Financials and math are, unfortunately, stubbornly quiet when it comes to understanding business quality. It is not just the attribution problem that you raised in the article; it is understanding exactly what drives financials and how.
For me personally, the most valuable insight from the whole article (and simultaneously the most dangerous assumption) is: "Management is in the process of transitioning Tiger from a higher-churn, transaction-heavy, lower-quality retail broker into a highly scalable, high-net-worth global wealth platform."
How would you define a "high-net-worth global wealth platform"?
What decisions does management need to take to get there?
How can one assess, numerically or otherwise, whether management is making the correct decisions?
Financials and math are, unfortunately, stubbornly quiet when it comes to understanding business quality. It is not just the attribution problem that you raised in the article; it is understanding exactly what drives financials and how.
For me personally, the most valuable insight from the whole article (and simultaneously the most dangerous assumption) is: "Management is in the process of transitioning Tiger from a higher-churn, transaction-heavy, lower-quality retail broker into a highly scalable, high-net-worth global wealth platform."
How would you define a "high-net-worth global wealth platform"?
What decisions does management need to take to get there?
How can one assess, numerically or otherwise, whether management is making the correct decisions?
Bests!