are there already companies on the pipeline for the IPO on LTSE?
The Long-Term Stock Exchange Opens for Business
411–420 of 561 posts
Re: The Long-Term Stock Exchange Opens for Business
#412Earlier quoted context omitted.
I do not have a preferred broker, and I have no idea how to find LTSE on Robinhood. I'm sorry if this is a stupid question, but how would an average person find out what companies are listed on your exchange?
No companies are listed on our exchange - yet
Then how have $117m passed through your exchange? If no companies are listed on the LTSE, how are stocks being traded on the LTSE?
Re: The Long-Term Stock Exchange Opens for Business
#413Earlier quoted context omitted.
Today's announcement doesn't pertain to listings, so 1) is a ways off still You can do 2) through your existing broker, so long as they are a member of the LTSE, which they likely already are. You can check their membership status here: https://brokercheck.finra.org/
I honestly cannot figure out how to use this site to see if my broker, or any broker for that matter, is a member of LTSE. Would you be able to provide an example?
Sure. Here's Citadel's profile from FINRA: https://files.brokercheck.finra.org/firm/firm_116797.pdf
Scroll down to page 9, you'll see they are a member of The Long-Term Stock Exchange
Re: The Long-Term Stock Exchange Opens for Business
#414What are the listing fees and procedures? Are you similarly regulated to NYSE? Can smaller startups and Reg D List?
Yes, similar to NYSE and NASDAQ. All of our exchange fees are regulated: https://www.sec.gov/rules/sro/ltse.htm
Re: The Long-Term Stock Exchange Opens for Business
#415Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would argue that reinforces my point rather than weaken it. My point being that the market is an understandable thing becomes more reasonable if it turns out it's not even an intractable problem that we are discussing. But I also think you are misunderstanding the argument I was replying to in the first place, because a lot of the claims about "the market" are about the second order allocation of resources that mar…
> The claims about "the market" are market fundamentalism, that the market is the ideal allocation structure, that we can't find a better or even equivalent solution, because that's just how good markets are. It's more usual to accept a weaker claim: that markets are the most efficient approximation to the perfect algorithm for price discovery, that is, they are the best way we know of to approximate perfect pricing…
> It's more usual to accept a weaker claim: that markets are the most efficient approximation to the perfect algorithm for price discovery
This claim is just as problematic. You may view it as weaker, but algorithmicly speaking it's the same nonsense. Algorithms in similar complexity classes are usually translatable to each other, which is to say they can be framed in terms of each other. You appear to be claiming that markets are the most efficient variant of an algorithmic class. Which is, again, nonsense. It might have some very nice qualities compared to other algorithms within it's class, but to claim it's the most efficient is, again, problematic.
A claim like that would require proof, not just the absence of contradicting evidence.
> Insisting that no better approach is possible is a strong claim; you'll find it in the wild
Ok, but I do believe the poster I was originally disagreeing with is arguing that:
> the market is an emergent behavior. It’s governed by laws beyond our control as surely as the behavior of materials are governed by thermodynamics.
> If the behavior of your markets fails to match the reality of the market, the best you can hope for is to only introduce a small amount of inefficiency. Of course, utopians who ignore the real nature of the market usually find themselves lethally encumbered by deadweight loss
This appears to be a strong claim that nothing can be more efficient than "the market" without introducing inefficiency or "lethal[.]" dead-weight loss.
> markets are what we have, and they're what we should use, with the burden of proof firmly on the inventor of anything new to demonstrate that it has greater efficiency.
This is a fallacious argument against my point.
To begin with, a new algorithm in the same class as markets is likely to have the same or similar efficiency. And it will be the other properties of it that are more interesting.
But the real issue is that the double standard people argue with the efficient market hypothesis (and especially the economic calculation problem) is problematic because it misunderstands computation. You simultaneously claim (in this post) to have the best approximation due to a lack of contradicting evidence, but then also want alternatives to provide proof of beating that physically impossible standard.
My main response though is: just because markets are the best thing we have does not mean we should accept absurd claims about them. Just because solar energy is effectively unlimited, does not make it a perpetual motion machine.
Re: The Long-Term Stock Exchange Opens for Business
#416Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is quite explicitly related to the reservations that colonists have pushed indigenous people to. In America this situation was particularly bad for many tribes, and in general connotes a significant loss of freedoms and impact to culture even when there wasn't specifically physically violence involved. The actual phrased specifically originated as a derogatory term for any indigenous person who was not staying on…
Yes, it is (probably) related to Indian/Native American reservations, but that does not mean every utterance of an allusion to history is perpetuating racial injustice. Frankly having people like yourself chime in at every juncture to tell other people they are perpetuating racism is cheapening the actual historical impact of these events. If you care about the people you claim to defend then do something to help the…
>Frankly having people like yourself chime in at every juncture to tell other people they are perpetuating racism is cheapening the actual historical impact of these events.
That's an interesting take, and not one that I think you will find in common with experts on the subject.
>If you care about the people you claim to defend then do something to help them.
I donate my time, money, and other resources to a variety of causes related to helping disadvantaged groups. I might largely be wasting my time in attempting to educate people on the internet, but it doesn't mean that I do not do anything else.
Why do you believe that uttering phrases that are fundamentally rooted and reinforce prejudice is not harmful? It's a phrase that is quite strictly Othering in nature. Not only can it be hurtful to those that have lived with the repercussions, but it also helps reinforce the Othering mindset in those who did not.
Re: The Long-Term Stock Exchange Opens for Business
#417Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The claims about "the market" are market fundamentalism, that the market is the ideal allocation structure, that we can't find a better or even equivalent solution, because that's just how good markets are. It's more usual to accept a weaker claim: that markets are the most efficient approximation to the perfect algorithm for price discovery, that is, they are the best way we know of to approximate perfect pricing…
> It's more usual to accept a weaker claim: that markets are the most efficient approximation to the perfect algorithm for price discovery This claim is just as problematic. You may view it as weaker, but algorithmicly speaking it's the same nonsense. Algorithms in similar complexity classes are usually translatable to each other, which is to say they can be framed in terms of each other. You appear to be claiming th…
> This claim is just as problematic. You may view it as weaker, but algorithmicly speaking it's the same nonsense.
It's an existential claim, not a mathematical claim.
The claim is simply that markets are more efficient than other mechanisms, proposed or extant, which actually exist in the real world.
Clearly to quantify this claim requires some real mathematical analysis, but that's quite beyond my talents or interest. I'm just here to point out that the weakened claim is "markets are the best we've got", not anything theoretical nor abstract.
And I'd suggest reading my reply to the absurd thermodynamics bit before assuming too much about my thoughts on it!
Re: The Long-Term Stock Exchange Opens for Business
#418Are you explicitly banning traders from trading? For example requiring you have to wait x months from purchase date before you can sell your shares.
Re: The Long-Term Stock Exchange Opens for Business
#419How can you enforce long term holding without explicitly banning shareholders from selling within an x month period of purchase date? I think it should be a law that you have to wait like 6 months before you can sell a stock... that would eliminate ALL traders and craziness in the markets.
Re: The Long-Term Stock Exchange Opens for Business
#420I want to support this but man is this a botched launch. If your blogpost is so low on details that you have to spend hours answering the same questions over and over in the comments, then maybe you should write a better blog post. It feels like I've just visited a "we are under construction" website; I still have no idea what this is or what it does or what I'm supposed to do.