101–110 of 186 posts
chatgpt can read these reports, how long until quants can auto-detect these weaknesses that today are buried in TPS reports? (movie reference)
My company has seen quite a few sell side analysts talking about SVB earlier this year, so I guess the risks were not unknown to financial markets. Problem is, we are in a scenario of great macroeconomic uncertainty. That can make borrowing costs (needed for shorting something) quite high, because everyone and their moms want to protect themselves from market downturns. So even if you guess correctly that some compan…
In the case you short a bank, why not borrow the money from the same bank?
To short a company's stock, you borrow the stock — although you do use money to pay interest on the value of the borrowed shares. [0]
[flagged]
So you'd prefer articles be replaced entirely with outlines that only bullet point specific items? I suppose that's a position one can take, but I think many people prefer to read articles that include a coherent narrative. This one isn't even particularly long. If you'd prefer to read the ChatGPT summary you can certainly generate it.
The journalist could have spent a few sentences explaining why and how this short seller is giving an interview, why this bank matters, etc.
My eyesight rapidly deteriorated once I reached the second paragraph.
[flagged]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So you'd prefer articles be replaced entirely with outlines that only bullet point specific items? I suppose that's a position one can take, but I think many people prefer to read articles that include a coherent narrative. This one isn't even particularly long. If you'd prefer to read the ChatGPT summary you can certainly generate it.
No, exposition and context is important, but this is irrelevant l'art pour l'art prose. As the comment said it adds nothing of value. The journalist could have spent a few sentences explaining why and how this short seller is giving an interview, why this bank matters, etc.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes. Their reasoning can still be interesting.
But is it more interesting than the reasoning of the losers? I'm tempted to say the losers' reasoning is more interesting. A winner's reasoning could be completely unrelated to the event at hand and we'd never know the difference. A loser's reasoning is definitely wrong in some way, so we can learn something from it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes. Their reasoning can still be interesting.
But is it more interesting than the reasoning of the losers? I'm tempted to say the losers' reasoning is more interesting. A winner's reasoning could be completely unrelated to the event at hand and we'd never know the difference. A loser's reasoning is definitely wrong in some way, so we can learn something from it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So you'd prefer articles be replaced entirely with outlines that only bullet point specific items? I suppose that's a position one can take, but I think many people prefer to read articles that include a coherent narrative. This one isn't even particularly long. If you'd prefer to read the ChatGPT summary you can certainly generate it.
No, exposition and context is important, but this is irrelevant l'art pour l'art prose. As the comment said it adds nothing of value. The journalist could have spent a few sentences explaining why and how this short seller is giving an interview, why this bank matters, etc.
I don’t have a problem with you having done so, but I don’t have an issue with the article either.
[flagged]
For most people news is entertainment and strongly dislike the “just the facts” bulleted writing style.
I got chastised for saying this in company not long ago and responded with “don’t blame me, you’re the one obsessed with endless tragedy porn” which didn’t go down well.
Objective, informative, relevant news is long since dead if it ever existed at all.