Member Info for fela96

I think there's a grey area between "time to sell and move on" and "everything the managers touch turns to gold". Questioning the wisdom of one investment in the portfolio does not imply that you think the whole trust is a sell.

In addition to what Tambo said, you're also relying on Moderna managing to maintain / create a large share of the MRNA treatment market. While it might be more likely than not, is it likely enough to allocate ~10% of a portfolio to, given the market doesn't even exist yet (beyond covid vaccines)? Even if MRNA treatments catch on in general, could Moderna become Betamax / Nokia etc. Worth asking.

They also have a market cap of 42bn, so unless they have 42bn in the bank, the market is expecting them to turn those billions into profit generators. If they waste all of those billions developing drugs (very expensive) which don't make a profit, then you can see why it would trade at a discount.

Overreaction imo

Don't really understand your point DSM. What exactly about the MS article you're talking about contradicts anything I've previously said? I agree that back testing with insufficient data is unlikely to yield valid results.

PJMaaa, could you please read the previous message and check if you agree or disagree with my reasoning there before accusing me yet again of trolling?

LLL, I don't believe there is any contradiction here.

1. My claim is that if you say something like "XYZ pattern is a buy signal", then to lend evidence to the claim, you need to backtest it on past data. To clarify, a valid backtest here would be a necessary, but NOT sufficient, condition for the claim to be true. It could be that the pattern existed in the past only by random chance, and there is no such reliable pattern going forward.

2. The FT article (correct me if I'm wrong) seems to be claiming that backtests are not a reliable way to make money, i.e. any patterns you discover in a backtest will not be reliably played out in future price movements. Could you let me know if you still think this contradicts the first claim?

To be extra clear, DSM's claim was that you can say "XYZ pattern is a buy signal", and not even analyse past data (the necessary condition) to even check that it has made money in the past, let alone will do in the future.

That chimes with my view which is that you can't deduce future price movements based on the past, beyond the very small scale.

Not sure why the question is idiotic? And you didn't answer my question: if the opportunity is there to make money using nothing but those indicators, why is that market inefficiency not exploited to the point of not existing, by HFTs? Do you understand what I'm getting at here? If the opportunity exists, then somebody with the wherewithal to execute trades quickly, could simply bid up the price when the indicator says "buy", and put more shares on the market when the indicator says "sell". This would effectively eliminate the price inefficiency, making the indicator worthless. In your view, why is this not happening, or why do you think it's unnecessary to check?

High frequency traders. Though to be fair I'm including anyone with instantaneous access to information, not just nanoscale market makers.

I'm not sure you fully understood my question to you. The idea you put forward (and correct me if I'm wrong) is that a day trader buying and selling a stock like SMT, can beat the market predictably by following signals or patterns, such as buying on Monday and selling on Friday. Let me know if I misunderstood what you said, but it seems to me that you believe that by consistently following these patterns over time, you expect to make money above and beyond what you'd expect to make if you just randomly hit buy and sell at various times of day.

So if the above is the case, then my question to you is as follows: if all these patterns exist, then why are HFTs not exploiting them [such that they no longer exist]?

If that's the case, then why aren't HFTs exploiting the known market inefficiency?

Regarding evolution, I don't follow your argument because bones (fossils I should say) are not the main source of evidence there, genetics and comparative anatomy are. Anyway let's not go off on a tangent.

But anyway, I agree that nobody can prove beyond unreasonable doubt that evolution (or anything) is true. That's why it's unreasonable 😀 that's all I'll say on that matter.

If you are trying to argue that there is a common pattern, then I don't really understand how you can expect me to believe that without actual data? If I say SMT rises on Monday, and falls on Friday, would you believe me or ask for proof?

No idea what you're on about regarding carbon dating, sorry. Are you saying evolution isn't a scientific fact because of uncertainties in carbon dating? 🤔

DSM, I find it mildly humorous that you'd give evolution as an example of something which supposedly isn't backtested. Evolution, and whether or not it has occurred, has been subject to enormous and fiery debate. Therefore it has been subject to highly rigorous testing using all sorts of historical evidence, from the fossil record down to microbiology and biochemical signatures (you can check how closely related things are to each other based on their DNA and other markers). The fact that all of the many lines of evidence point to the same well-defined set of biological clades, is what gives such strength to the argument that we all share a common ancestor. It's not something people believe happened without strong scientific testing. I believe that what you are doing with SMT's share price is like saying "hey look, an eagle's talon looks just like a dinosaur! All birds must therefore be descendants of dinosaurs!". While in this case it's true that birds are descendants of dinosaurs, it required a much more rigorous evidence-based argument for scientists to come to that conclusion.

You'd have to run a backtest to find out if that's actually true. I doubt it is, would mean there's free money.

The human brain is very apt to create patterns where there are none.

Hard to be cheerful being invested here to be fair :-)

Here's my alternative prediction: once this clears 7.5, that will be its all time high and it'll slowly decline towards zero until the fund is wound up. It'll also go up at the same time towards £100 per share. Gotta cover all bases with my BS, right?

Sorry for the sarcasm... I just don't take kindly to statements made with not only a lack of evidence, but an explicit rejection of reasonable replies.

I tried to talk about this a while back and got shot down. All I can say really is that SMT isn't a global tech tracker and isn't expected to behave like one. But the longer the underperformance goes on for, the less reason I can see for holding this.

OK, I mean Elon Musk is just an example. What I can say for sure is that whoever brings about the kind of radical change which SMT is invested in, they're not going to be some anodyne old fart on a yacht, they're going to be a feather ruffler. It's kind of the point of SMT to seek out these kinds of people anyway: high potential impact, and unfairly priced by the market.