Humanities desk
< February 17	<< Jan \| February \| Mar >>	February 19 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

February 18

Does the disruptive innovation in science really decline

Look into this.
Does it really happend? 2A02:908:424:9D60:E877:288E:B474:CE46 (talk) 09:33, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I guess so. Why would you doubt it? Nature is one of the most prestigious academic journals in the world. Shantavira|^{feed me} 11:24, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps a vindication of the The Low-Hanging Fruit Argument? Alansplodge (talk) 11:34, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Like the article says, it could just be that there are a lot more researchers putting out dreck per "publish or perish". (There was a question not too long ago about a chemistry[?] paper that spoofed/parodied this.) I'd be more interested in the actual number of breakout papers. Clarityfiend (talk) 13:46, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There's a book by John Horgan titled The End of Science: Facing the Limits of Knowledge in the Twilight of the Scientific Age which predicts a slowing in fundamental discoveries, which would often require understanding the totality of interactions within extremely complex systems, or impractical tools such as particle accelerators of titanic size, etc. I actually own a copy, but I didn't get far in reading it before a pile of other books accumulated on top of it, so I don't know the details... AnonMoos (talk) 13:51, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Since the number of published science and technology research papers has exploded in the past five decades or so (see Publish or perish also mentioned above), while the funding for the basic research needed for breakthrough results has not, it would be truly astonishing if the proportion of innovative publications had not drastically decreased. --Lambiam 15:38, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"The Economist" wrote about it, too. "Papers and patents are becoming less disruptive:" paywalled here [[<https://www.economist.com/science-and-technology/2023/01/04/papers-and-patents-are-becoming-less-disruptive>]]. DOR (ex-HK) (talk) 15:32, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article in The Economist is a report (no byline) of the study by Michael Park, Russell Funk and Erin Leahey, similar to the report in Nature by Max Kozlov linked to in the OP. --Lambiam 00:16, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Some experts think that the method used (evaluating a bibliometric index) may be wrong. See, for example, this source (autotraslated). Alexcalamaro (talk) 06:34, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Stock (NAV) formula

So previously, I had thought that people who buy stocks, are putting money into the stock, which causes stock to go up. But now I found a book with a formula that shows the inverse is true. The formula is total assets - liabilities / outstanding shares. So the denominator is the amount of shareholders, as more people buy a stock, the denominator gets bigger, making the stock go down. And so therefore people who sold stocks, makes stocks go up. Am I missing something here? 67.165.185.178 (talk) 14:15, 18 February 2023 (UTC).[reply]

Yes. The number of shares -- not shareholders, but units of stock -- does not often change, so the denominator stays the same. DOR (ex-HK) (talk) 15:34, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Stocks tend not to increase the number of shares outstanding after the IPO. When someone buys the stock, it does not increase the number of shares. A stock split doubles the number of shares but halves the price of the stock -- a wash. When the number of shares outstanding is increased, it's called "dilution" because then the simple formula mentioned kicks in and the value of the stock, absent other factors, decreases. Incidentally, the more accurate numerator would be "the sum of all discounted future cashflow."2600:1700:A3A0:1630:4980:8FAA:9545:138F (talk) 2600:1700:A3A0:1630:4980:8FAA:9545:138F (talk) 01:43, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The book you were reading apparently was discussing mutual funds or other investment funds, since it was talking about NAV, or net asset value. When you buy or sell mutual fund shares, you transact directly with the fund, and your purchase or redemption is priced at the NAV per share. Let’s say you have a mutual fund with one million shares outstanding and $10 million in net assets, so it has an NAV per share of $10.00. When you buy 500 shares, the price is $10.00 per share, so after your purchase the fund has $10,005,000 in net assets and 1,000,500 shares outstanding. The NAV per share remains $10.00. If you then sell (redeem) the 500 shares, the process is reversed.

However, some funds are closed-end funds, which have a constant number of shares outstanding (or, at least, a number that is not affected by your purchases and sales). The trading prices of these shares are set by the market, not NAV. Let’s say we again have a fund with $10 million in net assets and one million shares. Although the NAV per share is still $10.00, there will be a different market price, say $9.00. Maybe your purchase of 500 shares will affect the market price, pushing it up to $9.01. But it won’t affect the net assets, outstanding shares, or NAV per share.

For regular companies that are not investment funds, your purchase or sale is probably like that of closed-end funds - your transaction does not affect the company’s net assets or outstanding shares, although it may affect the share price. Exchange-traded funds are a special case that I will not get into here. John M Baker (talk) 05:50, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @DOR (HK): @John M Baker: for bank stocks, does people take out or putting in money can directly affect the banks stocks? Asset size. 67.165.185.178 (talk) 09:27, 24 February 2023 (UTC).[reply]

For withdrawals, the stock price might only fall in the extreme case of a bank run, which would be very rare because of (in the US and other modern financial systems) federal deposit insurance. In the highly unusual event of excess deposits, interest paid on deposits would fall, perhaps even below zero (charging a fee for keeping your money safe from burglars). That should not have an effect on the stock price.DOR (ex-HK) (talk) 16:35, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

By “take out or putting in money,” are you referring to purchases and sales of the bank’s common stock, or deposits and withdrawals at the bank? Purchases and sales of common stock may affect the trading price of the stock, but will not affect the bank’s assets, except in the unusual case where the bank itself sells the stock (usually in a registered public offering) or repurchases it (typically through open market purchases). Deposits and withdrawals directly affect the bank’s asset size, which may or may not affect the stock price. John M Baker (talk) 17:03, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

USA: is this illegal, question. Bankers.

I hope this question has some aspects to it. Suppose I go to the bank to do something with a bank teller, and they see my real name, the amount of money I have, etc. And then that employee posts on their social media "Guess who came into the bank today?" And posts an approximate amount of money the customer have. Or tells other people in which other people post on social media. Is this illegal, or both a rule and illegal? Cuz I imagine if the banks knew about it, it's against the rules and they would just fire the employee. I imagine this kind of thing is an issue for some some-what famous people. Heh. 67.165.185.178 (talk) 14:28, 18 February 2023 (UTC).[reply]

See bank secrecy generally and more specifically Financial privacy laws in the United States. In short, the teller would most likely be violating a law by making your banking information public, although which law would vary depending on the jurisdiction (other countries such as Canada have a national law covering banking secrecy). Xuxl (talk) 14:55, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

O yea, as a 2nd question, I'd like to know if it's legally possible to obtain how much money a person had in their bank accounts, after they died. Is there a statute of limitation for this? 67.165.185.178 (talk) 18:22, 18 February 2023 (UTC).[reply]

Generally speaking, that kind of question would be settled by the handling of the estate. But I wouldn't think that would be public knowledge. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:12, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Interestingly, in some jurisdictions this is public knowledge, up to a point: After a person's death where Probate is obtained to their estate, the net value of the estate is included in the grant of representation, as is a copy of the will, and these are publicly accessible documents. This is the case in England and Wales, for example. AndyJones (talk) 13:57, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Of course this only gives you one number, not any kind of breakdown. Also you don't get any wealth that isn't passing under the grant: joint assets, assets outside the jurisdiction, assets held in trusts and so-forth. AndyJones (talk) 14:03, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Forbes etc publish lists of extremely wealthy individuals, ranked by net worth. But these are estimates, based on those components of their wealth that is public knowledge. I'm sure the Rupert Murdochs of the world have stacks of $$$ in places that virtually nobody knows about. And I doubt they use banks for their savings anyway. They're more likely to own banks. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:44, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I read that one of the reasons why there weren't many Americans in the Panama Papers and the Paradise Papers is because Americans prefer Delaware rather than foreign tax havens. --Error (talk) 02:05, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delaware is very good for taxes, but not for secrecy. DOR (ex-HK) (talk) 16:38, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]