3 ms·

But the risk/reward is the same regardless of the frame of reference. It's the difference in the perceived risk between gaining $10 and not loosing $10, even w

by wrasee 2y ago

But the risk/reward is the same regardless of the frame of reference. It's the difference in the perceived risk between gaining $10 and not loosing $10, even when the odds are the same. And we know that while rationally its the same, _loss aversion_ is a cognitive bias that makes people behave differently in these two cases. But FOMO is something we should be mitigating against, since our fear alone doesn't change the actual odds. But I will take your point that you have more cover for making a bad decision if you know all your competitors are making the same bad decision. But you still missed the opportunity to not make a bad decision and therefore get ahead. The actual risk remains the same.

JonChesterfield 2y ago
Funnily enough it kind of isn't. From the perspective of the company itself, it's performance relative to the competition that matters. Not buying the machine when others do is a win if the machines don't work out. From the perspective of the people running a successful company, it's much more important to make easily defensible reasonable decisions than to make ambitious ones. You protect the capital in preference to maximising returns. Major gains are somewhat rewarded and major failures severely punished, with a comfortable baseline if you maintain the current positioning. If you're not yet a successful megacorp, all the dials are turned in favour of risk because you need the reward. Lots of incomers doing riskier things seeking to overthrow the incumbent is roughly how we get a turnover of companies and a degree of overall progress. I think this round is interesting because the incumbents have seen substantial competitive risk which could otherthrow them on an alarmingly short timescale (i.e. while the current leadership are still there), and that has induced otherwise fairly unlikely massive capex spend.

by wrasee 2y ago

JonChesterfield 2y ago

Funnily enough it kind of isn't. From the perspective of the company itself, it's performance relative to the competition that matters. Not buying the machine when others do is a win if the machines don't work out. From the perspective of the people running a successful company, it's much more important to make easily defensible reasonable decisions than to make ambitious ones. You protect the capital in preference to maximising returns. Major gains are somewhat rewarded and major failures severely punished, with a comfortable baseline if you maintain the current positioning. If you're not yet a successful megacorp, all the dials are turned in favour of risk because you need the reward. Lots of incomers doing riskier things seeking to overthrow the incumbent is roughly how we get a turnover of companies and a degree of overall progress. I think this round is interesting because the incumbents have seen substantial competitive risk which could otherthrow them on an alarmingly short timescale (i.e. while the current leadership are still there), and that has induced otherwise fairly unlikely massive capex spend.