simply this stuff was not even at that stage. it's a lab report. there's no company making it. though there's a version of this copper complex that targets ALS, and that is already available
Tens of thousands of dollars? So ... nothing compared to real estate prices?
Not to mention how nothing it is compared to the cost of certain child care activities that one might have to pay for if one has a child with any health, neurological, developmental issues.
People are rightfully risk averse nowadays. Fuck the species if it just wants to bully its young into breeding.
headcount doesn't have to be granular, it has to be accurate. this is about the very useful street- and block-level data.
also, if how would anyone know how accurate the "transparent" number is? if Trump or Thiel can fuck with the fuzzing they can just as do so with the base data.
people are doing this for ME/CFS patients, and trying stuff, and ... it's not easy at all. But the signs at least are pointing toward something coherent.
Yes, it's many variants from a disease, but still, like cancer we can tackle them one by one.
(at least in Budapest, many moons ago) highly technical programs had some really infamous classes. but people had a lot of chances to pass the exams. each semester about 3. and it was possible to take the class 3 times (the 3rd required a permission, but it was formality, it was granted almost to everyone)
so in the end if someone was unprepared, they had at least a year to get their shit together. (but the exams rarely required real maths mastery, mostly rote memorization of proofs and a few typical problem types with really mechanical solutions.)
it's so strange to read about a professor getting suspended for being too strict.
I graduated in Brazil almost 2 decades ago and the only places that suspended professors for being too strict were crappy for profit universities, everywhere else professors could fail the whole class if they didn’t meet standards.
... still, "on average" IPOs tend to make money, no? that's why people (fight to be able) to buy them.
this gives a nice comfy exit to many late-stage investors, etc.
and, of course, it's hard to say that it's great that these companies are mere shadows of themselves post-IPO, but also it's impossible to non-misleadingly assess each IPO as if they were in a vacuum.
obviously Coinbase is/was a stupid venture, but at the same time it was a pretty good bet at the time. and the same stands for a lot of these.
> Approximately 56% to 60% of U.S. initial public offerings (IPOs) lose absolute value over a five-year period. Historically, the median IPO stock has lost roughly 41% of its value five years after its first day of trading.
I remember seeing a video about this subject, since large IPOs are automatically included in index funds it is kinda of a way to extract value from passive investors. Insiders cash out before it hits the indexes, index crashes by a fraction for a %, all pensions in the country (and many overseas) pay for it.
But with OpenAI and SpaceX IPOing roughly at the same time it will likely be more than fraction of a % in this/next year.
> since large IPOs are automatically included in index funds
No, this was not allowed. Until a certain someone with deep connections to the corrupt government (coughspacexcough) changed the rules for themselves for the upcoming IPO. It's going to be.... ballistic.
What do you mean? If a US company is big enough it ends up on the S&P500 _eventually_. I know index funds don't auto-include IPOs immediately, but eventually they are forced to buy into them.
but also, getting IPOs included captures the upside.
of course, public markets nowadays are definitely paying a pretty serious "agent-principal premium". (since public exits are usually very good for the C-suite and for all those vested stocks.)
so yeah, it seems it would make sense to buy the post-IPO dip, but then you would need to have some kind of formula for that, and ... that seems ripe for gaming by speculators ... so all in all, it's just more efficient to do what the rule of the index says. (and of course there's already speculation at the discontinuity.)
sure, but does that risk have good returns to go along? if IPOs are known to be very bad bets why do institutions (supposedly savvy professional investors) participate?
Because they (should) have sophisticated risk models that account for the long tail. If even a few ipos become Google or Facebook, the risk is worth it. But for average retail investors ipo participation will be bag holding exercise. That said betting your conviction is one of the only ways to beat the market, even if it comes with additional risk (emotional+intellectual attachments). If you really believe in ai or space exploration, the upcoming ipos represent an opportunity to bet on your beliefs and predictive capability
you mean that if average Retail Ronnie directly buys the new hot stock at IPO versus getting exposure to it through whatever ETF they have?
yes, directly buying a stock at IPO sounds really strange for me. (because either you know it's undervalued, but then it's insider trading. if not, then why compete with irrational fanatics?)
simply this stuff was not even at that stage. it's a lab report. there's no company making it. though there's a version of this copper complex that targets ALS, and that is already available
reply