It's not bad per se, it's just how it works. Like pretty much everything in life the outcome is dependent on the people involved. You're not getting the potential for more upside without the introduction of more risk.
Chamath is currently leading four biotech SPACS: DNAA, DNAB, DNAC and DNAD, each with a stated target, neurology, oncology, organs & immunology. Anyone looking to invest in the SPAC today should consider the likelihood of this happening, the potential targets, and the sponsors history.
Or you can wait for an announcement around a proposed merger, even up to the day the official stock starts being traded.
Again, just depends on risk tolerance. It's nice to least have the option to take part in these deals.
Yeah, absolutely. Especially when in comparison with current IPOs. Their listings end up being "take the publicly stated IPO price, pick a random multiple between 1x and 3x, and that's what we'll actually drop onto the market at some unknown period of time during the day". Of course some people aren't happy about the SPAC structure - how else would they make their money?
If the above is true, why would a fund not just allocate a small amount of resources to trade on OP's strategies. Either:
(1) OP's strategy performs worse than the alternative
(2) They already do this, and have resources that allow them to outperform OP at their own strategy
If the returns are really meaningful, i.e. better Sharpe ratio than just holding $SPY or some dead simple strategy like that, then (2) must be true at least _somewhere_.
For the most part, the government shouldn't get to tell people what they can or can not do with their money. We don't currently stop people from going to vegas, buying lotto tickets, buying expensive cars, clothes, buying education, etc.
Said another way, 'anyone' can invest 'any' amount in a public stock today and lose it all tomorrow. Heck people were even suckered into mortgages they couldn't afford by our trusty banks.
Scare the landlords, then walk it back and get a great deal.
This is how the conversation with the landlord would probably go:
Tesla: We're going to close our store in your mall.
Landlord: Good luck with that. Next month's rent is due in a week.
Tesla: But we're closing our store...
Landlord: You signed a multi-year lease without an early cancellation clause. I don't care if you're closing the store, you still owe me rent for the remainder of the lease. You can pay it as due or buy out your for X% of the aggregate remaining amount. [where X is some obscenely large percentage approaching 100% because the landlord has Tesla over a barrel and doesn't need to offer a discount].
Their landlords are a large number of different entities each with their own areas and laws. This is not an effective way to negotiate with 100s of malls around the country.
Funny enough I've been obsessing over this concept of "aligning vectors" / measuring the impact of personal KPIs against the total progress of a business.
“Every person in your company is a vector. Your progress is determined by the sum of all vectors.” — Elon Musk
It's quite nice to see the positive impact you have on the rest of the business. It gives value to what you do day to day. Where I work is very data driven, so any chance can be measured if you know how to look
Certainly important for people to understand/be aware of the process someone such as Robert Moir (one scientist mentioned in the article) must navigate
