SEEKING WORK | Stockholm, Sweden (EU) | Remote, or on-site
Tech: Python, Django, React
I am primarily a Python/Django backend developer (6 years experience). I also have experience writing C++/Qt code (4 years at a Swedish company), and consider myself a well-rounded software developer.
I mean, $100k is a lot of money. Why not go to a specialized dating agency when that much money is on the table? Is that more irrational? Did I miss something?
"The market" is just a set of order books. I don't find it weird that technical analysis work some times in some markets.
Fully systematic traders exist and make money. Efficient Markets Theory says they shouldn't, but they do anyway. EMH is probably written under stricter/ideal conditions though.
If one wants to take a systematic/technical analysis approach though, I would look at the entire universe of stocks, whereas use a fundamental approach in individual stocks.
> Fully systematic traders exist and make money. Efficient Markets Theory says they shouldn't, but they do anyway.
The post you are responding to already answered this question.
Here is the answer: "it would, like most other techniques that can actually generate sustainable alpha, be a closely guarded secret"
So, to answer the question, the important stuff in the trading strategies that you mentioned, include information asymmetry. Those systemic traders have hidden information, and hidden strategies that they use, and they don't just given everyone open source access to their code.
They make money because growth. Any strategy that is not based on information asymmetry or unique clever use of information makes less than the market on average.
When economists say "_net present value_ of future returns", are they exclusively wanting to discount the inflation effects? Or is there anything else?
Your discount rate is generally the rate you can borrow at, so it differs for everyone.
To see why, consider a really simple case: you can buy a contract to receive C cash at some time T in the future. Call X how much you'd pay today to enter that contract. You can borrow X today and agree to repay it using the payout from your contract. If you can borrow at a fixed, continuously compounded rate R, then the amount you repay is X exp(RT). So your breakeven (or "fair") price would have X exp(RT) = C, i.e. X = C exp(-RT). NB, the rate you use to discount a future value to know its present value to you is R, which is _your_ rate to borrow that much money for that length of time.
There are various models that aim to recover R from other values, but ultimately it's determined by market activity. Lenders either will or will not loan you X for T time at a rate of R.
What kinds of things might impact their willingness? Definitely their perception of present and future inflation rates, but also their ability to loan at a higher rate to someone else with a similar risk profile (i.e. the "rates market" as a whole) and also specifics of your own credit risk to them. If they think you might default on the loan, they'll charge you more for that added risk.
It depends on your view point and the model you are making.
Generally it will be your cost of capital to be used as a discount rate. Say if you borrow at 10%, then you need account for that every year you need to wait for that return.
A company with access to cheap capital can use a lower discount rate, and come up with higher net present value based on distant cash flows compared to a company that needs to pay a lot.
Cost of capital includes an inflation term and the risk free rate (but neither may be right over the investment term).
You can use NPV to evaluate different options. If NPV of one investment is $1 and another is negative $4 then it is clear what the better investment is (all other things being equal). Do this for all your investment options and you can rank where to put your money. Of course, if isn’t that easy since two investments might have different terms, risk profiles, or different capital requirements.
That's perfectly fine too. If you aren't going to invest the money, that's exactly what will happen. You use TVM - time-value-of-money - to compare multiple options of what to do with some money.
For an economist (and I'm not one so I don't know), they probably use the real growth rate of the economy in their calculations, because this is what the country in question has been shown to do with its money. The real growth rate takes growth and inflation into account.
Average bond yield is around 4% over a decade, that means that investing in a business you need to discount the growth it will have in it's cash flow by 4%.
Imagine you conclude Coca Cola can grow it's cash flow and earnings per share by 6% annually, is it an appealing investment when you get right now almost 5 on bonds? I's not really, but you would probably come to a different conclusion if Coca Cola's price felt by 15% in some market conditions.
I don't think type 1 diabetes meds are considered overprescribed _anywhere_. ADHD meds definitely are. Even reputable doctors say they are overprescribed.
How large % of the ADHD population could be fixed environmentally, e.g. by just going to the damn gym? How much can be attributed to our modern lifestyles?
ADHD exists, but to say that there's something wrong with "the system" just because 100% of people in society don't take it as a serious diagnosis is a big stretch.
Another big stretch is comparing ADHD with type 1 diabetes. Come on...
> How large % of the ADHD population could be fixed environmentally, e.g. by just going to the damn gym? How much can be attributed to our modern lifestyles?
It's complicated. I think a decent percentage could be helped by going to the gym, because I think the fact that SNRIs help so many people shows that norepinephrine can be the main issue in some cases, and exercise should help with that.
But then there are the cases that can only be helped by stimulants that are DRIs (like me, with dextroamphetamine), and most NRIs actually make things worse (e.g. my body can't handle the levoamphetamine in adderall).
I would love to know the distribution here, honestly.
As for the modern lifestyle, I think the modern tech world is trying to exploit ADHD-like behaviors in everyone. The whole thing about social media trying to maximize dopamine and instant gratification and endless scrolling and etc. is a real thing that happens to try to take advantage of even people who don't have ADHD... but it hits people with ADHD the hardest, because due to their disorder, deviously-crafted social media can actually overshadow the rest of their life.
I'm almost definitely addicted to chatting on Discord for example, ever since the platform first came out, but mainly because it facilitates chatting with my closest friends. I pick a DM and talk to people, and it's very direct, and I don't feel manipulated at all. But that's how it gets you; I know the majority of my time is spent chatting, and the majority of my time procrastinating is spent chatting. The only question is whether my decision is truly informed or not. I think it is.
> How large % of the ADHD population could be fixed environmentally, e.g. by just going to the damn gym? How much can be attributed to our modern lifestyles?
Structural differences in brain chemistry don't get fixed by going to the gym.
People with untreated ADHD are 3x more likely to be in a car accident. Going to the gym won't fix that.
50% of people with untreated ADHD have issues with substance abuse. 50%. Going to the gym won't help with that.
Divorce rates for people with ADHD are up to 2x population averages, a few hours a week lifting weights won't help with that.
> How much can be attributed to our modern lifestyles?
Risk factors for developing ADHD are heavily linked to exposure to the industrial pollutants that are a result from modern society. It isn't the largest factor, but it is a contributing one.
That is going to be the only "modern lifestyle" link you find.
People with ADHD don't just have problems sitting in a chair (that tends to go away as people age anyway), ADHD impacts emotional regulation, the ability to perceive time, and basically all other aspects of executive function.
ADHD isn't just "can't focus", that is just the most obvious symptom. ADHD is, aside from being horribly misnamed, a disorder of the executing functioning part of the brain that is responsible for controlling large swaths of higher order brain functions.
ADHD is both under and over diagnosed. It is under diagnosed in women, minorities, and people who are poor, and those facebook ads advertising 30 minute online questionnaire diagnoses are certainly pill mills, though I would also not call them a diagnosis.
Like most things in life, there isn't a simple yes or no answer.
> The Ukraine cyber police revealed that the stolen data were also bought by Russian citizens who paid using currencies prohibited in the Ukrainian territory.
This seems to state All but local currencies are prohibited. I have first hand knowledge from 2014-2016, 2020 during covid, as well as after the war, that USD and EUR is commonly used by both people and businesses. And Banks. In fact, when I wire cash every couple of months to my friends stuck there, they prefer it in dollars.
So this statement is extremely confusing because it completely contradicts reality and official bank operation there.
BTW, after the 2014 war started, I visited both Kiev and Moscow quite a bit. RUB folded 3x almost overnight after Obama's sanctions. Most well-off people and the businesses they visit, simply switched to dollars. This did not happen in Ukraine because no one had dollars. What happened instead is the many Ukranians who took out bank loans in dollars, had their lives destroyed.
I think one needs to be clear about what type of content one is learning. Is it rote memorization like anatomy? Or is it more conceptual like system design?
It seems to me that you want to apply memorization techniques, or even high school paper writing techniques, to material highly conceptual in nature...
