Are you going to put your money where your mouth is and short these companies, as you predicted that she would sell them all off and "crash the economy"?
If these companies aren't big enough, it means that her selling will have a proportionally bigger impact on the stock price. So if you believe that, you should definitely be shorting.
For example : The UK stated the AstraZeneca vaccine was unsafe for under 40s today. Their stock price still rose by 0.6% and 0.5% on the US listing.
That's not the phrasing I caught, to be fair.
As I understand it, the current advice is to recommend the other type for under 40's if doing so results in no delays etc. If that would result in a delay, by implication they're still recommending AstraZeneca instead of waiting.
Hardly a condemnation, really. (And I'm still less than sold on the idea that the more experimental RNA types are likely to be safer, personally).
The market can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent.
Amazing how rational you can be when it comes to your pocketbook.
For example : The UK stated the AstraZeneca vaccine was unsafe for under 40s today. Their stock price still rose by 0.6% and 0.5% on the US listing.
Pretty absurd, by the way, as I have always pointed out, there is no such thing as a safe vaccine. More to the point, the markets were likely far ahead of the government and had already taken this news into account.
LBTY provides internet to a significant chunk of Europe.
Time to see who ISPs start blocking.
Are you going to put your money where your mouth is and short these companies, as you predicted that she would sell them all off and "crash the economy"?
If these companies aren't big enough, it means that her selling will have a proportionally bigger impact on the stock price. So if you believe that, you should definitely be shorting.
If you're that sure of it, you can just arbitrage in order to cover for broader movements in the market.
By the way, I am not predicting that she will not sell (I have no idea), but I am disputing that she has the intentions that you think she has.
You know you can short it, right?
(But be careful with that. As much as I don't like your opinions, I don't want to see you ruined financially.)
People suddenly become rational when there is money on the line, and making mistakes has costs.
That's not the phrasing I caught, to be fair.
As I understand it, the current advice is to recommend the other type for under 40's if doing so results in no delays etc. If that would result in a delay, by implication they're still recommending AstraZeneca instead of waiting.
Hardly a condemnation, really. (And I'm still less than sold on the idea that the more experimental RNA types are likely to be safer, personally).
Amazing how rational you can be when it comes to your pocketbook.
Pretty absurd, by the way, as I have always pointed out, there is no such thing as a safe vaccine. More to the point, the markets were likely far ahead of the government and had already taken this news into account.