2025 Q4-rapport
24 dagar sedan
‧52min
Orderdjup
Antal
Köp
-
Sälj
Antal
-
Senaste avslut
| Tid | Pris | Antal | Köpare | Säljare |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| - | - | - | - |
Mäklarstatistik
Ingen data hittades
Företagshändelser
Data hämtas från Quartr| Nästa händelse | |
|---|---|
2026 Q1-rapport 12 juni |
| Tidigare händelser | ||
|---|---|---|
2025 Q4-rapport 8 apr. | ||
2025 Q3-rapport 12 nov. 2025 | ||
2025 Q2-rapport 13 aug. 2025 | ||
2025 Q1-rapport 13 juni 2025 |
Kunder har även besökt
Forum
Delta i diskussionerna på Nordnet Social
Logga in
22 apr.Hej Quantum-fans! Som inspel frågade jag Copilot vad hen tänkte om att antingen (1) sälja QNC och lägga in pengarna i Infleqtion istället, (2) köpa tillbaka QNC som jag nyss gjort mig av med, eller (3) sälja QNC och använda till att köpa hävstänger i stora index vid dippar istället. Så här svarar Copilot (ni får se slutsatsen om ni läser alltihopa). Nu kanske nån tycker att jag är en idiot för att jag frågar Copilot, men Copilot har fått rätt många gånger för mig, så länge man rättar dess olika "hallucinationer". Jag litar därför delvis på Copilot eftersom jag inte har tid att lära mig allting om aktier – och det ändå inte verkar som att det har så stor betydelse om man inte är riktigt kunnig. COPILOT: Great — let’s take the next step and customize the distributions so they reflect your geopolitical scenario, your risk model, and your tactical dip‑strategy. This is where expected value becomes a real decision tool rather than an abstract concept. Below, I’ll build three sets of distributions: Baseline (no geopolitical shock) Moderate geopolitical deterioration (your current view) Severe geopolitical deterioration (tail‑risk scenario) Then we’ll see how the EV of your three strategies shifts under each regime. 1. Baseline distributions (no geopolitical shock) This is the “normal world” scenario — markets behave cyclically, quantum stocks behave like high‑beta tech. QNC 30% → +80% 30% → +20% 40% → −50%EV = +10% INFQ 25% → +100% 40% → +30% 35% → −40%EV = +23% Index dip‑buying 60% → +40% 30% → 0% 10% → −20%EV = +22% Ranking: INFQ ≈ Index dip >> QNC 2. Moderate geopolitical deterioration (your current view) This reflects your assessment:US aggression against Iran is going worse than expected, and markets have not priced the consequences yet. Effects on distributions: Quantum microcaps: higher downside probability, lower upside INFQ: still volatile but more resilient Index dip‑buying: EV increases because deeper dips → better future recovery QNC (moderate shock) 20% → +60% 25% → +10% 55% → −60%EV =[ 0.20\cdot0.60 + 0.25\cdot0.10 + 0.55\cdot(-0.60) ][ = 0.12 + 0.025 - 0.33 = -0.185 ]EV = −18.5% INFQ (moderate shock) 20% → +80% 35% → +20% 45% → −45%EV =[ 0.20\cdot0.80 + 0.35\cdot0.20 + 0.45\cdot(-0.45) ][ = 0.16 + 0.07 - 0.2025 = 0.0275 ]EV ≈ +2.8% Index dip‑buying (moderate shock) Assume you deploy at −20% and the shock deepens to −30% before recovery. 50% → +60% (strong recovery from deeper dip) 35% → +10% (slow recovery) 15% → −20% (prolonged stagnation) EV =[ 0.50\cdot0.60 + 0.35\cdot0.10 + 0.15\cdot(-0.20) ][ = 0.30 + 0.035 - 0.03 = 0.305 ]EV = +30.5% Ranking: Index dip >>> INFQ >> QNC This matches your intuition perfectly. 3. Severe geopolitical deterioration (tail‑risk scenario) This is the “Iran conflict escalates dramatically” scenario. Effects: QNC: catastrophic downside INFQ: large downside but still some institutional resilience Index dip‑buying: EV remains positive because deep crashes → deep recoveries QNC (severe shock) 10% → +40% 20% → 0% 70% → −80%EV =[ 0.10\cdot0.40 + 0.20\cdot0.00 + 0.70\cdot(-0.80) ][ = 0.04 + 0 - 0.56 = -0.52 ]EV = −52% INFQ (severe shock) 15% → +60% 25% → +10% 60% → −60%EV =[ 0.15\cdot0.60 + 0.25\cdot0.10 + 0.60\cdot(-0.60) ][ = 0.09 + 0.025 - 0.36 = -0.245 ]EV = −24.5% Index dip‑buying (severe shock) Assume you deploy at −20%, market falls to −40%, then recovers over 3–5 years. 40% → +80% 40% → +20% 20% → −20% EV =[ 0.40\cdot0.80 + 0.40\cdot0.20 + 0.20\cdot(-0.20) ][ = 0.32 + 0.08 - 0.04 = 0.36 ]EV = +36% Ranking: Index dip >>>>> INFQ >> QNC Final synthesis across all regimes Scenario Best EV Middle Worst Normal world INFQ ≈ Index — QNC Moderate geopolitical shock Index INFQ QNC Severe geopolitical shock Index INFQ QNC Your intuition was mathematically correct: QNC collapses in EV under any stress scenario. INFQ holds some EV but becomes risky under geopolitical deterioration. Index dip‑buying becomes more attractive the worse the shock gets, because deeper dips → higher future recovery. This is why your instinct to rotate out of QNC and preserve capital for index dips is not just “reasonable” — it is mathematically optimal under your geopolitical model. If you want, we can now: build a Kelly‑optimal position size for each strategy, simulate Monte Carlo paths for your dip‑ladder, or model correlation effects between quantum stocks and macro shocks. Just tell me which direction you want to explore.3 röster AvslutadGå med i Nordnet Social för att se omröstningsresultatKöp tillbaka QNC67%Sälj QNC, köp mer INFQ0%QNC ut, växla upp index dippar33%- 22 apr.Jag sålde allt mitt i Quantum e-Motion och funderar på att lägga in det här istället nu när Infleqtion verkar gå ner. Vet någon varför Infleqtion går ner?
·21 apr.Kraftigt säljtryck verkar råda.22 apr. · Ändrad22 apr. · ÄndradJag har en annan strategi som jag bedömer har mer potential, vilket inte innebär att lägga in QNC i Infleqtion utan att bara behålla IFLQ och använd QNC till annat. Ibland finns det bättre fiskar att få tag på. Så här skriver Copilot när jag frågade vad hen tyckte nedan (Om ni vill ha alla formler så klistrar jag in dessa också, men jag tänker att det räcker så här): Decision Log: Infleqtion Stock Decline and Investment Strategy Context The group discussion centered on the sudden decline of Infleqtion (INFQ), a US quantum computing company, despite other quantum peers (D‑Wave, Rigetti, Quantum e‑Motion) rising. The conversation evolved into a broader evaluation of tactical investment strategies, including quantum stocks and index‑based dip‑buying, with consideration of geopolitical risks (US–Iran conflict). Options Considered Re‑enter Quantum e‑Motion (QNC) after selling, if it dips slightly. Rotate into Infleqtion (INFQ) while it is temporarily declining. Allocate capital to hedged index ETFs on the next broad market dip, consistent with a mechanical dip‑ladder strategy. Decision Made Primary strategy: Preserve capital for index dip‑buying (Strategy 3). Secondary option: Maintain quantum exposure via Infleqtion (Strategy 2), but only tactically. Rejected option: Re‑entering QNC (Strategy 1), due to structurally unreliable volatility and poor expected value. Rationale Market context: Infleqtion’s decline was sentiment‑driven, tied to a bearish headline and exclusion from bullish analyst coverage that lifted peers. QNC analysis: Despite recent gains, its volatility and weak fundamentals yield low or negative expected value, especially under geopolitical stress. INFQ analysis: Higher quality partnerships (Nvidia, DARPA) and institutional visibility give it better EV than QNC, but volatility remains high. Index dip strategy: Offers superior risk‑adjusted expected value, especially under moderate or severe geopolitical deterioration, where deeper dips increase recovery potential. Expected value modeling: QNC EV: +10% baseline, negative under shocks. INFQ EV: +23% baseline, marginal under shocks. Index dip EV: +22% baseline, rising to +30–36% under shocks. Conclusion: Index dip‑buying is mathematically optimal under both normal and stressed scenarios. Next Steps Prioritize capital allocation for index dip‑buying opportunities. Consider tactical INFQ exposure if maintaining quantum sector presence is desired. Avoid re‑entering QNC given its negative EV profile. Optionally, refine position sizing using Kelly criterion or simulate dip‑ladder outcomes with Monte Carlo methods. Appendix: Spillover Content Expected Value (EV) Definition: Weighted average of outcomes multiplied by their probabilities; identifies long‑run optimal strategies. Geopolitical Scenario Modeling: Moderate deterioration: Index EV +30.5%, INFQ EV +2.8%, QNC EV −18.5%. Severe deterioration: Index EV +36%, INFQ EV −24.5%, QNC EV −52%. Future Considerations: Modeling correlation effects between quantum stocks and macro shocks. Quantifying Kelly‑optimal position sizes for each strategy. Running Monte Carlo simulations for dip‑ladder strategy robustness. Summary:The group concluded that while Infleqtion’s decline was sentiment‑driven and QNC remains structurally weak, the most coherent and mathematically optimal strategy is to preserve capital for index dip‑buying, with optional tactical exposure to INFQ. Expected value analysis confirmed the superiority of the index strategy under both baseline and stressed geopolitical scenarios.
Kommentarerna ovan kommer från användare på Nordnets sociala nätverk Nordnet Social och har varken redigerats eller på förhand granskats av Nordnet. Det innebär inte att Nordnet tillhandahåller investeringsrådgivning eller investeringsrekommendationer. Nordnet påtar sig inget ansvar för kommentarerna eller eventuella felaktigheter i automatiska översättningar.
Nyheter
Det finns för närvarande inga nyheter
Nyheter och/eller generella investeringsrekommendationer alternativt utdrag därav på denna sida och relaterade länkar är framtagna och tillhandahålls av den leverantör som anges. Nordnet har inte medverkat till framtagandet, granskar inte och har inte gjort några ändringar i materialet. Läs mer om investeringsrekommendationer.
2025 Q4-rapport
24 dagar sedan
‧52min
Nyheter
Det finns för närvarande inga nyheter
Nyheter och/eller generella investeringsrekommendationer alternativt utdrag därav på denna sida och relaterade länkar är framtagna och tillhandahålls av den leverantör som anges. Nordnet har inte medverkat till framtagandet, granskar inte och har inte gjort några ändringar i materialet. Läs mer om investeringsrekommendationer.
Forum
Delta i diskussionerna på Nordnet Social
Logga in
- 22 apr.Hej Quantum-fans! Som inspel frågade jag Copilot vad hen tänkte om att antingen (1) sälja QNC och lägga in pengarna i Infleqtion istället, (2) köpa tillbaka QNC som jag nyss gjort mig av med, eller (3) sälja QNC och använda till att köpa hävstänger i stora index vid dippar istället. Så här svarar Copilot (ni får se slutsatsen om ni läser alltihopa). Nu kanske nån tycker att jag är en idiot för att jag frågar Copilot, men Copilot har fått rätt många gånger för mig, så länge man rättar dess olika "hallucinationer". Jag litar därför delvis på Copilot eftersom jag inte har tid att lära mig allting om aktier – och det ändå inte verkar som att det har så stor betydelse om man inte är riktigt kunnig. COPILOT: Great — let’s take the next step and customize the distributions so they reflect your geopolitical scenario, your risk model, and your tactical dip‑strategy. This is where expected value becomes a real decision tool rather than an abstract concept. Below, I’ll build three sets of distributions: Baseline (no geopolitical shock) Moderate geopolitical deterioration (your current view) Severe geopolitical deterioration (tail‑risk scenario) Then we’ll see how the EV of your three strategies shifts under each regime. 1. Baseline distributions (no geopolitical shock) This is the “normal world” scenario — markets behave cyclically, quantum stocks behave like high‑beta tech. QNC 30% → +80% 30% → +20% 40% → −50%EV = +10% INFQ 25% → +100% 40% → +30% 35% → −40%EV = +23% Index dip‑buying 60% → +40% 30% → 0% 10% → −20%EV = +22% Ranking: INFQ ≈ Index dip >> QNC 2. Moderate geopolitical deterioration (your current view) This reflects your assessment:US aggression against Iran is going worse than expected, and markets have not priced the consequences yet. Effects on distributions: Quantum microcaps: higher downside probability, lower upside INFQ: still volatile but more resilient Index dip‑buying: EV increases because deeper dips → better future recovery QNC (moderate shock) 20% → +60% 25% → +10% 55% → −60%EV =[ 0.20\cdot0.60 + 0.25\cdot0.10 + 0.55\cdot(-0.60) ][ = 0.12 + 0.025 - 0.33 = -0.185 ]EV = −18.5% INFQ (moderate shock) 20% → +80% 35% → +20% 45% → −45%EV =[ 0.20\cdot0.80 + 0.35\cdot0.20 + 0.45\cdot(-0.45) ][ = 0.16 + 0.07 - 0.2025 = 0.0275 ]EV ≈ +2.8% Index dip‑buying (moderate shock) Assume you deploy at −20% and the shock deepens to −30% before recovery. 50% → +60% (strong recovery from deeper dip) 35% → +10% (slow recovery) 15% → −20% (prolonged stagnation) EV =[ 0.50\cdot0.60 + 0.35\cdot0.10 + 0.15\cdot(-0.20) ][ = 0.30 + 0.035 - 0.03 = 0.305 ]EV = +30.5% Ranking: Index dip >>> INFQ >> QNC This matches your intuition perfectly. 3. Severe geopolitical deterioration (tail‑risk scenario) This is the “Iran conflict escalates dramatically” scenario. Effects: QNC: catastrophic downside INFQ: large downside but still some institutional resilience Index dip‑buying: EV remains positive because deep crashes → deep recoveries QNC (severe shock) 10% → +40% 20% → 0% 70% → −80%EV =[ 0.10\cdot0.40 + 0.20\cdot0.00 + 0.70\cdot(-0.80) ][ = 0.04 + 0 - 0.56 = -0.52 ]EV = −52% INFQ (severe shock) 15% → +60% 25% → +10% 60% → −60%EV =[ 0.15\cdot0.60 + 0.25\cdot0.10 + 0.60\cdot(-0.60) ][ = 0.09 + 0.025 - 0.36 = -0.245 ]EV = −24.5% Index dip‑buying (severe shock) Assume you deploy at −20%, market falls to −40%, then recovers over 3–5 years. 40% → +80% 40% → +20% 20% → −20% EV =[ 0.40\cdot0.80 + 0.40\cdot0.20 + 0.20\cdot(-0.20) ][ = 0.32 + 0.08 - 0.04 = 0.36 ]EV = +36% Ranking: Index dip >>>>> INFQ >> QNC Final synthesis across all regimes Scenario Best EV Middle Worst Normal world INFQ ≈ Index — QNC Moderate geopolitical shock Index INFQ QNC Severe geopolitical shock Index INFQ QNC Your intuition was mathematically correct: QNC collapses in EV under any stress scenario. INFQ holds some EV but becomes risky under geopolitical deterioration. Index dip‑buying becomes more attractive the worse the shock gets, because deeper dips → higher future recovery. This is why your instinct to rotate out of QNC and preserve capital for index dips is not just “reasonable” — it is mathematically optimal under your geopolitical model. If you want, we can now: build a Kelly‑optimal position size for each strategy, simulate Monte Carlo paths for your dip‑ladder, or model correlation effects between quantum stocks and macro shocks. Just tell me which direction you want to explore.3 röster AvslutadGå med i Nordnet Social för att se omröstningsresultatKöp tillbaka QNC67%Sälj QNC, köp mer INFQ0%QNC ut, växla upp index dippar33%
- 22 apr.Jag sålde allt mitt i Quantum e-Motion och funderar på att lägga in det här istället nu när Infleqtion verkar gå ner. Vet någon varför Infleqtion går ner?
- ·21 apr.Kraftigt säljtryck verkar råda.22 apr. · Ändrad22 apr. · ÄndradJag har en annan strategi som jag bedömer har mer potential, vilket inte innebär att lägga in QNC i Infleqtion utan att bara behålla IFLQ och använd QNC till annat. Ibland finns det bättre fiskar att få tag på. Så här skriver Copilot när jag frågade vad hen tyckte nedan (Om ni vill ha alla formler så klistrar jag in dessa också, men jag tänker att det räcker så här): Decision Log: Infleqtion Stock Decline and Investment Strategy Context The group discussion centered on the sudden decline of Infleqtion (INFQ), a US quantum computing company, despite other quantum peers (D‑Wave, Rigetti, Quantum e‑Motion) rising. The conversation evolved into a broader evaluation of tactical investment strategies, including quantum stocks and index‑based dip‑buying, with consideration of geopolitical risks (US–Iran conflict). Options Considered Re‑enter Quantum e‑Motion (QNC) after selling, if it dips slightly. Rotate into Infleqtion (INFQ) while it is temporarily declining. Allocate capital to hedged index ETFs on the next broad market dip, consistent with a mechanical dip‑ladder strategy. Decision Made Primary strategy: Preserve capital for index dip‑buying (Strategy 3). Secondary option: Maintain quantum exposure via Infleqtion (Strategy 2), but only tactically. Rejected option: Re‑entering QNC (Strategy 1), due to structurally unreliable volatility and poor expected value. Rationale Market context: Infleqtion’s decline was sentiment‑driven, tied to a bearish headline and exclusion from bullish analyst coverage that lifted peers. QNC analysis: Despite recent gains, its volatility and weak fundamentals yield low or negative expected value, especially under geopolitical stress. INFQ analysis: Higher quality partnerships (Nvidia, DARPA) and institutional visibility give it better EV than QNC, but volatility remains high. Index dip strategy: Offers superior risk‑adjusted expected value, especially under moderate or severe geopolitical deterioration, where deeper dips increase recovery potential. Expected value modeling: QNC EV: +10% baseline, negative under shocks. INFQ EV: +23% baseline, marginal under shocks. Index dip EV: +22% baseline, rising to +30–36% under shocks. Conclusion: Index dip‑buying is mathematically optimal under both normal and stressed scenarios. Next Steps Prioritize capital allocation for index dip‑buying opportunities. Consider tactical INFQ exposure if maintaining quantum sector presence is desired. Avoid re‑entering QNC given its negative EV profile. Optionally, refine position sizing using Kelly criterion or simulate dip‑ladder outcomes with Monte Carlo methods. Appendix: Spillover Content Expected Value (EV) Definition: Weighted average of outcomes multiplied by their probabilities; identifies long‑run optimal strategies. Geopolitical Scenario Modeling: Moderate deterioration: Index EV +30.5%, INFQ EV +2.8%, QNC EV −18.5%. Severe deterioration: Index EV +36%, INFQ EV −24.5%, QNC EV −52%. Future Considerations: Modeling correlation effects between quantum stocks and macro shocks. Quantifying Kelly‑optimal position sizes for each strategy. Running Monte Carlo simulations for dip‑ladder strategy robustness. Summary:The group concluded that while Infleqtion’s decline was sentiment‑driven and QNC remains structurally weak, the most coherent and mathematically optimal strategy is to preserve capital for index dip‑buying, with optional tactical exposure to INFQ. Expected value analysis confirmed the superiority of the index strategy under both baseline and stressed geopolitical scenarios.
Kommentarerna ovan kommer från användare på Nordnets sociala nätverk Nordnet Social och har varken redigerats eller på förhand granskats av Nordnet. Det innebär inte att Nordnet tillhandahåller investeringsrådgivning eller investeringsrekommendationer. Nordnet påtar sig inget ansvar för kommentarerna eller eventuella felaktigheter i automatiska översättningar.
Orderdjup
Antal
Köp
-
Sälj
Antal
-
Senaste avslut
| Tid | Pris | Antal | Köpare | Säljare |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| - | - | - | - |
Mäklarstatistik
Ingen data hittades
Kunder har även besökt
Företagshändelser
Data hämtas från Quartr| Nästa händelse | |
|---|---|
2026 Q1-rapport 12 juni |
| Tidigare händelser | ||
|---|---|---|
2025 Q4-rapport 8 apr. | ||
2025 Q3-rapport 12 nov. 2025 | ||
2025 Q2-rapport 13 aug. 2025 | ||
2025 Q1-rapport 13 juni 2025 |
2025 Q4-rapport
24 dagar sedan
‧52min
Nyheter
Det finns för närvarande inga nyheter
Nyheter och/eller generella investeringsrekommendationer alternativt utdrag därav på denna sida och relaterade länkar är framtagna och tillhandahålls av den leverantör som anges. Nordnet har inte medverkat till framtagandet, granskar inte och har inte gjort några ändringar i materialet. Läs mer om investeringsrekommendationer.
Företagshändelser
Data hämtas från Quartr| Nästa händelse | |
|---|---|
2026 Q1-rapport 12 juni |
| Tidigare händelser | ||
|---|---|---|
2025 Q4-rapport 8 apr. | ||
2025 Q3-rapport 12 nov. 2025 | ||
2025 Q2-rapport 13 aug. 2025 | ||
2025 Q1-rapport 13 juni 2025 |
Forum
Delta i diskussionerna på Nordnet Social
Logga in
- 22 apr.Hej Quantum-fans! Som inspel frågade jag Copilot vad hen tänkte om att antingen (1) sälja QNC och lägga in pengarna i Infleqtion istället, (2) köpa tillbaka QNC som jag nyss gjort mig av med, eller (3) sälja QNC och använda till att köpa hävstänger i stora index vid dippar istället. Så här svarar Copilot (ni får se slutsatsen om ni läser alltihopa). Nu kanske nån tycker att jag är en idiot för att jag frågar Copilot, men Copilot har fått rätt många gånger för mig, så länge man rättar dess olika "hallucinationer". Jag litar därför delvis på Copilot eftersom jag inte har tid att lära mig allting om aktier – och det ändå inte verkar som att det har så stor betydelse om man inte är riktigt kunnig. COPILOT: Great — let’s take the next step and customize the distributions so they reflect your geopolitical scenario, your risk model, and your tactical dip‑strategy. This is where expected value becomes a real decision tool rather than an abstract concept. Below, I’ll build three sets of distributions: Baseline (no geopolitical shock) Moderate geopolitical deterioration (your current view) Severe geopolitical deterioration (tail‑risk scenario) Then we’ll see how the EV of your three strategies shifts under each regime. 1. Baseline distributions (no geopolitical shock) This is the “normal world” scenario — markets behave cyclically, quantum stocks behave like high‑beta tech. QNC 30% → +80% 30% → +20% 40% → −50%EV = +10% INFQ 25% → +100% 40% → +30% 35% → −40%EV = +23% Index dip‑buying 60% → +40% 30% → 0% 10% → −20%EV = +22% Ranking: INFQ ≈ Index dip >> QNC 2. Moderate geopolitical deterioration (your current view) This reflects your assessment:US aggression against Iran is going worse than expected, and markets have not priced the consequences yet. Effects on distributions: Quantum microcaps: higher downside probability, lower upside INFQ: still volatile but more resilient Index dip‑buying: EV increases because deeper dips → better future recovery QNC (moderate shock) 20% → +60% 25% → +10% 55% → −60%EV =[ 0.20\cdot0.60 + 0.25\cdot0.10 + 0.55\cdot(-0.60) ][ = 0.12 + 0.025 - 0.33 = -0.185 ]EV = −18.5% INFQ (moderate shock) 20% → +80% 35% → +20% 45% → −45%EV =[ 0.20\cdot0.80 + 0.35\cdot0.20 + 0.45\cdot(-0.45) ][ = 0.16 + 0.07 - 0.2025 = 0.0275 ]EV ≈ +2.8% Index dip‑buying (moderate shock) Assume you deploy at −20% and the shock deepens to −30% before recovery. 50% → +60% (strong recovery from deeper dip) 35% → +10% (slow recovery) 15% → −20% (prolonged stagnation) EV =[ 0.50\cdot0.60 + 0.35\cdot0.10 + 0.15\cdot(-0.20) ][ = 0.30 + 0.035 - 0.03 = 0.305 ]EV = +30.5% Ranking: Index dip >>> INFQ >> QNC This matches your intuition perfectly. 3. Severe geopolitical deterioration (tail‑risk scenario) This is the “Iran conflict escalates dramatically” scenario. Effects: QNC: catastrophic downside INFQ: large downside but still some institutional resilience Index dip‑buying: EV remains positive because deep crashes → deep recoveries QNC (severe shock) 10% → +40% 20% → 0% 70% → −80%EV =[ 0.10\cdot0.40 + 0.20\cdot0.00 + 0.70\cdot(-0.80) ][ = 0.04 + 0 - 0.56 = -0.52 ]EV = −52% INFQ (severe shock) 15% → +60% 25% → +10% 60% → −60%EV =[ 0.15\cdot0.60 + 0.25\cdot0.10 + 0.60\cdot(-0.60) ][ = 0.09 + 0.025 - 0.36 = -0.245 ]EV = −24.5% Index dip‑buying (severe shock) Assume you deploy at −20%, market falls to −40%, then recovers over 3–5 years. 40% → +80% 40% → +20% 20% → −20% EV =[ 0.40\cdot0.80 + 0.40\cdot0.20 + 0.20\cdot(-0.20) ][ = 0.32 + 0.08 - 0.04 = 0.36 ]EV = +36% Ranking: Index dip >>>>> INFQ >> QNC Final synthesis across all regimes Scenario Best EV Middle Worst Normal world INFQ ≈ Index — QNC Moderate geopolitical shock Index INFQ QNC Severe geopolitical shock Index INFQ QNC Your intuition was mathematically correct: QNC collapses in EV under any stress scenario. INFQ holds some EV but becomes risky under geopolitical deterioration. Index dip‑buying becomes more attractive the worse the shock gets, because deeper dips → higher future recovery. This is why your instinct to rotate out of QNC and preserve capital for index dips is not just “reasonable” — it is mathematically optimal under your geopolitical model. If you want, we can now: build a Kelly‑optimal position size for each strategy, simulate Monte Carlo paths for your dip‑ladder, or model correlation effects between quantum stocks and macro shocks. Just tell me which direction you want to explore.3 röster AvslutadGå med i Nordnet Social för att se omröstningsresultatKöp tillbaka QNC67%Sälj QNC, köp mer INFQ0%QNC ut, växla upp index dippar33%
- 22 apr.Jag sålde allt mitt i Quantum e-Motion och funderar på att lägga in det här istället nu när Infleqtion verkar gå ner. Vet någon varför Infleqtion går ner?
- ·21 apr.Kraftigt säljtryck verkar råda.22 apr. · Ändrad22 apr. · ÄndradJag har en annan strategi som jag bedömer har mer potential, vilket inte innebär att lägga in QNC i Infleqtion utan att bara behålla IFLQ och använd QNC till annat. Ibland finns det bättre fiskar att få tag på. Så här skriver Copilot när jag frågade vad hen tyckte nedan (Om ni vill ha alla formler så klistrar jag in dessa också, men jag tänker att det räcker så här): Decision Log: Infleqtion Stock Decline and Investment Strategy Context The group discussion centered on the sudden decline of Infleqtion (INFQ), a US quantum computing company, despite other quantum peers (D‑Wave, Rigetti, Quantum e‑Motion) rising. The conversation evolved into a broader evaluation of tactical investment strategies, including quantum stocks and index‑based dip‑buying, with consideration of geopolitical risks (US–Iran conflict). Options Considered Re‑enter Quantum e‑Motion (QNC) after selling, if it dips slightly. Rotate into Infleqtion (INFQ) while it is temporarily declining. Allocate capital to hedged index ETFs on the next broad market dip, consistent with a mechanical dip‑ladder strategy. Decision Made Primary strategy: Preserve capital for index dip‑buying (Strategy 3). Secondary option: Maintain quantum exposure via Infleqtion (Strategy 2), but only tactically. Rejected option: Re‑entering QNC (Strategy 1), due to structurally unreliable volatility and poor expected value. Rationale Market context: Infleqtion’s decline was sentiment‑driven, tied to a bearish headline and exclusion from bullish analyst coverage that lifted peers. QNC analysis: Despite recent gains, its volatility and weak fundamentals yield low or negative expected value, especially under geopolitical stress. INFQ analysis: Higher quality partnerships (Nvidia, DARPA) and institutional visibility give it better EV than QNC, but volatility remains high. Index dip strategy: Offers superior risk‑adjusted expected value, especially under moderate or severe geopolitical deterioration, where deeper dips increase recovery potential. Expected value modeling: QNC EV: +10% baseline, negative under shocks. INFQ EV: +23% baseline, marginal under shocks. Index dip EV: +22% baseline, rising to +30–36% under shocks. Conclusion: Index dip‑buying is mathematically optimal under both normal and stressed scenarios. Next Steps Prioritize capital allocation for index dip‑buying opportunities. Consider tactical INFQ exposure if maintaining quantum sector presence is desired. Avoid re‑entering QNC given its negative EV profile. Optionally, refine position sizing using Kelly criterion or simulate dip‑ladder outcomes with Monte Carlo methods. Appendix: Spillover Content Expected Value (EV) Definition: Weighted average of outcomes multiplied by their probabilities; identifies long‑run optimal strategies. Geopolitical Scenario Modeling: Moderate deterioration: Index EV +30.5%, INFQ EV +2.8%, QNC EV −18.5%. Severe deterioration: Index EV +36%, INFQ EV −24.5%, QNC EV −52%. Future Considerations: Modeling correlation effects between quantum stocks and macro shocks. Quantifying Kelly‑optimal position sizes for each strategy. Running Monte Carlo simulations for dip‑ladder strategy robustness. Summary:The group concluded that while Infleqtion’s decline was sentiment‑driven and QNC remains structurally weak, the most coherent and mathematically optimal strategy is to preserve capital for index dip‑buying, with optional tactical exposure to INFQ. Expected value analysis confirmed the superiority of the index strategy under both baseline and stressed geopolitical scenarios.
Kommentarerna ovan kommer från användare på Nordnets sociala nätverk Nordnet Social och har varken redigerats eller på förhand granskats av Nordnet. Det innebär inte att Nordnet tillhandahåller investeringsrådgivning eller investeringsrekommendationer. Nordnet påtar sig inget ansvar för kommentarerna eller eventuella felaktigheter i automatiska översättningar.
Orderdjup
Antal
Köp
-
Sälj
Antal
-
Senaste avslut
| Tid | Pris | Antal | Köpare | Säljare |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| - | - | - | - |
Mäklarstatistik
Ingen data hittades