Search results

If Turing cures just one disease over the next decade, the entire world will owe them an apology. Just one cure and all the current and future shorts (forever) that will be covered are worth a lot more than little increases in premiums.

VRX practices are harder to justify, they were running the price hike arb without much R&D going on. But Turing has a huge R&D budget, the figures I heard about are a lot higher as % of revenues than big pharma out there. And if I recall Shkrelli had a drug go well recently, so it looks like it...

If he does find a cure, not only he will close the short of the folks that are sick now, but he will close it for those that will be sick in the future, for the rest of the existance of humanity. Especially if you consider that after 20 years, exclusivity rights drop off and it goes generic...

This disease and stock shorts are bit of a complex situation because even though the sick person is 'long' the stock of the company with the possible cure, he is also short the price of the drug. So there is another variable to take into account. If they price the drug too high, then the...

Thats why i said you got to size it right. SRPT is one of the situations where the short didnt work but there are so many where it did. Lots of people are long those stocks in math land even if they never realize it and they can hedge out by shorting... At least partially

The idea is, if I'm going to be sick, at least I wanna get paid. The worst situation is to remain sick for free. And if I do lose money, at least I get something far more valuable, a cure and a better life

These 'natural shorts' idea can bring about some advanced investing techniques. For instance, if I had a kid with Duchenne muscular dystrophy I would have shorted SRPT before drug trial results. Why? Because if they fail at treating this disease, my kid will remain with the disease but AT LEAST...

looks like your time will be better spent learning how to trade stocks rather than forever trying to find a tax free country for forex trading

Thats the idea, local lawyers know far more about what will stand in the courts than global 'consultants' that are just ripoff artists. Tax authorities can say this and that but its the local local laywers and experts that can know what are the bluffs or just nonsense being said by authorities...

Your mistake is confusing what the tax authority says with "law". A lot of the time tax autorities go past what the law says, the final word comes from the courts NOT the tax autorithy

I suppose a 4th layer to this is the speculative part, where you further tilt things (the allocations in the balanced portfolio) in a way that you think more money because you have a thesis. I'm doing that now with being overweight in equities, underweight in bonds, etc. Also, the components in...

When you combine diversification/risk parity style portfolios with natural short "covering" (covering the things that you are short naturally by tilting the balanced portfolio in a way that fits you). You got a potent way to make some money with low risk. When you add in some behavior finance...

Even extremely rich people have these 'shorts'. If you recall in Market Wizards, Paul Tudor Jones was talking about how worried he was that the US was going to turn to the rich for a witch hunt and blame them for market collapses/economic struggles. Even though he could afford everything he...

This is also where folks like ZeroHedge do a lot of harm by encouraging people to sell assets and increase their natural shorts based on any pretty much any news. Even people like Robert Kyosaki harm people when he says a house is not an asset because it doesnt put money in your pocket. Its like...

This is all due to another thing that I mentioned in the past, which is that the P&L of our natural shorts only happen in math land, in the real world no one sees it. Renters in Vancouver have been 'losing money' for a really long-time, they just didnt know. At the end of the year, they might...

And its this dramatical reduction in risk that makes the decision to sell those investments require a MUCH bigger overvaluation level in order to make sense to sell. You cant look at something that is 20% above its fair value and say 'its time to sell, its overvalued', when you factor in those...

So those are two buckets that I dont think make sense to almost ever to be removed, the % of your networth that you need to hedge your housing costs (whether in your home city, or the city you plan to live in the future) and the first bucket of equity risk (something ~10%) that provides a big...

The time to sell your home is if it goes like Japan did in the 80's. If it reaches such an absurd level that it cant be economically justified in any way, shape or form, then sure, sell. A crash is almost sure to happen within a few years, then you can buyback a lot lower And in my view, the...

Of course, at some point, US real housing prices are likely to go above their 2006 peak. The problem is that the bubble callers only tell you one part of the equation (when to sell) they dont tell you when to buy back. They dont tell you what to do if their timing is wrong and things keep...

http://www.themoneyillusion.com/?p=32158 Housing bubble callers were right (for a while) in the US, but wrong on Canada, Australia and the UK