Newmark's Door

As usual, follow the money.

The author has written a series of energetically anti-Elon articles so I'm not sure how correct this piece is. But he raises an interesting question: what, exactly, is the value of having a human-sized, human-scale robot? For at least some uses a robot specialized to a single task would be much more efficient.

Summary of a paper that appeared in Marketing Science--not, I think, known as a journal for finance research--with, however, an interesting thesis. Abstract (paper is free at the link):

The interplay between innovation and the stock market has been extensively studied by scholars across all business disciplines. However, one phenomenon remains understudied: the association between innovation and stock market bubbles. Bubbles—defined as rapid increases and subsequent declines in stock prices—have been primarily examined by economists who generally do not focus on individual characteristics of innovations or on the consequences of bubbles for their parent firms. We set out to fill this gap in our paper. Using a sample of 51 major innovations introduced between 1825 and 2000, we test for bubbles in the stock prices of parent firms subsequent to the commercialization of these innovations. We identify bubbles in 73% of the cases. The magnitude of these bubbles increases with the radicalness of innovations, with their potential to generate indirect network effects, and with their public visibility at the time of commercialization. Moreover, we find that parent firms typically raise new equity capital during bubble periods and that the amount of equity raised is proportional to the magnitude of the bubble. Finally, we show that the buy-and-hold abnormal returns of parent firms are significantly positive between the beginning and the end of the bubble, suggesting that these innovations add value to their firm and to the economy, in spite of the bubble. Our findings have important implications for managers interested in commercializing innovations and for policy makers concerned with the stability of the financial system. 

As is almost always the case Liberals see a situation and offer an explanation much less obvious than the one staring them in the face.

She even concedes that near her Rainier Beach home, “we have two Safeways, the closest of which has been the site of numerous incidents of gun violence,” unwittingly highlighting the real deterrent.

Even more explicitly, "Defund The Police + Decriminalize Shoplifting = 'Food Deserts'".

I kinda doubt "jumping" but maybe . . . 

Sounds like Palantir is being smart.

Cliff Asness tries to wrap his mind around why some people, instead of demanding a premium for illiquid assets,  seem to be willing to pay for them.

And we should really, really keep it that way.

Fine argument but the author should have added a big warning. I've been following Tesla's high stock price for nearly a decade and there have been several times it seemed as though the jig was up, the stock price was about to fall precipitously, but then Elon pulled another rabbit out of his hat and the stock stayed up.

Here are some highlights of Elon's talk at Tesla's Q1 2025 all-hands meeting so you can see some of the rabbit-pulling in action.

From the same author as above a piece on how Elon's SpaceX will have some trouble: "Starship Was Doomed From The Beginning: The fatal flaw SpaceX can’t overcome."

". . . I'd argue that anyone who has ever been through an interview has probably been asked an illegal question at least once."