No, you’re wrong. You’re not taking a bidders budget into account. If I enter 20 points on my demand curve ans they’re all above the clearing price, I’ll end up being forced to buy the quantities of all my bids. That may totally bust my budget. There are no stop limit orders in these auctions...there’s only a buy order with a quantity and a price.
That’s a contrived example though. Say you put 200 shares at $50. If the clearing price is $50, you’ve won 300 shares at $50 - $15,000 total. What if you only have $10,000?
I’m saying it’s difficult to a) allow bidders to enter a demand curve b) respect their budget limitations c) keep it easily understandable for bidders.
Why would you put 200 shares at $50 and 100 shares at $100 if you only had a $10,000 budget? That's misrepresenting your actual demand curve.
Are you saying that an auction of this kind is a bit complicated, and it's possible to make a mistake? I suppose that might be true, but that is a very different assertion from your original position:
"since people had to enter a single point on their demand curve as a price and quantity of shares (instead of their entire demand curve)"
If you remove the short squeeze part. It is still a pump and dump. Someone is going to be holding the bag when the stock comes back down. That is going to be retail investors.
I think there can be prior that a professional looking ad can generate more clicks. Your argument shows a lack of statistical understanding - conditional on this data, the Bayesian approach would be to update the prior (whether A is better, or they’re equally as good) with the data collected. With such a small dataset, you might end up with a belief that there’s a 60% probability that B is better than A, but that’s not significant enough to conclude that B is in fact better than A, as you still have a lot of uncertainty.
With a prior that A is superior, you may still end up believing that A > B after updating, because there’s just so little data.
I addressed in my second sentence that I disagree with that prior. I understand the statistics perfectly well.
And my main point is that a 60% probability is in fact actionable in the real world, in a situation where you are forced to take action with incomplete information. Assuming you are running an ad campaign, you have to choose one of the two.
P=.95 still is an arbitrary threshold, even if it's a commonly used one.
The article is simply noting that the growth > value trend had reversed last month and it may be the bottom of the underperformance by value.
GP chimes in that it’s a ridiculous claim because Apple is still up big YTD and hasn’t moved much recently.
That’s not a refutation of the article’s statement. Last month still MAY be the turning point, which is why I pointed out the recent outperformance of value, in contrast with what just Apple has done, which is irrelevant.
Of course we can’t conclude anything by a month’s worth of market data by extrapolating to the future. That’s why OP answering
“value may be turning around”
with
“no it’s not back”,
is incorrect, as they’re concluding growth has and will keep outperforming value.
That seems almost certainly true, as at least four of the contributors seem to work there (Amarildo Zeneli, Thomas McClintock, Thomas Dimitri, Jack Papas).
I wonder why they don't just release it as a Susquehanna (rather than "RTOS Holdings") project, as their involvement isn't exactly secret.
Nobody’s getting a goose laying golden eggs from a covid vaccine. It’s a one time, relatively low-cost vaccine that is going to go out of demand once the population is immunized.
Oh, and now there are multiple competitors in the market.
Only if the vaccine gives permanent immunity, which I haven't found any research suggesting that it will. In all likelihood, it will be necessary to give yearly booster shots, so the companies developing the vaccines will be able to sell vaccines every year
The quantity of vaccines needed will make even a $0.50 markup worth billions of dollars every year
You can't measure long-term immunity on a virus that's only been in the wild for ~11 months. That said, all the recent studies I've seen show no signs that immunity is going to drop significantly after a year.
I hate to link to a Youtube video, but this doctor walking through the research in the first part of the video is honestly better than any news article I've seen:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gFeJ2BqCFY0
Thank you for the link. The study definitely suggest a best-case scenario is viable. I do however think that the sample population of 183 subjects is too small to support the conclusion in the paper. The study only got a single sample from the majority of the participants andI couldn't find any indication of how many subjects from each location participated (or which locations were included outside of California), which makes me think it might not be a representative population used
I also noted that 40 of the participants were excluded because they had no PCR test done to confirm covid and no antibodies were found in the assay. This is in my opinion a major flaw, as the subjects could have been infected, but had no antibodies left, when the blood sample was taken
Finally seven of the 18 authors declare competing interests, which might have affected the research
Getting back to your post itself, I agree that you can't measure immunity for a longer period than the virus has been around, but that also means you can't say that there will only be a need for one round of vaccines, which was what I was disagreeing with
It might very well turn out, that you gain permanent immunity for a specific strain off the virus, but unfortunately that immunity also introduces selective pressure. Whether the virus is able to mutate in a way that bypass existing antibodies in a subject is obviously still an unknown, but we have seen that it's able to jump to other species like mink, which caused the emergence of the Cluster-5 variant
Since the virus is able to use other species as a reservoir and selective pressure is being introduced, I think it's reasonable to prepare for a scenario, where a vaccine won't be a permanent fix
Vaccines are not a great business in general. (Which is not the same as saying they're unprofitable.) But one reason vaccine makers are generally indemnified against lawsuits in the US, it that at least some companies would probably pull out of making vaccines if they weren't.
These numbers are easy to find, but sure, let's break out our calculators. By recent generic numbers, Jane street does $171MM revenues across 900 employees. Apple has $274B revenues across 137,000 heads.
$190,000 vs. $2,000,000. Netflix is even higher: $2.4MM. What numbers do you have?
Your Jane Street numbers are not even close. They're required to report this stuff in the UK, which shows revenues of $229MM (see https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/c...). And that's just the UK revenue - most of the business is in the US. I would estimate closer to $1MM/head.
Depends on the company. For example most of Walmart's revenue goes to buying goods to sell. Apple sells physical products and hence will spend a lot of money acquiring the physical parts etc, you can't really compare their revenue to for examples Facebooks revenue.
