If you look at this as a one-shot game, sure, but it's not. If everyone votes no the buyout would be rejected and the prospective buyers would have to offer a higher price to get it approved.
The tricky thing is that shareholder voters exhibit very weird and irrational behavior (due to proxies, lobbying, the T Rowe Price craziness, etc.), so I'm not sure game theory is terribly useful to begin with here.
Did you consider simply skipping estimated payments and paying the interest? It's only 3% above the federal funds rate. (Historical real return on equities is usually computed to be higher.)
Or a hybrid (pay a reasonable amount in estimated taxes but don't put any serious effort into getting it exact).
The stated reason for extending this to phones was so that they could reuse these models for inference purposes. I'm not sure what this post adds to that (the author seems to miss that point).
To be sure, all of science could reorient itself around your mystical drug experiences, but that could take a really long time. Wouldn't it be easier for you to ask those beings the two prime factors of a really big number? That would settle the question quickly enough.
And most of them have loopholes big enough to drive a truck through. (See payday loans, title loans, hard money loans, merchant cash advance, etc., etc.)
Earmarking is PR, it has little to no effect on actual education budgets (beyond setting an irrelevant floor). Money is fungible and budgets for education are never actually indexed to revenue from a particular tax.
Maybe. More asset classes shouldn't hurt, although at some point they may not help much (new ones may be highly correlated to some combination of the previous ones) and lower fees are nice. For bigger portfolios WF's single-stock approach may add enough value to compensate for these. I'm sure both companies have simulations proving they're better...
The legit disagreement seems to be between WF's approach and the Bogleheads argument that you only need three funds. I lean toward the former but haven't been satisfied with any of the analysis around this honestly.
Because to some extent the asset classes are uncorrelated. This is the basis of Modern Portfolio Theory, and the reason you don't just dump everything into the highest-return class (e.g., stocks).
Interestingly, he was Chief Product Officer of Color Labs, one of the more buzzy failures of the last few years.
Not knocking his other accomplishments. I'm just surprised I haven't seen it mentioned in any of the recent press he's been getting (even the tech press).
The tricky thing is that shareholder voters exhibit very weird and irrational behavior (due to proxies, lobbying, the T Rowe Price craziness, etc.), so I'm not sure game theory is terribly useful to begin with here.