341–350 of 561 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ask your broker. They are probably a member already.
"Ask your broker" is so 1998.
Congratulations. "We shape our buildings; thereafter they shape us." -- Winston Churchill Though I barely understand such things, I'm very excited by your LTSE and Katsuyama's Investors Exchange (IEX). Listening to your interviews about LTSE, my takeaway is that your goal is to allow companies to be judged on their own merits, instead of someone else's. So one side effect may be to help migrate private equity funded…
I concur! Market design is so important. Eric, I worked at the world's first carbon market over a decade ago (Chicago Climate Exchange) and a group of us are at the early stages of designing some new exchanges focused on fixing market failures across several sectors. I've been following your work for a long time, and I am excited to see LTSE finally launch. I am concerned about the ability for people to create second…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Correct. There is no need for you to transact on LTSE for the specific use cases you've outlined in this thread. We are open for business so, for the first time, you're able to if you want to.
Forgive the stupid question, but what's the continuity plan LTSE shuts down in a decade. Who does my share of MSFT go to?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't understand this criticism. We are actively trading stocks today: https://markets.cboe.com/us/equities/market_share/ You can call your broker right now and ask them to direct your orders to a specific exchange, including "L" on the SIP.
So you can buy stocks through the LTSE that aren't listed on the LTSE? If so, why would someone do that? I think GP's point is that you're saying "we're open for business", but the LTSE isn't offering people who buy stocks any added value yet.
It's clearly not zero, so somebody sees some benefit in it. So I don't see the issue with saying that we are "open for business"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The pressure comes from investors. (The board is elected by shareholders, so in theory they represent the wishes of investors). It's extremely difficult/rare to find investors who will just sit back and trust the CEO run the company as they see fit, particularly in a world where "unicorns" are going from zero to $billions in a few years. It happens occasionally, but only in the case of extreme outlier companies where…
I don't know why people continuously repeat this narrative. Two of the largest companies in the world, and in the history of humankind, are constantly marched higher by this "shortsighted" investor base: AMZN and TSLA. People say companies pursue short-term gains but in reality they just mean they pursue things they disagree with. And herein lies the dirty secret: professional investors aren't short-sighted, they jus…
Both companies you mentioned have had particular conditions that allowed them to be long-term focused. For Amazon it was that they achieved huge growth and cash flow from very early in their history and so Bezos has been able to call the shots. For Tesla it was that Musk was already rich and could spend several years investing his own money before needing outside investment. (And by the way, just look at the crap Musk has to deal with from a major segment of the investor community as he seeks to pursue a bold long term vision; and he’s one of the greatest force-of-personality founders ever).
These conditions don’t apply to unproven founders relying wholly on outside investment, working on opportunities that may not yield rapid growth and cash flow in the short/medium-term.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don’t think multiples are the issue. The question is: are companies set up to support a philology of long-term decision making? Talk to almost any middle manager in any public company in America if you are confused about whether this is the common case today
If investors are not irrational about the long term, then I don't see how there can be a problem. Prices will correctly reflect long-term expectations, and managers who are paid in options/hold equity will face the right set of incentives. If managers focus on the short term it's probably because it maximizes long-term value.
So excited to see this vision come together Eric. I honestly hope one day we're taking HMBradley public on the LTSE. I have never felt more aligned with a mission or a vision, Systematically allowing companies to take a long term view without being punished is what the market needs. Or put another way ... Adam Smith > Milton Friedman I cannot wait to see where this goes and the mechanics LTSE puts in place to help re…
> Systematically allowing companies to take a long term view without being punished is what the market needs. Why is the default that companies are "punished" for long-term thinking? I'd bet that there are far more cases of long-term investors "punished" in the public markets by short-term thinking executives than vice versa.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Quarterly reporting is an SEC requirement, so we don't affect that. We do require certain additional reports be filed on an annual basis. Companies prove their long term by adopting policies responsible to our long-term principles. The way this works is spelled out in a lot of detail both on our website and in our regulatory filings. Here's more of a layman's overview: https://longtermstockexchange.com/static/princip…
Thank you. Have you discussed possible perverse outcomes to (D) and (E)? If so, what negative outcomes have you been able to foresee?
What does the perverse scenario look like for you?