I have a name for people who went to the extreme efficient market theory-which is "bonkers". It was an intellectually consistent theory that enabled them to do pretty mathematics. So I understand its seductiveness to people with large mathematical gifts. It just had a difficulty in that the fundamental assumption did not tie properly to reality.

The game is to keep learning, and I don't think people are going to keep learning who don't like the learning process.

In my life there are not that many questions I can't properly deal with using my $40 adding machine and dog-eared compound interest table.

I think that if you have a single payer system and an opt-out for people who want to pay more [for better service, etc.], I think it would be better - and I think we'll eventually get there. It wouldn't be better at the top - [our current system] is the best in the world at the top. But the waste in the present system is awesome and we do get some very perverse incentives.

If (investing) weren't a little difficult, everybody would be rich.

If you skillfully follow the multidisciplinary path, you will never wish to come back. It would be like cutting off your hands.

Using volatility as a measure of risk is nuts. Risk to us is 1) the risk of permanent loss of capital, or 2) the risk of inadequate return.