Guess: The emails are sent slowly, in small batches. The email addresses are selected in alphabetical order, and this recipient appears towards the end of the list. Therefore as subscriber count increases, they get the email later and later each day.
Moving up the stack then, could Bloomberg be publishing changes off a queue? Maybe money stuff is deployed in the same pipeline with everything else Bloomberg produces.
He became more popular and holds more weight now at Bloomberg. He also had a kid last year and pretty much never writes on Friday's now. He took a long paternity leave with no stated return date as well.
He wrote about his writing process and he waits until the morning and its always a bit of a mad dash to get stuff out. Because if there is a story that's blowing up in the morning he'll want to comment on it
In his latest column he mentions the post and says "I'm trying my best".
It's pretty obvious he has it pretty cushy and just gets his papers out later.
This would assume a linear growth in users I guess? I'd be interested to know if this is the case. I have followed Levine for a few years but I feel like he kind of exploded in popularity at some stage over the last couple of years.
I think 2018 maybe? There was that wave of deranged crypto hype with like every single company announcing a "pivot to blockchain" or ICO or whatever. He consistently handled that very well; a lot of humor but he did also evaluate them as serious financial products and got to nerd out about and compare them to highly technical traditional finance instruments. Which honestly that is when he's at his best anyway.
There weren't a lot of sources back then that were informed enough, accessible enough, and took those announcements as seriously as they deserved but no more.
Anyway I was working in tech but nowhere near crypto at that time and started seeing his newsletter shared around a lot among coworkers and my peer groups around then. Not surprising if he picked up a lot of long term readers from it.
The socialist calculation problem has arguably been solved, check out the Medallion fund by Renaissance Technologies. It has had an average return rate of 74% since 1994. Carl Icahn, Buffet, no one comes close. They have a "robot" that can essentially predict the market, good luck getting them to take your money though.
Medallion has been closed for new investors since ... a long time ago. Nobody has an explanation how they can sustain such an absurd return, but there are a few theories floating around.
Subjectively the one that appeals most to me, is that the fund has an investment strategy built around their ability to identify and capture very specific types of opportunities - and that there are only so many of them globally in any given year. This puts an upper bound to how much the fund even can invest, because their strategy works for scenarios that are limited both in size and frequency.
I think that makes sense and it also shows that an algorithm can in practice reliably find market inefficiencies and solve them in some scenarios. In those cases a free market can exist but the robot will always beat it and eventually discourage all other market participants from participating, essentially creating a sort of communist economic system for that particular market.
