111–120 of 220 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You pay more taxes on dividends, you still pay taxes on Capital gains, just less.
In the US yes, other places, that's not the case
I think I'll delete my YC account, as it became a shit show
Why aren't shareholders on the hook for bailing out their own companies? They have the financial incentive to protect their own investments. Why is bailing out a compay different from "investing" in it? What is an investment besides a non-emergency bailout? Edit: Why don't companies raise money by issuing more stock? Isn't that what the stock matket is for?
Here businesses that may otherwise be perfectly sane are temporarily prevented (or limited) by the state from operating for the public good.
It's analogous to the state paying for the property they seize under eminent domain.
Why aren't shareholders on the hook for bailing out their own companies? They have the financial incentive to protect their own investments. Why is bailing out a compay different from "investing" in it? What is an investment besides a non-emergency bailout? Edit: Why don't companies raise money by issuing more stock? Isn't that what the stock matket is for?
The way shares work is a way for a publicly traded company to obtain a loan. It does this by issuing shares which can be bought by investors. Shareholders are not liable except for their initial investment.
After selling shares, these can be traded i.e. on NASDAQ, but any price on the shares there only reflects the public perception of value of any given company. It's a high risk lottery.
This is also the reason that companies pay out large dividends to shareholders. They're obligated by law to payout dividends. Think of it as interest on a loan.
Why aren't shareholders on the hook for bailing out their own companies? They have the financial incentive to protect their own investments. Why is bailing out a compay different from "investing" in it? What is an investment besides a non-emergency bailout? Edit: Why don't companies raise money by issuing more stock? Isn't that what the stock matket is for?
By "cost more" I mean not just in sheer money, but also counting the overall impact on the population.
.. or dividends as the article says. Devil is in the details. Maybe French government has good conditions for the aid, but the article is not giving details. Aid should be exchangeable debt for public companies. No dividends and buybacks. No executive bonuses or options until the debt is paid full. After (5-7) years the remaining debt is exchanged into company stocks in a rate that leaves the government in the neutra…
I am often left surprised by how many people are always and only read the headlines. Even those who do read the headlines and the article, don't really question it.
Why aren't shareholders on the hook for bailing out their own companies? They have the financial incentive to protect their own investments. Why is bailing out a compay different from "investing" in it? What is an investment besides a non-emergency bailout? Edit: Why don't companies raise money by issuing more stock? Isn't that what the stock matket is for?
Shareholders are already on the hook. The way shares work is a way for a publicly traded company to obtain a loan. It does this by issuing shares which can be bought by investors. Shareholders are not liable except for their initial investment. After selling shares, these can be traded i.e. on NASDAQ, but any price on the shares there only reflects the public perception of value of any given company. It's a high risk…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Investing is privatizing the risks and the benefits. Bailing out is privatizing the benefits but mutualizing the risks. It's taking what favors you from both capitalism and socialism, call that a free market, and pretend it's for the common good. You always win. People says communism didn't work looking at Russia and China. But the ruling class will abuse any system to the point it doesn't look like the original idea…
Communism and capitalism do share a weakness: corruption of those with power. One difference between them is that a dangerous concentration of power is inherent to communism. It's intentional. In capitalism, it's an unintended consequence that can be mitigated by regulations (anti-trust laws, subsidies to startups, etc.)
Why aren't shareholders on the hook for bailing out their own companies? They have the financial incentive to protect their own investments. Why is bailing out a compay different from "investing" in it? What is an investment besides a non-emergency bailout? Edit: Why don't companies raise money by issuing more stock? Isn't that what the stock matket is for?
> Why is bailing out a compay different from "investing" in it? What is an investment besides a non-emergency bailout? Bailing a company out is just a euphemism for making a very high risk investment that the market is unwilling to do. Putting aside whether that is the correct thing to do or not, the option would likely (in a recession) be mass unemployment, so there's an incentive from the state, that likely wishes…
This sounds like it should be a similar mechanism as startups' liquidation preference schemes. Investors that provided capital when others wouldn't are in a position to request that they get paid back in priority. For startups, it's (usually) if it fails. For mature companies, it could be a tweaked form like dividend priority or payback priority. Basically a mechanism to balance out the risk.
Once any pattern is formed and determined, there are always some people who will attempt to exploit it, and those people are often the ones who would eventually ruin all the good things for everybody else.