Bitcoin - The Basics

Bitcoin - A Brave New World

History will record that we are living through a period of unprecedented economic and social change on a global scale. Never in history have we seen central banks keep interest rates at zero and negative in a bid to stave off deflation. Never in history have we seen major countries printing money and devaluing their currency in a race to the bottom.

Under normal economic conditions when central banks prints money we get inflation and a debasement of the national currency. Yet with all this money printing we have not seen this happen except in countries like Somalia, Venezuela and Argentina. Sadly, Venezuela and Argentina are not the exceptions. They are the precursor of what is to happen to all fiat currencies.

What is a Bitcoin?
It is created through a process called mining*, A 25 bitcoin reward every 10 minutes for being the first successful computer to add the next transaction block to the blockchain**.

When created these bitcoins are sent to an address in a wallet, and are thereafter sent from address to address be it in the same wallet or different wallets. You can create a wallet from a website like bitaddress.org. Each bitcoin is divisible by 100,000,000 satoshis and you can send as little as 1 satoshi.

A wallet has a Bitcoin address and a Private key. When the wallet is created it is empty.

 

Anyone can send a bitcoins to this wallet but you can only spend it (send it) only if you know the private key.

If someone gets hold off, guess or hack your private key they can send all the bitcoins in it to another wallet that they control. To send a bitcoin you must use a wallet management program such as on Blockchain.info Here you import the wallet you created on Bitaddress.org

You can get bitcoins by mining for it, purchasing it from other bitcoiners, bitcoin ATM's, trading platforms and accepting it as payments for your goods and services. After you get some they are sent to your digital wallet at your bitcoin address.

Before you panic, it is impossible for someone to brute force and hack your private keys as explained by James D'angelo in this video Bitcoin 101 - Quindecillions Kudos to the magic of large numbers. If you know the private key you can regenerate the public key but not vice versa.

The last bitcoin will be mined sometime in 2140 and there can only be 21 million bitcoins ever. Each bitcoin is divisible by 100,000,000 and the smallest unit is called a Satoshi in honour of the founder Satoshi Nakamoto. Most likely a pseudonym as his/her/their identity have never been discovered.

To recap: bitcoins are created by a process called mining, and all the bitcoin ever created since the very first block are still in existence contained in digital wallets. Some of these bitcoins are locked away forever because the owners have lost or forgotten the private keys.

Anybody can see how much bitcoin is held in a bitcoin address but will not be able to hack or find the identity of the owner. Imagine that. It is like leaving the doors and windows to your house wide open so that anybody can see what's inside but nobody can break in to steal anything. Some bitcoin addresses have over 100 million dollars in it, yet hackers have not been able to brute force their way in.

With bitcoin you can select total anonymity or total transparency, which is good for organisations wanting to gain customers trust such as charities. 

The Blockchain**

The blockchain is a giant ledger where every bitcoin transaction is recorded. A copy of this ledger is held on millions of computers called nodes all over the world. This distributed network is the strength of the bitcoin system. 

A new block containing bitcoin transactions is added by a miner every 10 minutes, and the successful miner is rewarded with 25 bitcoins. This is incredible. You don’t have to pay anybody to maintain this vast computer network. The system has built within itself it's own reward mechanism.

The invention of the blockchain is considered to be the greatest invention in our lifetime and is poised to disrupt every industry and system that depends on a trusted intermediary. Bitcoin is money and money impacts every aspect of our lives. So be prepared to see disruptions on a massive scale. Be prepared to see blockchain technology in banking, money transmission, micro transactions, peer to peer lending, voting, accounting, escrow services  and so much more.

So bankers, lawyers, financiers, governments - can ignore blockchain technology and get run you over like a bus. They can also be prepared for blockchain technology and get run you over like a bus. It does not matter what they think. Bitcoin is a useful and better technology and like all better technology it will disrupt and displace the incumbent. Ever wondered what happened to Kodak?

Blockchain technology is a technology for the people. It gets it's power from the people adopting and using it. It moderates the power of repressive governments and entrench institutions of power. To me this is the aspect of Bitcoin that I find most interesting. It shifts power back to the people generating the wealth and limits the ability of governments and institutions to tax without their permission. A real pain point for autocratic and corrupt governments.

We have seen the internet shift power away from mainstream media to content producers. Digital media shifted power from mega studios to the artist. Bitcoin because it is money, will shift power to wealth creators. New technology does not displace the incumbent rent seekers, it just makes them irrelevant over time.

You will come across intelligent people in industries threaten by blockchain technology say that they like bitcoin the technology but not the currency. They do not understand Bitcoin. You cannot separate the currency from the technology.

Bitcoin as a currency

Bitcoin is Money. Bitcoin is a Global Currency. You can spend bitcoin in almost every country of the world from the USA to Bali in Indonesia, and the number of global merchants accepting bitcoin is increasing by the day.

Multinationals like IBM and Overstock.com accepts bitcoin. Low fees make it great for mom and pop stores. The ability to do micropayments make it the perfect currency for the internet.

Arguments about whether bitcoin is money is nonsensical. Any token that can be used as a unit of exchange is money. The measure is how widespread the acceptance of that token, be it air points, bartercard points or telephone minutes. 

Many people find it hard to accept bitcoin because it is not issued by a government or controlled by a central bank. We are so conditioned to money having the backing of legal tender by a sovereign state, that a currency like bitcoin without this security and backing is hard to comprehend. Yet bitcoin's strength is precisely because it is accepted by a large and growing global community. It is a perfect market with inbuilt feedback loops for value determination. It's value is totally dependent on it's user base.

Another aspect of bitcoin that many people find hard to accept is that it is limited to 21 million coins. This should not be an issue as one bitcoin is divisible to 100,000,000 units called Satoshis. This scarcity feature that makes it a good store of value. Fiat currencies are not a good store of value because it is continually being debased by money printing and inflation.

Bitcoin as a Store of Value

Bitcoin potential and role going forward will be store of value. It will form the reserve on which all other derivative currencies and applications built on it's platform will function.

It's scarcity due to the hardcoded 21 million limit underpins it's growth in value as adoption increases.

Being first to market it is the most widely known and used cryptocurrency. It has 400 petahash of computing power protecting it's network against 51% attacks. No other crypto currency has this level of protection. It will be very unlikely that any other crypto currency can displace it.

Bitcoin is poised to become a reserve currency and a safe store of value.

Why Bitcoin is here to stay

Bitcoin as a currency is a threat to national monetary and economic policies. Bitcoin as a protocol and technology is a threat to vested interest of trust based institutions.

With so much economic and political capital at stake, you can be sure every effort have been made to derail the fledgling crypto currency from negative propaganda, banning, and refusal of financial services. Yet the system has not been broken and adoption is growing daily and globally at an accelerated pace.

Investments in the bitcoin ecosystem is growing exponentially with 2015 expected to be in excess of 1 billion dollars. Most governments are at a loss as to what to do as unfavourable regulations will only drive these companies and jobs to more favourable jurisdictions.

Outright banning and making it illegal will not stop it as there is no central point to attack and shut down. Users can use wallet companies based in foreign jurisdictions. It makes a mockery of currency controls as anyone can walk across borders with millions of dollars in bitcoins secured by a passphrase.

A bitcoin transaction is instant with 10 minute confirmation time. It can be used to transact large values or small values at low to nil cost, across borders and distances. It is the first truly global currency and it is here to stay. It is still in the early adoption stage but is poised for explosive growth.

A word of caution. In such an environment there will be mavericks and scammers preying on the gullible and innocent. After all it is MONEY.

Get A Bitcoin Wallet


1FSCmbGrKCHWTnKYaYSip9YTJVsCfVQ36T

Bitcoin Donation Address

Read More

Another round of image bugs: PNG and JPEG XR

Today's release of MS15-024 and
MS15-029 addresses two more image-related memory disclosure vulnerabilities in Internet Explorer - this time, affecting the little-known JPEG XR format supported by this browser, plus the far more familiar PNG. Similarly to the previously discussed bugs in MSIE TIFF and JPEG parsing, and to the BMP, ICO, and GIF and JPEG DHT & SOS flaws in Firefox and Chrome, these two were found with afl-fuzz. The earlier posts have more context - today, just enjoy some pretty pics, showing subsequent renderings of the same JPEG XR image:

Proof-of-concepts are here (JXR) and here (PNG). I am happy to report that Microsoft fixed them within roughly three months of the original report.

The total number of bugs squashed in this category is now ten. I have just one more multi-browser image parsing bug outstanding - but it should be an interesting one. Stay tuned.

Read More

How to set basic authentication setting in soapUI testSuite project

This post assumes that you already have soapUI installed on your machine with testCases and testSuite.

Our problem is when we have several testCases inside a testSuite that needs to be authenticated with BASIC. There are 3 ways as described here: http://thewonggei.com/2010/08/05/configure-http-basic-auth-once-for-soapui-test-suties/. Method 1 works, but method 2 and 3 failed for me.

So my workaround is to set the "Authorization" variable in the header with an encoded username:password value.

Basically what you will see in the header is:

Authorization: "BASIC xxx"

Where xxx is as described above. To encode a username and password you can use: https://www.base64encode.org/

import com.eviware.soapui.impl.wsdl.teststeps.*
import com.eviware.soapui.support.types.*;

StringToStringMap headers = new StringToStringMap();
headers.put("Authorization","Basic bWV2ZW8uYWRtaW46bWV2ZW8uYWRtaW4=");

for( testCase in testSuite.getTestCaseList() ) {
 log.info("Setting basic auth for all WSDL test requests in test case ["+testCase.getLabel()+"]")
 for( testStep in testCase.getTestStepList() ) {
  testStep.getTestRequest().setPreemptive(true);
  testStep.getTestRequest().setRequestHeaders(headers);
 }
}

Read More

Involuntary Labor Market Choices?

My pal Roger Farmer has a lot of good ideas, but he doesn't always use the best language to express them. In a recent post, for example, Roger asserts the following.

Participation is a voluntary choice.  Unemployment is not. 

The idea that unemployment is voluntary is classical nonsense.

I do not like this language. But before I explain why I feel this way, let me first describe what I think Roger is trying to say. I think he means to say that recessions are socially inefficient outcomes, manifesting themselves primarily in the form elevated levels of unemployment and not in low participation rates. The unemployed are people without good-paying jobs, but looking for good-paying jobs. Good-paying jobs are relatively scarce in a recession (especially for individuals with lower skill sets--the young, those without advanced education, etc.) If you were to interview the unemployed during a deep recession and ask them how they're feeling, most of them would are likely to reply that they are not doing well relative to when they were employed. Economists (classical or otherwise) would say that recessions are welfare-reducing events for most people. The "classical" idea that there is little a government can or should do to help society in a deep recession is nonsense.

I think this probably captures Roger's view fairly well. Notice, however, that nowhere did I employ the adjectives "voluntary" or "involuntary" to describe labor market outcomes. I did not because these labels are not useful (which I why we do not see these terms used in the labor literature). Indeed, want to go a step further and argue that the use of these labels might be worse than useless. Now let me explain why I feel this way.

Let's start with some things I think we can all agree on. First, people are endowed with some time, T. Second, there are competing uses for this time. Let me assume, for simplicity, that there are three uses of time: work (e), search (u), and leisure (n). Think of "work" as time devoted toward producing marketable goods and services, "unemployment" as searching for work, and "leisure" as producing non-marketable goods and services. Third, we can all agree that we face a time constraint: e + u + n = T.

Now, suppose for simplicity that T is indivisible: it must be allocated to one and only one of the three available time-use categories (the allocation can, however, change over calendar time). In this case, a standard labor force survey (LFS) will record e = T as employment, u = T as unemployment, and n = T as nonparticipation (or not-in-the-labor-force, NILF). [Note: the LFS never asks people whether they are unemployed or not. It asks whether they have done any paid work in the previous 4 weeks and if they have not, it then asks a series a questions relating to job search activities. If they report no job search activity, they are then classified as NILF.]

Now, Roger seems to be saying that people have a choice to make when it comes to allocating their time to either work (e = T) or leisure (n = T), but that they have no choice in determining time spent unemployed (u = T). Moreover, the idea that people may choose u = T constitutes "classical nonsense." But is this really what he means to say?

Let's start with a basic neoclassical model. In this abstraction, individuals and firms meet in a centralized market place and individuals are assumed to know where to find the best price for their labor. Put another way, there is absolutely no reason to devote precious time to searching for work. To put it yet another way, the neoclassical model was never designed to explain unemployment--it was designed to explain employment (and non-employment). And so, in the neoclassical model, where search is not necessary, individuals rationally choose u = 0.

Now, you may think this is a silly abstraction and that you want to impose (involuntarily) the state u = T on some individuals. But why? Unemployment is not idleness. Unemployment (at least the way the LFS defines it) constitutes the activity of searching for work--it is a form of investment (that hopefully pays off in a better job opportunity in a world where finding jobs is costly). Individuals not working and not searching are counted as out of the labor force (and even these people may not be "idle" because they might be doing housework or schoolwork, etc.).

So back to our neoclassical model. Since there is no unemployment, the time-allocation problem boils down to choosing between work and leisure. Depending on idiosyncratic considerations (the price of one's specific labor, wealth position, the opportunities for home production, schooling, etc.), some individuals choose work and others choose leisure. In the neoclassical model, these idiosyncratic "shocks" are largely beyond an individual's control. If the demand for your labor declines, it will cause the market price of your labor to fall. You will not like that. The shock is involuntary. BUT, you still get to choose whether to work at that (or some other) lower wage, or exit the labor force. To take another example, suppose that a source of non-labor income suddenly vanishes (involuntary). You may now be compelled to take that lousy paying job. Should we label this outcome "involuntary employment?" If so, then what next? Involuntary saving? (oops). Are all choices to be considered "involuntary?"

This is not the way we (as economists) want to go, in my opinion. In my view, it makes more sense to view choices as voluntary and responsive to the incentives imposed on individuals by the economic environment. If we want to view anything as "involuntary," it would be exogenous changes to the environment that reduce material living standards.  If circumstances change for the better, welfare increases. If they change for the worse, welfare declines. In either case, people can be expected to allocate their scarce time toward the activities that promise the highest expected payoff. What room is there left for the "voluntary/involuntary" distinction? None, in my view.

Let's stick with the neoclassical model for a bit longer, but tweak it the way I did here to permit multiple equilibria. Now, this is right up Roger's alley. All individual choices here are rational and "voluntary."  But this doesn't mean that the economy operates perfectly all the time. Indeed, the economy might get stuck in a bad equilibrium, where employment is low, non-employment is high (and unemployment is still zero). What would Roger suggest here in the way of labels? Is this a model of involuntary leisure?  How does this label help us understand anything? I argue that it does not.

Alright, so I don't find the "involuntary leisure" label useful. So what? Well, I don't want to make too much of this, but I think such labels can lead to muddled thinking. The label "involuntary" suggests that individuals may not respond to incentives (after all, they evidently have no choice in the matter). I think it's better, from the perspective of designing a proper intervention, to view the individual's circumstances as beyond their control, but to respect the fact that they are likely to respond to altered incentives. We are economists, after all -- why would we not interpret the world this way? People demonstrably do respond to incentives! 

I could go on and talk at length about abandoning the neoclassical assumption of centralized labor markets and replacing this construct with a decentralized search market. There is a big literature on labor market search and I'm not about to review it here. If you're interested, read my Palgrave Dictionary entry on the subject here. Suffice it to say that I find no value in interpreting an individual's state of unemployment as "involuntary" either. There are all sorts of jobs out there and I think people rationally turn "ill-suited" job opportunities down to search for better matches (the way I did, when I lost my construction job in the 1981 recession). Sometimes, people get "discouraged" and exit the labor force. These are all choices that people make relative to the circumstances they find themselves in. If we want to design programs to help the unfortunate (some of whom are employed or out of the labor force), then we want to design a system that respects incentives. 

What's that you say? You don't believe that incentives matter? Not for the unemployed? This is what I call nonsense. Consider, for example, the well-known "spike" in unemployment exit rates at the point of unemployment benefit exhaustion (see David Card here: "In Austria, the exit rate from registered unemployment rises by over 200% at the expiration of benefits..."). We see clear evidence that the unemployed do respond to incentives--they do have choices, especially in an economy with so many competing uses for time. Interpreting unemployment as "voluntary" does not mean that we are to have no compassion for the the unemployed. We feel bad for anyone (employed or out of the labor force too) who face terrible circumstances beyond their control. What it means is that we should measure economic welfare based on consumption (material living standards), not time allocation choices. It means is that we understand and respect the fact that people make choices based on the incentives they face. It means that a well-designed policy should respect these incentives.

Let me sum up here. Commentators attach the label "involuntary" to unemployment to emphasize the fact that the unemployed are not typically happy with their circumstances. Fine. But then can the same not be said of many people who find themselves "involuntarily" employed (the working poor, for example) or "involuntarily" out of the labor force (looking after a sick relative, for example)? If so, then how can one unequivocally proclaim that "participation is a voluntary choice, unemployment is not?" It makes no sense to me. I want to ask Roger to stop using bad language. 

Read More

Lifting Off...Sooner or Later

From Barron's yesterday we have this lovely headline: Two Fed Presidents Contradict Each Other on Same Day.

From the dovish corner, Charles Evans, president of the Chicago Fed, suggested that the Fed should be patient about raising rates and not act until 2016. He said: 

Given uncomfortably low inflation and an uncertain global environment, there are few benefits and significant risks to increasing interest rates prematurely. Let's be confident that we will achieve both dual mandate goals within a reasonable period of time before taking actions that could undermine the very progress we seek.

Weighing in for the Fed hawks, Kansas City Fed president Esther George said she thought the Fed should raise rates mid-year. Her take: 

This balanced approach framework supports taking steps to remove the extraordinary amount of monetary accommodation currently in place. The next phase in this process is to move the federal funds rate off its near-zero setting. While the FOMC has made no decisions about the timing of this action, I continue to support liftoff towards the middle of this year due to improvement in the labor market, expectations of firmer inflation, and the balance of risks over the medium and longer run.

I want to evaluate these two views in the context of a Taylor rule. The Taylor rule is simply a mathematical representation of how the Fed should (or will) set its policy rate in relation to the current state of the economy as measured by inflation gaps (inflation minus target inflation) and output gaps (output minus potential output). Every FOMC member presumably has a Taylor rule in mind if for no other reason than the existence of the Fed's dual mandate (the Congressional mandate that the Fed strive to stabilize inflation and employment around some long-run targets). 

A simple version of the Taylor can be written in this way:

i(t) = r* + p* + A[p(t) - p*] + B[y(t) - y*]

where i(t) is the nominal interest rate (IOER) at date t, p(t) is the inflation rate at date t, and y(t) is the (logged) real GDP at date t. The starred variables are long-run values associated with the real interest rate (r*), the inflation target (p*) and the level of "potential" GDP (y*). The parameters A and B govern how strongly the Fed reacts to deviations in the inflation target [p(t) - p*] and the output gap [y(t) - y*]. 

Let me start with the hawkish view (see also this presentation by Jim Bullard). According to this view, y(t) is below, but very close to y*. So, let's just say that the output gap is zero. PCE inflation is presently around p(t) = 1%. We all know that p* = 2%, so the inflation gap is -1%. Now, we have some leeway here with respect to the parameter A, but let's assume that the Fed responds aggressively to the inflation gap (consist with the Taylor principle) so that A=2. 

Now, if we think of the long-run real rate of interest as r* = 2%, then our Taylor rule delivers i(t) = 2%. Presently, the Fed's policy rate is i(t) = 0.25%. So, if you're OK with these calculations, the Fed should be "lifting off" (raising its policy rate) right now. Oh, and don't call it a "tightening." Instead, call it a "normalization." After all, even with i(t) = 2%, the Fed is still maintaining an accommodative stance on monetary policy because 2% is lower than the long-run target policy rate of r* + p* = 4%. 

What about the doves? Because doves like to emphasize the unemployment rate, the argument of a large negative output gap is now harder for them to make (see also here). But one could reasonably make the case that the output gap--as measured, say, by the employment rate of prime-age males--is still negative, let's say [y(t) - y*] = -1%. Let's be generous and also assume B=1. 

Now, if we continue to assume r*+p* = 4%, our dovish Taylor rule tells us that the policy rate should presently be set at  i(t) = 4% - 2% - 1% = 1%. So the recommended policy rate is lower than the hawkish case, but still significantly above 25 basis points. 

Thus, if we take the historical Taylor rule as a decent policy rule (in the sense that historically, it was associated with good outcomes), then one might say that the hawks have a stronger case than the doves. Both camps should be arguing for lift-off--the only question is how much and how fast. 

On the other hand, something does not seem quite right with the hawk view that things are presently close to normal and that the Fed should therefore normalize its policy rate. All we have to do is look around and observe all sorts of strange things happening. The real interest on U.S. treasuries is significantly negative, for example. Indeed, the nominal interest rate on some sovereigns is significantly negative. This does not look "normal" to a lot of people (including me). And so, maybe this is one way to rescue the dovish position. For example, one might claim that the real interest rate is now lower than it normally was, e.g., r* = 1%. (see this post by James Hamilton). If so, then this might be used to justify delaying liftoff.

Regardless of positions, everyone seems to assume that liftoff will occur sooner or later. But as Jim Bullard observed here in 2010, the promise of low rates off into the indefinite future may mean low rates (and deflation) forever. Few people seem to take this argument seriously except for, gosh, the predictions seems to be playing out (see Noah Smith's post here). For those who hold this position, the question of liftoff becomes more like now or never, rather than sooner or later. 

To conclude, we see that the contradictory views expressed by Evans and George might spring from something as basic as a disagreement on what constitutes the "natural" rate of interest r*. Further disagreement might be based on the appropriate measure of "potential" y* and on the appropriate size of the parameters A and B. There are also other concerns (like "financial stability") that are not captured in the Taylor rule above that might lead Fed presidents to adopt different views on policy. 

In the immortal words of Buffalo Springfield: "There's something happening here, What it is ain't exactly clear." What this something is, its root cause, and what might be done about it seems rather elusive at the moment. And I mean elusive not in the sense that nobody knows. I mean in the sense that everyone seems to have an opinion, most of which are mutually inconsistent. It makes for interesting times, at least. 

Read More

Heller ikke IR gir meravkastning

Information Ratio (IR) slik det defineres av Oljefondet viser også at fondet ikke har levert meravkastning.

Dersom meravkastningen utelukkende skyldtes forskjell i markedsrisiko, så kan det vises matematisk at IR-målet vil være identisk med Sharpe Ratio (SR). Beregninger som du kan se her viser imidlertid at IR, slik fondet bruker det, er lavere enn SR. Det betyr at om vi sammenligner IR med et relevant alternativ, så indikerer heller ikke dette målet noen meravkastning.

Snarere tvert imot viser IR, sammenlignet med SR, at fondet har tatt noe ekstra risiko i tillegg til markedsrisikoen, slik at IR blir lavere enn SR.




At IR er identisk med SR når fondet bare tar ekstra markedsrisiko kan vises enkelt på denne måten:

Fondet har en beta på 1,06. Dersom dette bare skyldes markedsrisiko, blir differansen mellom fondets og markedets avkastning 0,06*R, der R er markedsavkastningen. Standardavviket til denne differansen blir 0,06*S der S er markedets standardavvik. Vi får da IR=R/S, som er definisjonen på SR. 

Read More

Ingen ekstragevinst for Oljefondet

Petter Berge og Jarle Sjo kommenterer i DN 25. februar mine uttalelser i avisen om passiv forvaltning.

Oljefondets meravkastning på 0,26 prosent skyldes at de har tatt seks prosent mer risiko enn markedet. Dette er uavhengig av avkastningsmål. Alle mål på risikojustert avkastning vil gi omtrent samme svar.

Stortinget bestilte altså samme risiko som markedet, men fikk ved en feil seks prosent for mye. Feilen skyldes hovedsakelig det aktive mandatet. Full kontroll over markedsrisikoen oppnås kun ved passiv forvaltning.

Mitt poeng er dermed ikke at Stortinget burde bestilt mer risiko, slik det kan se ut til at Berge har oppfattet det. Poenget er at dersom politikerne i 1998 av en eller annen merkelig grunn hadde bestilt en beta på 1,06 og ikke 1,00, så ville resultatet blitt omtrent det samme med passiv forvaltning. Det kan oppnås uten verken belåning eller derivater ved å øke aksjeandelen fra 60 til 64 prosent, og det burde jeg sagt i intervjuet.

Fondet driver i dag med utlån i stor skala, og det må med om tallene skal være sammenlignbare. Berge har helt rett i at utlån av verdipapir ikke er uten risiko, men det er en annen diskusjon.

Jarle Sjo gir noen eksempler der passiv forvaltning feiler. Det er vel og bra, men dersom det var så enkelt å unngå disse fallgruvene, hvorfor finner vi ikke dette igjen som meravkastning i fondets resultater?

Det er et matematisk faktum at aktive investorer som gruppe holder indeksen og derfor alltid vil gjøre det dårligere enn passive på grunn kostnader. Det utelukker ikke genuint dyktige aktive investorer, men tallene viser at Oljefondet ikke er blant dem. Fondet kan gjerne drive med aktiv forvaltning, men begrunnelsen må være riktig.

Read More