quote JFK in his memorable address to the nation during the Cuban missile crisis: “It shall be the policy of this nation to regard any nuclear missile launched from Cuba against any nation in the Western Hemisphere as an attack by the Soviet Union on the United States, requiring a full retaliatory response upon the Soviet Union.” A pretty concise policy statement, we’d all agree, and an effective one, I’d argue, albeit not one that obviated the need for detailed documentation by qualified personnel within the US military of procedures governing the actual deployment of weaponry if and when the US were to come under attack. Thanks again for weighing in. David