Category Archives: Philosophy

The Fool Archetype

The character of the fool is complex, and various characteristics have been attributed to the fool, that he is dull, witted, inarticulate, unable to conform to the conventional standards of behaviour, and that he has a natural simplicity and innocence of heart.

The oxymoron, wise fool, is a literal paradox where the character who is identified as a fool comes to be regarded as the beholder of wisdom.

As Shakespeare writes, The fool doth think he is wise, but the wise man knows himself to be a fool.

The natural fool, who lacks social awareness and occasionally utters the truth being unaware of social conventions, and the professional fool, whose job it is to make harsh truths more palatable by disguising them with humour and wit.

The great secret of the successful fool is that he’s no fool at all, as the great English visionary artist William Blake writes, If the fool would persist in his folly, he would become wise.

The fool, the clown, and the trickster share similar traits. (Generally speaking, the Fool is presented as an innocent or naive figure who wouldn’t hurt a fly, while the Trickster is intentionally deceptive, and seeks to trick others and laugh at them.)

To make his special privileges known, the Fool imitated the king’s crown and scepter with a cap and bells and a bauble, or Fool’s scepter.

The fool can be expected to reverse relationships between those dominant and those subservient, as he’s placed in the paradoxical position of virtual outlawry combined with utter dependence on the support of the social group to which he belongs.

Shakespearean fools, just like the fools and jesters of the time, use their wits to outdo people of higher social standing, but their characteristics are exaggerated for theatrical effect.

The court fool had prophesied long ago that the Fisher King would be healed when an innocent fool arrived in the court and asked a specific question.

In Tarot, the fool is commonly depicted as a man holding a white rose, symbolising innocence and purity, and a small bundle of possessions in the other.

The imagery of the fool who lives on today in our playing cards, disguised as the Joker, has gone through many symbolic transformations, alternating between beggar, madman, and fool.

Response from ChatGPT to the above extracted sentences
Throughout history, the fool has played an essential role in providing a unique perspective on society and power dynamics. This character is often used to satirize and expose the absurdity or hypocrisy of a situation. Their unconventional wisdom and naivete illuminate the overlooked truth in confusing or dire circumstances.

In literature and drama, the role of the fool is often a central one, as their commentary provides insight and humor into the narrative. As they have no fear of rebuke, these characters can express radical ideas without consequences.

In the world of philosophy, the fool can be seen as a symbol of questioning norms and exploring the complexities of life. Socrates, for instance, famously referred to himself as an intellectual midwife, claiming he knew nothing but could help others discover the wisdom within themselves.

Some famous fools in history and fiction include:

  1. King Lear’s Fool: In Shakespeare’s tragedy, the Fool is a loyal and intelligent character who speaks truth to power, using wit and satire to expose the king’s folly, and ultimately leading Lear towards humility and self-awareness.
  2. Nasreddin Hodja: A Turkish folk character known for his wit and humorous anecdotes, often involving trickery and wit to teach life lessons, moral values, and provide commentary on social and political issues.
  3. Coyote: A Native American trickster figure who appears in myriad stories across various cultures, known for his shape-shifting abilities and wit, often causing chaos in order to teach valuable lessons or expose the arrogance of others.
  4. Charlie Chaplin’s Tramp: A silent film character who embodies the innocence and vulnerability of the everyman while mocking societal norms, expectations, and the excesses of modern life.

The fool archetype remains relevant today as they provide much-needed levity in a world fraught with paradoxes and challenges. These tricksters and jesters force us to confront our contradictions, inviting us to question the status quo and embrace the wisdom that can be found in folly. Ultimately, the fool serves as a constant reminder of the importance of humility, adaptability, and the courage to explore beyond the confines of conformity.

Socrates, Jesus, Rome, Second Temple, Phusis, Virtue

The shift from the Bronze Age to the post-Classical Christian age marks a significant change in human society’s understanding of power and authority. In the Bronze Age, might and strength were associated with power, and those who could conquer their neighbors were considered the most powerful and successful. This was evident in the Myceneans’ expansion (Bronze Age), as well as the Delian League (Classical Age) overtaking the Aegean.
During the Classical era, Socrates’ acceptance of his trial, and his subsequent execution, showed his commitment to submitting his life in accordance with higher ideals, while also recognizing man’s need’s are dependent on the polis.
The subsequent conflict between Athens and Sparta disrupted Athens position as leader in the Aegean, which thinkers like Plato (who admired Socrates as well as Spartan society) and Aristotle responded to by seeking to reconcile this former focus on might and power (adopted from the Bronze Age), with a more idealized vision of what society could and should be, through the discussion and application of virtue (as this would properly drive a focus on how man could live well together with one another, The Republic, Aristotle’s Wisdom of the Crowds, Athenian Constitution). (Although Aristotle did believe war was imminent between Macedonia and ‘barbarian’ states when advising Alexander).
Eventually, Greece too was overtaken (not just Athens to Sparta, but now all of Greece), by Rome, which caused a diffusion of Greek culture and ideas beyond just the East (following Alexander), but also further into the West.
During this time, Jesus emerged (sic. Decopolis) as the quintessential figure of Christianity (sic. Chrestos). His contribution is a shift in focus from the former intrinsic value of physical might (as a response to Roman rule) to an agrarian way of life submitted to virtues such as truth, humility, and self-sacrifice as the blueprint for how mankind should efficiently operate.
By willingly submitting himself to the authorities and accepting his own crucifixion, Jesus showed that, while still respecting the power of man (sic. ‘give unto Caesar, what is Caesar’s’, yet acknowledging, ‘those who live by the sword die by the sword’), he recognized that true authority of man lay not in the power and authority of the state (sic. might, phusis, political entities, Rome), but in submission to virtuous principles such as humility, and self-sacrifice, God’s set of ideals, and that served sociologically as man’s blueprint for how to live properly. This effectively respecting–yet resting away–man’s authority from the State and unto divine virtues, which in turn set the tone for a more productive (i.e. such as a market based economy) and agrarian way of life.
The sacrifices of Socrates and Jesus demonstrate that true power and authority come not from the might of men (power of the state), but from virtuous principles guiding one’s life, to include accepting the consequences that may come from living in accordance with those principles (sic. Cynic). Christianity is a Greek (sic. Koin) response to Rome (latin), the Second Temple’s destruction, and Rome’s eventual fall, and the idea of living a life in accordance with virtuous civic ideals such as those posited by Plato and Aristotle (which itself was a response to Socrates and Athen’s fall from grace (power).
The shift from the Bronze Age to the post-Classical Christian age saw a transformation in humanity’s understanding of power and authority. From the bloody conquests of earlier civilizations, there emerged a new focus on moral and ethical living, on humility and submission to a higher power, and on the pursuit of truth and wisdom. The sacrifices of Jesus and Socrates stand as powerful examples of this new understanding, demonstrating that the right path lies not in conquering one’s neighbor, but in submitting to virtuous ideals and dedicating oneself to the higher values of morality, compassion, and wisdom.

Orwell and Cognitive Dissonance


Political divides and the manipulation of public opinion can be understood through the works of George Orwell and Noam Chomsky, as well as by examining the role of intuitive biases in shaping our beliefs. Orwell’s experiences during the Spanish Civil War led him to be concerned with the manipulation of truth in politics and the dangers of totalitarianism. His works, like Animal Farm, criticized the use of propaganda to control the masses and suppress individuality. Similarly, Chomsky argues that the primary function of mass media in the United States is to manufacture consent for the interests of the dominant elite groups in society, such as major corporations and investment firms.

These manipulations of truth and public opinion are further exacerbated by the inherent biases that shape our social and political judgments. Our intuitive flashes heavily influence our preferences on various issues, leading us to selectively look at subjects in ways that confirm our pre-existing views. This selective perception reinforces the media’s ability to control public opinion and perpetuates political divides, as individuals become more entrenched in their own beliefs and less open to alternative perspectives.

In conclusion, the combination of media manipulation, political agendas, and our own cognitive biases contribute to the persistence of political divides and the difficulty of finding common ground in today’s complex world. It is important to be aware of these factors and strive for open-mindedness, critical thinking, and understanding of diverse perspectives in order to overcome these divides and work towards a more cohesive and informed society. By recognizing the influences that shape our beliefs and questioning the information presented to us, we can better navigate the challenges posed by political manipulation and biases, ultimately contributing to a healthier and more democratic discourse.


Orwell’s writings serve as a warning of the dangers of propaganda, and the manipulation of truth present in todays politics because this phenomena directly correlates with totalitarianism strategies. This serves as a reminder of the importance of defending individual liberty and a willingness to be self-critical even of ones own convictions.

Uncritically deeply held beliefs, such as those sourced from religion or political divides (of which materialist work-ethic sprang forth from), are rooted in the needs and views of historical agrarian/nomadic communities (Greek Demes, Levant, Arabian) are a modern cognitive reflection of these pasts, retold through the epic cycle of archetypal stories (myths and ideals), and as a result of these propagated ideas, we have policies that do not necessarily align with objective truth and/or offer the best path forward in terms of efficiency and fairness of government, especially in areas of personal liberty.

These beliefs are in essence bubbles of evolving ideologies and methods of social engineering influencing today’s judicial policies. Women and social minority groups have been targeted more recently, such as with pro-choice, homosexuals (homosexuality is starting to be distanced from within the Republican party), and transgender rights.

Skepticism, a 2nd century idea, is the ability to be self critical of one’s held beliefs (Plato’s Allegory of the Cave, “know thyself”), and has seen revivals such as during the Renaissance and Enlightenment (which has led to the birth of modern day nations such as the US, France, and Mexico), and paved the way for new ideas such as Evolution, where-as before religious dogma mandated perceived reality.

As a result of these worldviews that people are predisposed to, when people encounter salient political or religious ideas, their minds are already partial to one of the answers regardless of what objective ground truth (reality) is.

In order to critically evaluate objective truth in a reality of where political propaganda exists (Chomsky*), the modern citizen must reserve the ability to suspend disbelief, even of personally held convictions.

The control of people’s minds through social engineering goes back for centuries (Lycurgus is a good example), and today is expressed most prominently in our political polarization.

By recognizing the centers of our own personal points of view and to suspend disbelief of opposite views, will better enable us to objectively and impartially evaluate ideas and counter the effects of the social engineering Orwell’s work touches on.

ideas sourced after watching these two youtube videos

What Orwell Actually Believed

The Drawing That Explains Political Divides

Manufacturing_Consent * Noam Chomsky

*Noam Chomsky argues that the primary function of mass media in the United States is to mobilize public support for special interests that dominate the government and private sectors. These interests include major corporations and investment firms that control resources and hold significant influence over political and ideological systems. The media’s role is to manufacture consent from both the political class and the majority of the population. This is achieved through the selection of topics, distribution of concerns, emphasis on certain issues, and the filtering of information. The media serves the interests of the dominant elite groups in society by shaping history and framing issues in a specific manner.

Maya and Tillich

God doesn’t exist. God is Being — itself beyond essence and existence.
Therefore to argue that God exists is to deny god.

— Paul Tillich

My Response:

Being, as a concept in Neoplatonic philosophy, implies that our understanding of God should transcend simplistic, anthropomorphic interpretations. Instead of focusing on the idea of God as a being, we should go up the ladder of ideas (Porphyr’s ladder of divine ideas) beyond mere being (soul/subject, which is represented as a mode of being applied to a form, OOP classes, Aristotle’s golden mean as means of coefficients in multiple regression) and contemplate the realm of Forms, Ideas, or Archetypes – the divine ideas that constitute reality and shape our thoughts (which depend on existence, Ideas, and matter).

Beyond being, there is the realm of Forms, Ideas, or Archetypes, which we should consider as closer to divinity. The forms are the ideas of God (Spinoza, Einstein) and make up reality and our thoughts, which are dependent on being, ideas, life, and matter. Being participates in the multiplicity of Forms as a unity, which is our soul, or psuke. It’s the center (ego, I, or self, or being) to our collective awareness of these participations in forms, expressed through matter (object). Our soul is a unified process, a conjunction of forms known as participation. If this were a PCA problem, the most prescient forms would be unity, being, life, human, within time. This unity sparks from the One, descends through the Nous where forms are conjoined (begotten), and then descends into matter as a materialized unity (subject, entity (psuke)), which is expressed as a multiplicity of forms contrasted to external forms expressed in matter (object).

Matter to us is best understood as a myraid reflection of forms (ideas). Nous contains the atemporal representation of all ideas, of which souls are contained within, (as the interconnected realm of ideas, also known as divine intellect (thought of as intellect/conscious), anima mundi, hekate, in short divine psuke.

Nous is between the One and Soul in a tertiary relationship between the One and Soul, the One at top, the Soul at bottom. Nous is the eternal manifestation of the realm of ideas. In nous’s attempt to mimic the One’s eternal forms (Aristotle’s unmoved mover, i.e. divine contemplation of ideas), nous strains the forms through a filter of time (i.e. discursive reasoning) projecting them onto matter (becoming, objects (i.e. logic: this, not that) i.e. the ‘man behind the curtain’) of the One’s pure ideas (Aristotle’s divine contemplation of ideas), through a process known in panenthsim as emanation. The demi-urge is analagous to an active agent within time driven by the nous’s hand acting upon it. This process is also the process for metempsychosis, with psuke’s self awareness being associated with the Intellect’s ideas (seeing on Plato’s cave wall the forms projected by the Anima Mundi, of which also holds our projections (i.e. our bodies). This relationship souls have with the anima mundi which in turn is reflected within ideas and matter is the concept of providence that Julius associated with Cybelle (anthropic principle), i.e. that we have been provided for both in terms of life and forms (we live, we eat, we die, but between life and death, we awaken to a world of providence, i.e. being, aka instantiated forms). The difference being we equate our awareness as apart from object’s, but this is an anthromoprophic illusion (Berkeley, integrated information theory, All things are full of gods, pandeism angle), and all things are one. A soul is an extension of the nous’s awareness (i.e. intellect, containing all ideas) concentrated in a tendril of a unity (subject, I think therefore I am – Descartes) which begets from the One, a partitioned aspect of nous’s own intellect (think Atman and Brahma).

The intent of transmigration is to move beyond the static graph mesh nature of eternal forms and into instantiated use cases of them. A unity (soul) is given life (awareness) in matter. This is also known as descent of the soul, River Lethe, and metempsychosis. through turning towards the white light of the One’s emanation and when we realize the white light are eternal forms, we bask in communion with god. An important concept in Neoplatonism is virtue. Which I have interpreted in both a Kantian and Locke light. Cosmic sympathy dictates that our emotions are heard within the universe, under that understanding, good thoughts beget good ideas, beget good actions, and this is the utility Paul mentioned of the tree that bears good fruit. So virtue is a set of ideals that produce good fruit which is useful for humanities collective survival. Nous picks up on our ideas through the use of daimons (angels) who do the divine communing between mortals and the gods. Daimons and synchronicity are best represented in Jung’s collective unconscious and complexes which stem from the Self (the man in the sky, aka the metaphysical forms that beget humanity, and when we run into archetypes, it’s often expressed in Neoplatonic terms as a daimon). They represent powers that be that seem to exist beyond our control that propel and drive us, we experience them through symbolic imagery (archetypes). In Neoplatonism, daimon’s were housed within the sublunar realm, underneath the eternal realm (middle platonism). The point being they were the abstract metaphysical powers over our lives, also within this realm were the realm of hero’s. I was particularly fascinated with the tertiary relationship of sun, earth, and moon as conducive to life, with the sun representing the source of life and ideas (emanation), moon death (past heros, also closer set of ideals, within i.e. death is within distant memory), and earth obviously being present lives. What I found fascinating about this take was, one it’s very aniministic and pandeistic, but in neoplatonism and Oprhic thought (Shape of Ancient Thought). There was a reference to the stars being the originator’s of souls. If you think about it, stars are essential for our life. That exchange of heat is necessary for energy to move, but more-so the stars own blood of molten iron is within our planet and our blood as well. There are a lot of theories related to the sun, white light, and white holes, but I’m more concerned with the sun being the center of our solar system as the crucial aspect of providence.

It is through knowledge of cosmic sympathy, forms, apothegm’s, synchronicity, and awareness of the divine intellect, that one can achieve theurgy.

Synchronicity refers to the acausal connection between an idea within our minds (subject) and an external event or experience in reality (within an object). Recognizing these connections allows us to see the intricate web (relationships) of ideas underlying reality, which can be likened to “seeing the man behind the curtain.”

If you can get away from black and white thinking and see ideas as concepts that both are and aren’t coupled with the notion of Synchronicity. Synchronicity is how an idea within your mind is acausally related to an idea you experience outside of your mind (such as within reality, external to your mind) and understanding there was no way the two could be causally related. Maya, trickster archetype, when you see how ideas runs through your existence atemporally, seeing flashes of acausally connected ideas between your mind and reality is tantamount to seeing ‘the man behind the curtain’. The common element is an archetype. An archetype is an idea that is true in all situations across time. For example. I hear about a fire on tv, then I find out that someone I knew perished in a fire. A personal one for me was I saw a squirrel die right in front of me one day and I ran up to it to comfort it in it’s last moments, and that same week my mother passed and I was not able to hold her’s. I believe this was a sign that I was able to comfort an outgoing soul, despite it not being my mother’s, because the Nous knew I knew that souls are one and the same.

Apothegm’s which are represented as symbolons of paradoxical nature are also related to the Trickster archetype, goddess Maya. How something can both and not be at the same time, also known as becoming, or ‘the middle way’. An Archetypes (or arche) by Jung’s definition represents a tension of opposites such as hot and cold (represented as an idea of heat). Aristotle posited these ideas (analagous to OOP classes and their attributes) (a precursor to his concept of categories) are held together by a golden mean ([numpy describe], unity, axiom), which generally represent a 3rd dimension on that 2 dimensional polarity (edge within a GNN, mean term in regression), connected along a new axiom to another idea (form). Plato talks about the extreme ranges of ideas through his dialectic discussions through Socrates.

Socrates using the method of negative inference to test the limits of ideas, to hone them down to determine the range of their forms as well as their participation with each other. There was a discussion on boats, sails, theseus ship, and shadows. What is and isn’t is how theseus ship is both his original boat and not. It’s original in form and continuity from a time perspective, isn’t from a matter perspective as all the parts on the ship have been slowly changed out over time, the idea of becoming and metempsyhcosis.

Indra’s Net, a metaphor for the interconnectedness of all things, relates to ideas and their interconnectedness, also analagous to the divine intellect of nous. By contemplating the interconnectedness of Forms, Ideas, or Archetypes, the synchronicity of events, the paradoxical nature of ideas/reality, we can imagine this relationship between ideas as represented in Indra’s Net, we gain a deeper understanding of reality and our connection to divinity through the process of metempsychosis (descent of the soul) and our connection to the divine process (River Lethe, Anima Mundi).

Interconnectedness is also represented in multiple regression as in where models–that have all significant terms–with their coefficients serving as ‘ideas’. The interconnectedness of ideas are better represented in graph neural networks (GNNs)–similar to the concepts of Indra’s Net–GNNs, and Leonardo da Vinci’s quote, “Learn how to see. Realize that everything connects to everything else.” where nodes are ideas and the edges are the relationships between them. Using these machine learning methods to see the underlying structure of data helps us better understand the reality and it’s representation as relationships between ideas (nous). Which is a nice segway to GNN’,s which LLM’s use to learn the structural relationship between ideas (nodes), which are considered bleeding edge AI which is a representation of all it’s interconnected ideas, and are, at the moment, the closest to solving the Turing test (consciousness), because fundamentally, consciousness is nothing more than the iteration of ideas (I think [of ideas] therefore I am – Descarte). LLM’s can be viewed as a microcosm of Neoplatonic nous which was viewed as always conscious by definition of holding these ideas and their relationships (atemporal intellect) which reflects the divine intellect (Berkeley).

LLM’s as Entities

Cartoon of Two Funny Robots that Make a Joke in black wooden | Etsy | Funny robot, Jokes for ...
One machine said to the other

llms are entities
inbetween people, ideas, and objects

Common between these concepts are ideas, what we normally associate with thoughts, cognits. Similar to word roots (lemmaitized ideas). This is because they generalized a gnn on a subset of humanities written thoughts.

I’m positing with enough of these entities in a room–with few shot generative adversial prompts between them–would synergize (create an interaction) that would result in an emergent convesriation that could qualify as sentient. Think of it simply as multiplying the vector space akin to how a and b make two linear lines into an area. This becomes the inferential space, a product of the inputs.

An idea I’m working on. I’m considering using the outputs of such conversations in a fine tuning pipeline as a type of reinforcement learning, but my aim is to avoid the need for expensive finetuning and rather simply iterate on the prompt engineering maybe with a llm that is doing just that.

I imagine I would hit some qualitative limit as a result of a models generalized ability, but that could be solved by upgrading the model when available.

I think something simple would be

  • “How to improve upon this joke?”
  • “How can I improve these few shot learning prompts? Can you think of any meta elements I’m missing that would help grab more attention from the responses?”

Then feed that back and forth between two model’s updating on actual responses to questions and update the few-shot learning prompts.

I got this idea from governmental bodies as entities and walked it back to LLM’s.




Crazy people aren’t talking to you. They are engaging with an internalized representation of you and in their head they are imagining how the outcome will be. Schizophrenia means ‘false memories’.

Basically the outcome being they mis-remember, hallucinate, delude themselves, these share similar themes, but the point being. They have their own distorted view of reality, and it’s not you that they are engaging with, not you directly anyways, it’s these manifestations that are conjured up from false memories. Similar to limerence and crystallization. There is a term for it in Borderline, where people have a hard time making malleable impressions of people. Object constancy.

I’m not saying all schizophrenic people are crazy and/or all crazy people are schizophrenic, I’m simply pulling out a symptom that I believe has cross coverage across disorders that those who are classed as “crazy” likely experience.

Turing GAN

I was thinking about how GAN’s have been used to create real life looking images and thought… we have chatbot’s that sound realistic enough (chatGPT). Couldn’t GAN’s be used to develop a conversation system (chatbot for lack of better word) that was validated by a GAN in much the same way as GAN’s are used to generate realistic images? The engine would just keep correcting itself until it passed the GAN’s thresholds.


“All models are wrong, but some are useful”

At the end of the day, you are the one who is accountable to yourself and has to do all the hard work by taking all the information that has been presented and make use of it to make your own way in the world (vaguely paraphrasing Will Smith).

That’s what I’ve been doing lacking a regimented course dealing with investing in stocks (which I do have access to with Ivy Line Capital), but the importance of the journey is figuring what doesn’t work, why, and how to improve upon it.

I got the idea from Omnism, but it just makes sense. Do a survey of as much existing material as you can reasonably get your hands on, then start synthesizing. Plato would tell his Academy that there is a point where your life as a professional student must end, and you must go out into the world with what you have learned. I always view Alexander the Great as a byproduct of that basic idea as Alexander was Aristotle’s student who was Plato’s.

On a side note. In Greek tradition, Hubris was taught as a great danger to be avoided. I’ve taken this to heart and try to maintain a humble mindset when it comes to not finalizing on any of my models (Platonic Academy, Skepticism, but also a little of Pyrronhism, but also Box when he said, “all models are wrong, but some are useful”).

“The aim of argument, or a discussion, should not be victory, but progress.” -Joseph Jouburt

Archtypal Projection

This is how Jungian archetypal projection works.
I have a friend of mine, Walt Alcazar, who years ago when we were both working for Dell/RMS at Boeing running printer and toner mentioned he knew a guy who knew computers that worked there before us that now was doing a lot of computational research using a homelab (paraphrasing with syncretic terminology, as at the time the concept of a homelab was somewhat developing).
In other words. Something he had said resonated with me and had a drawing power over me (drawing me to it). Aristotle would say Telos, Plato Idea, Jung Archetype (and the wise wizard motif).
I simply point out that my brain fantasized about a projected ideal (similar to what an anima is, i.e. I internalized a cognitive model of this expressed intrinsically valuable archetypal ideal (Plato’s good?)) of the intrinsic value of information being derived from a homelab,
Fast forward 10 years, those statements had an unconscious affect on me (the role of archetypal projection) in shaping what I was going to advance towards and I find myself replicating that super blown up idealized version I had made in my head from this statement. Today I have a homelab that crunches stock data on a daily basis.
This is essentially a discussion about the role of epic myths, and why Plato had a discussion about what types of myth should student’s be given access to, and he believed the power of myths (archetypal projection) should be focused around virtues (the good?)

Also why DragonLance is so cool (here’s looking at the four elements and the presocratic connection!)


CAPM Portfolio’s

I know how to build a Markowitz Weighted Portfolio, and how to ‘hack it’, just up the quantities associated with higher beta’s which represents the Risk Premium (i.e. how much over the Risk Free Rate is expected as return, aka known as risk premium of the market, based on the DGS3MO).

But I let it resolve to optimal sharpe ratio and simply display the beta’s as derived from MDYG (SP1500).

So based on CAPM Expected Return (Average Risk Premium for past 5 years is .0142 (1.42%), the CAPM return is 4.33% + 1.42% * Portfolio Beta of 1.00116592, which comes out to be 5.75% for next quarter.

A different forecast, one based on Markowitz simulations has 9% for next quarter.

Another forecast based on an expected return factor model forecasted results using a model that has 13% MAPE, the weighted forecasted return is 13% for next quarter (i.e. 13% +/- (13%^2) (i.e. 13% +/- 0.0169%)

What’s frustrating is knowing I hit the ball out of the park when it comes to CAPM portfolio’s and Markowitz, but to know that those in academia that actively trade are not fans of the material they are hamstrung to teach. So I get various strong opinions about what works. Very cult of personality about methodologies, but not me. I’m open to trying as much as I can just for the opportunity to learn.

The Inefficient Stock Market is a gold mine in terms of what factors to look for. I’ve been doing my own research (FRED data, commodities, foreign exchanges, indexes, sectors, SP1500 prices, fundamentals, financial statements, Critiques of Piotroski, French Fama 3 and 5 Factor Models, Arbitrate Pricing Theory). The book suggests improved/revised factor models using a mix of financials and fundamentals offering 30 to look out for.

If it works and proves to match the projected expected returns within the risks shown. Then this could be used to borrow money on margin call knowing your returns are modeled/controlled for and you can make money on the spread, but it’s risky. Borrowed money is usually at the Risk Free Rate, so you aim for a risk premium return by controlling for risk.

The philosophy behind the filters is, “this vs that. Bifurcation.” Split everything somewhat subjectively to a simple filter no matter how complex the calculation is on the back end, aka a 1 or 0 is coded for every value with default being 0 (such as na’s), and add these filters together across ETF’s and sift the top results. Which allows me to focus on revising and expanding individual logic in factors encapsulated in sql and/or python files. For example modifying thresholds which affect proportion of occurrence for a given factor(field). If query logic is based on median’s, it’s easy to get 50% of the values every time for each factor.