282 karma · joined March 31, 2008
Now that is not to say that this story is false, or even that the business model is necessarily bad, I will leave that up to you to decide. But this media source has a different set of motivations than most readers are used to. You'll notice that the news is about two US companies that are easily shortable, DHI and LEN.
This is not a challenge and I am genuinely curious to hear your perspective: in what way does Greece teach their youngest generation to not want to have children?
https://modernfarmer.com/2022/04/farming-made-our-ancestors-...
Thanks and great post!
List of public holdings, for the curious: https://whalewisdom.com/filer/berkshire-hathaway-inc
"Highlights
• Chronic Pb exposure could result in a lower weight gain in rats and a higher Pb content in the brain of model rats.
• Pb exposure reduced activities of key enzymes of glucose metabolism in the brain.
• Pb exposure could disrupt the insulin signaling pathway in the hippocampus of rats."
Perhaps spurious, but could be seen as more evidence for the contamination theory, since depression and weight gain are correlated.
I didn’t see in the article, but why can’t the nuclear power plants shut down well before they ‘go Fukushima’?
What keeps me up at night is not rentech but state actors, like you said, hostile foreign nations. They have the resources to pull it off and plenty of motivation...trading profits would just be icing on the cake, really.
Here's an amateur-level manipulation example you may find interesting [2]. Could rentech do this more subtly with 10x impact? Like I was saying, it may be feasible...still kinda doubt it. If this happens my guess it would be a fund that was no longer profitable, on it's way out, they have nothing left to lose, all this computing power laying around...
[1] https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-02-27/windst...
[2] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-04-21/german-so...
as a former insider at a different, less successful-than-rentec-but-still-successful firm, I doubt it. They have better data, technology, and employees than most other market participants. So then the question is how did they get there:
> No one is smart enough; no algorithm or model is future-proof
I agree with the sentiment, but the way it worked was in the early days, it was much easier for one person or a small team to get those advantages. Then, as the market matured and simple algorithms became less profitable, they made new, more complex ones. It became harder for new entrants to jump-start the whole process from scratch. Simons started rentech in 1982. Teleport that Simons to today and his fund probably wouldn't even get off the ground. He would still be a genius, but a billionaire? I don't think so. As you say, no one is smart enough. It was right place/right time, and they built on their advantages.
>> It doesn't give China any leverage over the American government
They get some leverage. China's bond buying lowers rates on everything from mortgages to student loans. I agree that fear mongers overstate this, though.
>> the Chinese ... could order enormous quantities of Chipotle burritos and then throw them out. But that would be so hideously wasteful as to become politically untenable.
Even if it were tenable, it would still be a bad idea-- China want to suppress their currency now, but they're smart enough to know they may need to lift it later. That's why they buy US Bonds, similar to how the Fed buys or sells bonds depending on what effect it's going for. We've been in an extended period of buying so people forget that there are extended periods of selling, too. This gives them another tool apart from the usual raising interest rates, etc.
Suppose the traders have no insight into the market and trade randomly. As a whole they incur losses due to costs. To simplify, suppose there is a 50% chance they will lose 100 bucks, and a 50% chance they will make 90 bucks. The firms money goes down by 10 dollars, but then they take half of the winnings, 45 bucks, and so thus profit 35 dollars. Is my logic sound?
In summary, they could just be taking advantage of the uninformed chinese traders. (It goes without saying: the business could be completely legitimate, can't say for sure from the article. Just seemed a little odd).