dcolkitt

96 ms·

931.
by dcolkitt 6y ago
> There's not the slightest similarity in the massive teratogenicity of thalidomide vs waiting a few months for safety data on a vaccine. You're right. They're not comparable. Spuriously waiting for Covid data is way wo
932.
by dcolkitt 6y ago
Efficacy is irrelevant. Rolling out AZ vaccines will not slow down Pfizer/Moderna vaccination rates, because the bottleneck is supply. Even assuming J&J + Novavax there's still a drastic supply bottleneck. At worse, we'll
933.
by dcolkitt 6y ago
If you think I'm wrong, why aren't you taking my bet?
934.
by dcolkitt 6y ago
Thalidomide occurred more than fifty years ago . Do you think it's maybe possible that medical science has advanced a little bit since then? Also the total number of birth defects that thalidomide ever caused over its entire lifecycle
935.
by dcolkitt 6y ago
Covid kills more people every day than the entire number of birth defects caused by thalidomide in its entire history. Maybe it's time to start living in the here and now, instead of worrying about a minor incident from more than hal
936.
by dcolkitt 6y ago
The FDA's continual foot dragging on approving AstraZeneca is criminal. The UK has already thoroughly reviewed it and decided it was safe for approval. Is there any reason to believe that British scientists are any less competent than
937.
by dcolkitt 6y ago
> I haven’t heard of a single one of the available vaccines being held back by regulations, only the speed at which they could go through human trials. The vaccine trials were drastically slowed down by the regulations against human chal
938.
by dcolkitt 6y ago
But the point is, even if there's a 1% chance that this plausibly works, the government should be throwing money at bio-hackers like this. Or at the very least exempting them from the regulations that stand in their way. Very likely
939.
by dcolkitt 6y ago
> However, this type of report often turns out to be nothing more than market manipulation and fraud. This isn't true. Mountains of academic research has consistently shown that short sellers generate abnormal returns by detecting
940.
by dcolkitt 6y ago
> It's based on a CNBC reporter repeating what an unnamed source from Melvin told them FTA: > "Melvin Capital has repositioned our portfolio over the past few days. We have closed out our position in GME (GameStop),"
941.
by dcolkitt 6y ago
Melvin had already closed out their short position in GME by the time Citadel invested in them. https://www.usnews.com/news/top-news/articles/2021-01-27/hed...
942.
by dcolkitt 6y ago
I think you see that pattern in a lot of subcultures that glorify destructive and reckless behavior. Look at hard drug subreddits, like /r/stims, or binge drinking fraternity culture, or that Facebook group where everyone points l
943.
by dcolkitt 6y ago
I mostly agree with what you're saying. But the probability that that the average WSB retail investor reconstructs a Robinhood account with superior mean-variance optimization than an index fund, is about the same chance that my dog bu
944.
by dcolkitt 6y ago
> There is ample evidence that individual investors can and do generate abnormal returns. I actually agree with this. But didn't want to put it in, because so many people hear this qualification and just assume it means they can be
945.
by dcolkitt 6y ago
> If we are investigating the market structure Market structure is not the subject of the investigation. Market volatility is. In this case microstructure has absolutely zero to do with the volatility. It was caused by 7 million reta
946.
by dcolkitt 6y ago
The difference is the HN hype train might cause you some headaches from picking an immature tech stack. Whereas the WSB echo chamber has literally ruined thousands of people's lives and retirements.
947.
by dcolkitt 6y ago
There's a simple lesson. Buy and hold a low-fee index fund. Stop trying to pick stocks. And for God's sake stop trying to day trade stocks. Deviating from buy-and-hold indexing is mathematically a zero-sum game. Winning this game
948.
by dcolkitt 6y ago
It's not too much to ask. But Citadel is not involved in any significant way with the Gamestop fiasco. Any claims to the contrary are crackpot conspiracy theories without any evidence. Citadel's a market maker that processes a lot
949.
by dcolkitt 6y ago
Citadel is not being investigated. Citadel had nothing to do with the Gamestop meme mania, besides being a market maker that processed a lot of transactions. Anything else you hear is crackpot conspiracy theories with zero evidence. It&#x27
950.
by dcolkitt 6y ago
Virtually no one in the US, rich or poor, is criminally prosecuted for tax evasion. Really the only way to be prosecuted for tax evasion is either to commit a whole bunch of other crimes, and have tax evasion thrown on to the indictment. Or
951.
by dcolkitt 6y ago
IMO, the best system would be to let anyone who's a beneficial owner cast a vote with the rest of the share class. So, if the float's 1 million shares, and 500 thousand are shorted, then there's 2 million shares held long. Le
952.
by dcolkitt 6y ago
That's the point. Short selling acts as a tax on irrational investors. That's why short selling is linked to a reduction in speculative[1], corporate fraud[2], and price inefficiency[3]. It makes the market more rational, by drivi
953.
by dcolkitt 6y ago
Those are all great points, but IMO not really that difficult to handle. > If the company spins-off a segment A spinoff is just a divided in the form of stock in the new segment. This is easy to handle. The short is now simply short both
954.
by dcolkitt 6y ago
The demand for shares is the demand for its discounted future cash flows. No rational investor buys for any other reason.
955.
by dcolkitt 6y ago
Incorrect. Shorting cannot make a company go bankrupt, because it has no effect on the operations. Having a low stock price will not make a profitable company become unprofitable. All short sellers can do is reveal pre-existing flaws In t
956.
by dcolkitt 6y ago
The point is that the value of AAPL is just the value of its future dividends. As long as a creditworthy institution guarantees the same stream of dividends, they are identical in value from the investors perspective. The biggest asterisk i
957.
by dcolkitt 6y ago
The same concept exists in crypto. It’s called flash loans. Ethereum smart contracts can absolutely sell tokens that they don’t own, as long as they buy them back before the end of the transaction. Like traditional market making, this is u
958.
by dcolkitt 6y ago
Just to be clear, in the toy example, TSLA-2 does not compete with the original Tesla in anyway. They simply replicate the cash flows. Maybe TSLA-2 sells electric cars in a parallel universe. Or more likely maybe, it’s just a creditworthy i
959.
by dcolkitt 6y ago
> There is a really simple reason for not allowing naked short selling and that is the potential for effectively creating a divide by 0 error, when the short sellers have to cover their short The point of a naked short system is that sho
960.
by dcolkitt 6y ago
> Isn't selling something you don't own a fraud or the stock market has an exemption? I call up Dominos and order a pepperoni pizza. They take my order and process my credit card. They’ve just sold me a pizza that doesn’t exist

More ›