fighterpilot

96 ms·

1021.
by fighterpilot 6y ago
True. But since this is a pretty small amount relative to total outstanding it implies that most buying has been retail.
1022.
by fighterpilot 6y ago
And there's committees of people deciding which index funds to invest in and which to ignore.
1023.
by fighterpilot 6y ago
> Changes in institutional ownership may signify what you are arguing. Agreed, but we don't have access to this, so we need to use what's available. The level of institutional ownership (10%) is useful because it provid
1024.
by fighterpilot 6y ago
> active strategies lose out to passive ones in the long run. This is only true in the average. Most people can't do it. It's false if we're talking about specific strategies (e.g. Medallion Fund). There are comput
1025.
by fighterpilot 6y ago
I disagree. The pricing of post-IPO stocks is responsible for trillions of dollars of capital allocation, since the amount that public companies can raise is linearly proportional to the stock price. It's not an unimportant problem to
1026.
by fighterpilot 6y ago
> Institutional Ownership % doesn't mean squat as far as trading activity goes. You and I could trade 1 share back and forth a billion times, and it wouldn't have any impact on institutional ownership %. We're talk
1027.
by fighterpilot 6y ago
That's not the definition of passive investing, what you're talking about is the distinction between agency trading and proprietary trading. ARKK are active investors because they're using discretion to pick specific investme
1028.
by fighterpilot 6y ago
NNDM is heavily retail driven, it's been a fan favorite for a year. Their institutional ownership is only 10%[1]. It's similar to IBIO, NKLA, etc, where there's some attention from funds but retail hype on social media is dri
1029.
by fighterpilot 6y ago
> Calories in, calories out absolutely work. Is this really true and known empirically? Could the body be better at accessing calories in some foods and not others? Thought experiment: suppose I wrapped a small chocolate bar into airtigh
1030.
by fighterpilot 6y ago
NNDM has nothing to do with passive investors. It's bid up by retail hype.
1031.
by fighterpilot 6y ago
Isn't that just one rogue official on Twitter? The mainstream CCP narrative is that it originated in a Wuhan market. So a lab leak, if true, would indeed significantly increase the number of lies being told.
1032.
by fighterpilot 6y ago
The pernicious side of network effects and prestige. Need some top down fix for this. Elsevier is benefiting from our tax funded research
1033.
by fighterpilot 6y ago
The counterfactual is hard to reason about. SARS-1 was contained because international travel was restricted immediately after the first few cases. Once you seed multiple countries with it, competence matters for little.
1034.
by fighterpilot 6y ago
It would add to it, because it would significantly increase the number of lies they told the rest of the world, given that they've been maintaining that it isn't a lab leak.
1035.
by fighterpilot 6y ago
Maybe we'll end up banning it again and stopping international funding of it? It's pretty absurd to say that it makes no difference whether or not the virus was a lab leak or not. The answer to that question changes the posterio
1036.
by fighterpilot 6y ago
The same advice applies to data science. The menial grunt work of checking data quality etc is some of the most important and often overlooked for the neater work.
1037.
by fighterpilot 6y ago
Agreed that it's a separate question. I just don't think the anti-CCP sentiment is unjustified, though. Whether it was a lab leak is important but a misdirection. Their cover-up of the true scale of the problem (lab leak or not) m
1038.
by fighterpilot 6y ago
You seem confident that it wasn't a lab leak on the basis that Chinese scientists have no reason to lie and that the (alleged) first case wasn't a scientist. What about the CCPs long track record of cover ups and lies instills you
1039.
by fighterpilot 6y ago
Anti-Chinese racism is stupid and toxic, yes, but you're missing the point. People here generally aren't blaming China because that's where COVID-19 originated. That would be stupid. No, they're blaming the CCP for co