The US is the security guarantor of the worlds shipping lanes. This is a corner stone of US led globalism. Read any geopolitical comentator or book and it will be there.
Could be interesting to see performance distribution for random strategies on that stock universe as a comparison. The reverse could also be interesting: how do the models perform on data that is random?
Because if I don't intend to sell right now, and the company is otherwise a healthy, going concern that can pay sustainable dividends, the actual share price is irrelevant to me. If anything, given my belief in the company, a lower share price is better. I can buy more shares!
But you now own a larger percentage of the company because you own the same number of a smaller total number of shares outstanding, so you benefit whether you are a seller or a holder. If you intend to buy more it is neutral because the price per share goes up, but each share represents proportionally more.
If you ever want to sell, getting in the limit nothing for the shares might matter, no? There are other things: for example, share based M&A or compensation or other investors with different preferences - no relevance or interaction?
All fair points. Share-based M&A can be good for investors. But if the stock price is going up because the company spent money on buybacks, then the company could also just pay cash for M&A and skip the buybacks.
Higher compensation is good for employees who get paid stock and for upper management, who are nearly always paid largely in stock. There's an argument that's good for shareholders because of better retention. But if that were the case, why not just pay employees more cash?
Are there many investors that are never sellers (that is different from selling soon-ish)?
Paying cash could be quite different than paying in shares for M&A.
If owning/using shares makes no difference to cash (whether to employees or in M&A situations), why not do buybacks then if there is no difference between cash and shares anyway?
Not always/limited in some areas (astrophysics come to mind where we, e.g., cannot (yet) create a star under controlled conditions). Testing hypotheses or predictions vs observations is also a valid method.
Science is not about where you test hypotheses, but how. Astrophysics builds falsifiable models and checks them against reality like spectra, gravitational waves, etc... When predictions fail, theories change.
If these were economists, they would check if their equations match the economic universe they live in. :-) Instead, they conclude the agents just “did not behave rationally enough”.
That's just not true. The models have real predictive power, they just have limitations. Behavioral economics, which tackles this frontier is still a growing field. Thaler, Kahneman, and Taversky won the prize in 2017 for building the bridge between economic theory and individual decision-making.
At the risk of being inflammatory-- These arguments are the equivalent of saying that Newton didn't really do physics because his models of mechanics break down at high enough speeds and small enough scales.
