171–180 of 191 posts
Can't comment on the "long-term" success of LTSE, but I LOVE the philosophy. Optimising for long-term benefits could help our civilisation become aware, and actively take steps towards the oncoming ecological disaster (because capitalism says if we're destroying the Earth, the solution isn't to stop "growth" and save Earth... Find another Earth instead!)
Is the intent to compete for listings against NYSE, LSE, SEHK, NASDAQ, etc.?
The "blind" focus on quarterly reports is real. It had me wonder what the opposite would be... Imagine we forged a formula for 1000+ year projects. They would require more money periodically and the availability of new funds would have a strong influance on the value of previous cash injections. One could buy the "failing" project cheap then simply do the new cash injection yourself OR in case of success one could ob…
You might be interested in the wonderful book series "The Three-Body Problem" by Liu Cixin. It explores (among countless other things) how huge expensive projects that last multiple generations could be implemented.
An incredibly important initiative, although I'm wondering how it will catch up. The current public trading framework has so many issues, it defeats the original purpose. * amazing number of parasite intermediaries that create absolutely no value. Someone sells a day after they bought, how did it contribute to the economy or the company that tries to create the value? * opacity required to keep the system "fair", and…
This is terrible. > Through brand new listing standards, software tools, and advocacy, we’re reinventing the public company experience with novel approaches to executive compensation, shareholder voting, disclosure practices, board and stakeholder policies, and community governance. None of this reduces short term trading. Even if it did, reducing short term trading would make for a less efficient market and prolong…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> This is a popular opinion, but I find it difficult to believe. It relies on the notion that stockholders are fools and unable to recognize when a company destroys its long term prospects for short term gain. Not necessarily "fools". "Not experts" and "easy to influence" would be like it. Very much the trouble with the modern democracy: incompetents elect those who scream the loudest and say what they want to hear.…
> I experienced the short-term thinking firsthand I have too. The company stock tanked and the company disappeared. There's a word for short term companies - "bankrupt". Investors as group are simply not that stupid.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That’s a good observation. Today’s Dual class systems only protect the founders from a specific kind of short-term pressure. But there are still thousands of employees overreacting to volatility and jumping at shadows. Our rules are designed to address the full “user experience” of being an employee in a public company, with the goal of aligning the whole enterprise towards more Long-Term goals.
employees should not be compensated with stock. Stock based compensation creates incentives for such employees to increase just the stock price without increasing the underlying value generation mechanism. Paying in stock also means you're forcing the employee to 'invest'. While it's true that paying with stock is a form of hand-cuffing to make sure the employee's incentive aligns with the company, i feel it's just t…
So they have to fool an army of analysts that are generally very very good at predicting growth and profits? They have to fool institutional investors who are literally pros at filtering through BS filing gimmicks.
I've worked on trying trade automatically trade earnings reports (professionally) and the biggest problem was always the numbers didn't tell the complete story and investors caught on in literally seconds.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> requires more structured accounting (GAAP vs cash accounting), and invites external scrutiny and pressure. aren't all these good things? Prevents both scamming, as well as ensuring that the founders take a careful look at their business, and that it isn't purely fueled by stock/investment, but is generating profit?
If I'm an investor, I want comparable accounting which means GAAP; if I'm a founder, maybe I just want to know what's in the bank account and don't want to deal with deferring recognition of income for long term contracts. External scrutiny and pressure is a mixed bag. It probably reduces the chances of doing something stupid that destroys the company, but it also reduces the chances of doing something stupid that ch…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's not necessarily true.
I've done well investing on the presumption that companies are long term focused. I.e. I'm a buy and hold and hold and hold investor. The longest I've held a stock (Boeing) is 37 years. You can check how well it's done for yourself over that time period, and Boeing was constantly charged with destroying the long term in favor of short term results. It's inconceivable that Boeing was not long term focused with those r…
Say that Boeing was short term focused over that time period but managed to do well, quarter after quarter, continuing to rise. It's possible that if instead Boeing had been long term focused over that time period, each many individual quarters would have been worse, but it could have a higher valuation now.
Of course, that's certainly not proof that they were long term focused, just that they weren't definitely short term focused.
"short-term pressures were driving their decision-making, often at the sacrifice of the long-term potential of the business." This is a popular opinion, but I find it difficult to believe. It relies on the notion that stockholders are fools and unable to recognize when a company destroys its long term prospects for short term gain. The trouble is, once the short term gain is there, who are the short termers going to…
I think from first principles (e.g. just iterating backwards from the first quarter where short-termism has led to long term failures), there's not necessarily a reason to think that this is likely, but I'm not sure it's ruled out by your evidence.