I mean if you make money with this strategy, then the stocks bought were undervalued (overvalued) and by buying (shorting) them you pushed the price more to the stock‘s fair value. I really see no problem here.
So the tail wags the dog, eh? The perception of value is whats important? And if that perceptions leads one way we should reward the tail for wagging the dog? Everything about this viewpoint seems bass-akwards.
On the plus side, you can just avoid companies paying nonsensical dividends and focus on companies actually creating shareholder value with their money.
No, he did it because at the time, oil was in backwardation, making the move very profitable. It just makes sense economically for anyone who stores oil.
Same thing in Europe, and everyone is complaining. What I don‘t get, it‘s just acetaminophen, so buy a normal, dissolvable tablet, adjust the dosage, problem solved?
> Note that while a country may have a relatively large external debt (either in absolute or per capita terms) it could actually be a "net international creditor" if its external debt is less than the total of external debt of other countries held by it.
The methane released by this equals roughly 25% of Denmarks annual greenhouse gas emissions, and could be more or less completely avoided by burning. Is there any reason why it is not set on fire?
A 2020 review of declassified U.S. documents by Conor Tobin in the journal Diplomatic History contends that this theory—referred to as the "Afghan Trap" theory by the author— is a misrepresentation of the historical record based almost entirely on a "caricature" of Brzezinski as an anti-communist fanatic, an "unreliable" statement attributed to Brzezinski by a French journalist in 1998 (which was "subsequently and repeatedly den[ied]" by Brzezinski himself), "and the circumstantial fact that U.S. support antedated the invasion."
