@pitdesi@signulll Honestly pretty clever counter positioning for the first to do it. I wonder what other industries this could work in (rhymes a bit with Costco and Amazon prime)
@atelicinvest Iβm in the camp that this will be a tailwind for a section of the market, but I think a credible argument is that software tends to be deflationary and an increase in lower priced substitute goods accelerates that. Reduced long term pricing compresses TV.
@teddy_okuyama Hi Teddy, I just met with an endowment who is potentially interested in finding a manager who focuses on small gap growth software in Japan. Would you be able to connect us?
@pitdesi@chamath@theallinpod@MECEMike It depends how you execute the trade, but in this scenario I think you'd get a rebate. E.g. you short $QQQ with a cost of borrow of 25bps, but are going to get a cash rebate of ~3.8% so you'd earn 3.5%+ on the short (delta neutral). Could also use proceeds to fund the long.
@RealAssetsValue So in your example the carrying cost of the trade would be ~5.6% a year (+4, -9, -0.6). However when people short they are usually funding a different long and not holding low yielding cash (e.g. they are funding WPC paying 5.75%)
@RealAssetsValue Exactly - the margin rate is less relevant here. That's the cost charged to you to borrow USD to go long other assets. This is typically fed fund rate + how the broker prices risk / profit. E.g. fed funds + 50bps
In machine learning, we take gradient descent for granted.
We rarely question why it works.
What's usually told is the mountain-climbing analogue: to find the valley, step towards the steepest descent.
But why does this work so well? Read on.