Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Crash of ’87, from the Wall Street Players Who Lived It

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 164 posts

Re: The Crash of ’87, from the Wall Street Players Who Lived It

#51

Post by pm215 »

technofire wrote: post #45

Does anyone else find it surprising and remarkable that Paul Tudor Jones' monospaced letter is perfectly flush on the left and right margins with apparently no hyphenation nor additional inserted spaces within the lines? Surely this did not happen by coincidence (?).

Looking closely, it doesn't actually seem to be monospaced. For instance in the last-but-two line the "t" in "we project" is pretty much midway between the two letters of "it" in the line below it. The text has been justified I think both by increases in inter-word spacing and by putting slightly more space between letters as necessary.

Re: The Crash of ’87, from the Wall Street Players Who Lived It

#52

Post by thedufer »

bildung wrote: post #31
charlesdm wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In addition to what others have said: an opportunity to invest. There are plenty of great investment opportunities around, but not all can be had at the click of a button. It makes it easy for an investor living in France to invest in a US tech company.

How would that work? The company doesn't get any money from you - it already sold its shares at the IPO.

We wouldn't have to call it an Initial Public Offering if companies never sold shares in subsequent Public Offerings. Most trades don't have the company in question on the selling side, but some do, even after the IPO.

Re: The Crash of ’87, from the Wall Street Players Who Lived It

#53

Post by eru »

marak830 wrote: post #7

A side note, and I'm really hoping someone can explain this. What benefit does the stock market provide to us? I understand investing in companies, but for me, and I'll admit a completely naive person to this whole system, it seems to have taken an 'inbest in company with money to help them succeed', to a 'who cares let's just cut and run to make the best profit'. I'm perfectly willing to take a link to a great expla…

If there's an IPO of two otherwise identical companies, which one would you pay more for:

- company A who's shares will be traded in a deep and liquid market, so you can get rid of them whenever you need money (eg for unforeseen circumstances)

- company B who's shares can not be sold easily afterwards?

If the answer is A, you see how the secondary market can help the first issuer reap a higher price, thus helping the company succeed.

By the way, you are not alone. I was asking myself very similar questions a while ago. Mostly in the form of: "why would a company's management ever care about share price?" (Outside of when it's trying to raise more capital.)

Re: The Crash of ’87, from the Wall Street Players Who Lived It

#54

Post by gjulianm »

lmm wrote: post #39
marak830 wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Direct: I can understand. Indirect: that seems like a losing game. Why would gambling on a companies future ever help anyone(except the lucky?).

> Why would gambling on a companies future ever help anyone(except the lucky?). Prediction markets are the most efficient way to make societal decisions; they allow everyone to combine their information and predictions without having to directly coordinate with each other. There's academic literature arguing they'd be the best way to do politics etc. At the moment all we do with them is capital allocation, but that h…

Sorry but I have to make the precision: market optimized for monetary output and not necesarily social good. Companies doing well in the stock market might be exploiting workers, unnecessarily exposing consumers to different dangers, destroying the environment or a plethora of any other bad things and the stock market would not care as long as it does not create a PR problem that could affect sales of the company.

Similarly, a company that does well socially (e.g, a public hospital) but not economically would get obliterated in the stock market.

Re: The Crash of ’87, from the Wall Street Players Who Lived It

#55

Post by liotier »

marak830 wrote: post #18
liotier wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What benefit does the stock market provide to us ? Direct benefit: liquidity - whether you need to buy or to sell, you have a place where you'll find a counterpart quickly. Indirect benefit: information - just watching the bets lets you have an idea about how much people with skin in the game value things, letting you take better decisions about resources allocation.

The direct I can understand, I want to sell a portion of my business on the bote that I will give that direct portion profit to the holder. How would any of the other trading help my business, or anyone else?

Liquidity is correlated to trading volumes - so the more people exchange shares of your company, the quicker you can find a counterpart. Investors accept lower returns if they can get their money back whenever they please, so a liquid investment vehicle is advantaged.

Ceteris paribus, volatility is negatively correlated to trading volumes: if your shares are only exchanged twice a week (actual trading volumes for a small company on some exotic exchange) the price variations will inevitably happen in large steps, which does not reassure investors. And if the company is not publicly traded, who knows what the price of the next transaction will be ?

A lively market for an investment vehicle opens the possibility of derivatives, which are valuable to investors interested in the company but whose appetite for risk is limited. So if your company's shares trade has derivatives, it makes them more attractive.

Re: The Crash of ’87, from the Wall Street Players Who Lived It

#56

Post by netsharc »

technofire wrote: post #45

Does anyone else find it surprising and remarkable that Paul Tudor Jones' monospaced letter is perfectly flush on the left and right margins with apparently no hyphenation nor additional inserted spaces within the lines? Surely this did not happen by coincidence (?).

Presumably done by an electronic typewriter? AFAIK they would buffer a line (or more?) of whatever you're writing, and when you hit enter, everything will be printed/punched out. I'm guessing it has a setting to justify, and it does that by adjusting the gaps between letters.

Re: The Crash of ’87, from the Wall Street Players Who Lived It

#57

Post by ThomPete »

marak830 wrote: post #7

A side note, and I'm really hoping someone can explain this. What benefit does the stock market provide to us? I understand investing in companies, but for me, and I'll admit a completely naive person to this whole system, it seems to have taken an 'inbest in company with money to help them succeed', to a 'who cares let's just cut and run to make the best profit'. I'm perfectly willing to take a link to a great expla…

Do you mean to society or to the companies onbthecstock market?

Re: The Crash of ’87, from the Wall Street Players Who Lived It

#58

Post by gjulianm »

consz wrote: post #26
marak830 wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I see and almost understand what you are writing, but how does this help the original business. Say I'm business A. I'll offer a portion of my business (say 40%) with the offer that you will reap 40% of my profit. (Assuming one person pays in for that whole value).(edit: I offer this as the income will allow me to expand where as otherwise I'd have to wait longer depending on profit) At what point does almost anythin…

>Everything else seems likes gambling, imho, and I still can't wrap my head around why it's allowed. Let's even suppose you're right, and it is only gambling -- why should it be disallowed?

Because it is gambling with real world consequences. Stock markets influence company behavior which in turn have very real effects over people lives (layoffs, salary reductions, increased hours). So it is a conflict of interests between people that are gambling and people who are just going around with their lives but have no power to counter market gambler movements.

Re: The Crash of ’87, from the Wall Street Players Who Lived It

#60

Post by codeisawesome »

lifebeyondfife wrote: post #30
marak830 wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I see and almost understand what you are writing, but how does this help the original business. Say I'm business A. I'll offer a portion of my business (say 40%) with the offer that you will reap 40% of my profit. (Assuming one person pays in for that whole value).(edit: I offer this as the income will allow me to expand where as otherwise I'd have to wait longer depending on profit) At what point does almost anythin…

*At what point does almost anything else you mentioned help the business?* Firstly, it's a market place. The business and investor need to find each other. To create the market place, you must understand that different investors and different businesses have use cases that you don't need, such as "almost anything else" I mentioned. *Everything else seems likes gambling, imho* One of the dimensions is risk profile. So…

So we do admit the words bet and gambling apply to derivatives, at some point in these discussions. Fine.

The reason why folks must be confused is that, non Stock market gambling is seen as a vice and/or crime by much of human society. There are religious edicts and/or laws against this practice in most places. The Stock Market getting a free pass from this view - and most people (including myself) not knowing about the nature of this system until they dig a bit deeper - seems unfair.

Las Vegas is looked upon as lascivious even when some of the gambling requires skill (Poker / Blackjack) - derivates trading is instead marketed as a great career where the people doing are superheroes.

I’m not bitter about this even if the message sounds so. Just fascinated by the asymmetry of perception.

Post reply on HN