People choose to commit atrocities in the name of the famous holy books - you either support banning them as well or concede there's something more to it.
... Wait, are you claiming that people are, having not previously been exposed to Nazism, reading it, and going "well, this seems like a pretty good idea really"? I'm fairly sure that's not a thing. No-one's being radicalised by it; rather the only people who really read it are already radicalised, because, otherwise, why would you bother?
There may be books which radicalise people. But I'm fairly sure Mein Kampf is not one of them.
Every share is a voting share. There are a small number of weird cases (e.g. Meta super-voting shares limited to Zuck), but your statement is broadly false.
If you don't know that nuclear plants are routinely shut down in the heat of summer because the cooling water is too hot, you should learn more before opining on the topic.
We aren’t talking about penny stocks we are talking about a tech giant. At the scales that any ordinary investor is operating at there will be no liquidity issues with shorting it and if it is in your index fund the short and long positions will directly offset if you size it correctly leading you to have net zero exposure to SpaceX.
They're saying if the stock goes up and you get margin-called on the short, you have to sell index shares, you can't just annihilate the Tesla shares with the anti-Tesla shares and walk away.
I think most people trade synthetic, just because it's faster and you don't have to wait for settlements, but maybe that is different if you trade onshore (I am a foreign investor).
Anyway if you are synthetic your margin is most likely shared between shorts and long on the same instrument, so no, you wouldn't be called.
Yeah you're not wrong. I didn't think about it that way because you can't really break something out of an ETF basket, and you also don't control the ETF basket, but if you think those risks are minimal it's probably fine to just compare dollars-to-dollars.
Personally I would still probably go with the long put strategy unless the price difference is exorbitant.
The ETF that seemingly arbitrarily changes its rules? In such a short time frame too? This change is going proposal to implementation in.. what, two weeks total? I don't know about you but I don't keep up on this stuff unless it hits the news like this one.
You are not entering a contract with a long put. You are buying a contract that, if you want, you can just let expire with no obligation to do anything. It's effectively simple insurance (as opposed to a short position, which is an actual liability, which will eat you alive in exceptional circumstances).
Yes you are, and options are complicated. Actually, the mere fact that you think they are "simple insurance" is enough proof to me that you probably don't understand it enough to safely buy one.
> You are buying a contract
Oh right, you've bought a PUT, now the fun part: you have to manage your position/exposure, could you enlighten me how you do that?
Could you explain me why buying a SpaceX PUT in a high IV regime (e.g. soon after IPO) will have it drop 40% when the IV decreases after 1 month, even though price moved in my favor? It should be simple, it's just a simple insurance product right?
Seriously. Someone, likely not super financially literate, ask a simple question about how to neutralize a stock exposure, and your answer is to advise buying options? Just stop.
Look, I think you're missing my point a little bit. Let's simplify it to risk, since that's what kicked off this conversation.
Your pension or whatever holds an ETF that (soon) contains some SpaceX shares. You buy a put option on SpaceX direct. What's the absolute worst thing that could happen?
Your pension or whatever holds an ETF that (soon) contains some SpaceX shares. You short sell a SpaceX share. What's the absolute worst thing that could happen?
Yeah. For comparison, SpaceX will be maybe half the size of MSFT. MSFT is 7.4% of the SP500 index, so for a $1,000,000 portfolio if you were to short MSFT you'd pay 0.25% on the value of that 7.4%, or $185/year.
So eliminating SpaceX exposure will cost you $100 per million of your SP500 ETF per year, or so.
I'm American. I will criticize America. If you live in another country, you work there to improve how you help the least fortunate people on the planet. I'm not going to write letters to the government of Turkmenistan. It should also be noted America is the richest country in the history of the world so expecting to do more is quite reasonable.
The bigger picture is we should have a global agency to deal with such issues, funded proportionally by all countries (within reason). That humanity hasn’t been able to achieve such collaboration (unless and many other topics) is a miserable indictment of our progress as a species.
Maybe there could have been direct solicitation for funds from other countries before suddenly and dramatically pulling the plug on decades of hard work?
Pillai again dodged questions on why an American doctor infected in the outbreak and another exposed were sent to Germany and the Czech Republic, respectively, and not to the US.
I criticise one country for denying re-entry of their own infected citizens.
The US touts itself as being in the position of the richest and most powerful country in the world. The president lays claim to the title "leader of the free world". They deserve the blame to match their means and influence.
I'm also not going to criticize, for example, the UK, for recently providing 20 million pounds in new aid to help contain the outbreak...
Maybe there should have been a plan. A period of notice and a transition plan. It couldn't happen, since the Trump administration does not believe in competence, only in spectacle.
> it created a massive 'zombie company' problem—a heavily discussed issue in Korea and Japan that the West seems largely blind to
Zombie companies in the west are mentioned as a low/ZIRP phenomena. But the west shouldn't have as big an issue with those because companies, when less diversified, get killed off more often by interest rate hikes.
Zombie companies exist in Europe; at least part of the euro crisis was exacerbated by the continuing cascade of bankruptcies making other banks insolvent.
The EU’s crisis schemes like furloughing employees en masse dull the pain but also do prolong some companies’ lives. The US historically has had much more brutal impacts but quicker recoveries.
