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

TWTR

google.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

331–340 of 349 posts

Re: TWTR

#331

Post by silverbax88 »

nl wrote: post #285
silverbax88 wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't want to sound dismissive, but this is very similar to the 'eyeballs' strategies that were bandied about prior to 2000. If a million people use a link to go to a paywall site, that's awesome - except as of now the data shows that Twitter users don't become buyers as a general rule. Can they make money? Sure. Can they make money with ads? Sure. Can they make money with massive vertical media funnels? Well...wha…

Can they make money? Sure. Can they make money with ads? Sure. Can they make money with massive vertical media funnels? Well...what will make them more successful than Apple, Google, Microsoft and TimeWarner who have all been trying to do the same exact thing for many years? Err.. I'm not sure about Apple or TimeWarner, but Google and Microsoft have been very successful at making display advertising work well. Check…

Who said anything about not making display advertising work? I'm talking about the whole vertical integration to television that so many analysts are basing their 75X revenues pricing on.

Re: TWTR

#332

Post by onebaddude »

clarky07 wrote: post #252
jerf wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You seem to be using a definition of "efficient" that has some sort of moral or intuitive meaning. That's not the relevant definition. It's really something more like "the market will not exhibit large-scale persistent arbitrage opportunities", which is why showing the market is inefficient pretty much by definition requires you to produce a method to consistently make substantial quantities of money by exploiting th…

According to investopedia[1] - An investment theory that states it is impossible to "beat the market" because stock market efficiency causes existing share prices to always incorporate and reflect all relevant information. According to the EMH, stocks always trade at their fair value on stock exchanges, making it impossible for investors to either purchase undervalued stocks or sell stocks for inflated prices. As suc…

>According to the EMH, stocks always trade at their fair value on stock exchanges, making it impossible for investors to either purchase undervalued stocks or sell stocks for inflated prices...

...on average. Which is what makes "beating" the market, over enough time, impossible.

But we know there are pricing discrepancies and information asymmetries in finite periods of time because we see them every day.

Re: TWTR

#333

Post by foobarqux »

nhaehnle wrote: post #319
joslin01 wrote: post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Alright, since you can't speak for yourself or rebuttal with anything more meaningful than "This is nonsense.", I'll respond to the article. 1.) Quantitative Easing is printing money -- "This is because when the Fed buys bonds from banks it does so by crediting those banks’ accounts at the Fed with reserves that didn’t exist before. But it’s misleading to call this process “money printing” because it doesn’t actually…

It's a common misconception, but QE does not change the ability of private banks to make loans in any way. If you think I am wrong about this, please explain the mechanism by which you think QE increases the ability of private banks to make loans. In fact, there are almost no serious arguments for why QE should stimulate the economy in any way, except for a small straw, which is that QE might reduce long-term interes…

> If you think I am wrong about this, please explain the mechanism by which you think QE increases the ability of private banks to make loans.

Not the parent but I thought depository and possibly other types of loans were limited by the size of reserves.

Re: TWTR

#334

Post by foobarqux »

rsobers wrote: post #131
brymaster wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Just because they aren't making money now doesn't mean that will always be the case. This is dangerous speculation.

That's the nature of investing in stocks. If you want something guaranteed, open a savings account.

Unless you're in Cyprus.

Re: TWTR

#335

Post by ryguytilidie »

onebaddude wrote: post #330
ryguytilidie wrote: post #277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah how could people distrust banks after they've shown to be so completely trustworthy and transparent recently...?

And the SV/VC/Tech startup culture is just brimming with altruistic, wonderful people? Sociopathy isn't restricted to finance. Silicon Valley has seen its share.

So because there are some corrupt people in Silicon Valley, one is simply not allowed to distrust bankers who have proven to not be trustworthy? Life must go well with logic like that.

Re: TWTR

#336

Post by headgasket »

In the weeks before the twtr IPO: NFLX off by 2B$. TSLA off by 4B FB of by 10B. It looks like investors reallocation to me; the type of investor that reallocate like this are more of the speculation breed than the buy and hold breed. I would not be surprised if TWTR is under original IPO price(26) by the end of next week, as it fails to inflate.

Re: TWTR

#337

Post by Xasir »

This just a something short term. In couple of month this going to down..Without any solid revenue plan how they will move.. Now investors will ask them question for increasing the revenue same like facebook facing the issue.

Re: TWTR

#338

Post by nhaehnle »

foobarqux wrote: post #333
nhaehnle wrote: post #319

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a common misconception, but QE does not change the ability of private banks to make loans in any way. If you think I am wrong about this, please explain the mechanism by which you think QE increases the ability of private banks to make loans. In fact, there are almost no serious arguments for why QE should stimulate the economy in any way, except for a small straw, which is that QE might reduce long-term interes…

> If you think I am wrong about this, please explain the mechanism by which you think QE increases the ability of private banks to make loans. Not the parent but I thought depository and possibly other types of loans were limited by the size of reserves.

The rules say that amount of reserves held by a bank must be at least r * X, where r is the reserve ratio and X is the amount of deposits owed by the bank. That is, there is absolutely no link between loans and reserves in the rules (laws and regulations).

As long as the amount of reserves is close to the legally required minimum amount, there is an indirect link between loans and reserves, but its causality goes in the other direction as traditionally believed. When the volume of loans increase, then deposits increase also. Then the banking system as a whole needs more reserves.

If the amount of reserves available were fixed, this would lead to banks bidding up the overnight interbank interest rate. However, after some disastrous experiments in the 1970s and 80s with alternative policies, central bank policy is to keep that interest rate fixed. And that means: the central bank accommodates the banks' desire for more reserves by buying assets from the banking system.

Conversely, banks bid down the overnight interbank interest rate towards zero if there are too many reserves in the system, unless the central bank pays interest on reserves. This is exactly what central banks in most of the Western world want to happen today.

In any case, the story is that the amount of loans made by banks causally sets a lower bound on the amount of reserves in the system. The reverse direction does not hold.

Again, anybody who believes the latter would have to exhibit an explicit mechanism that establishes a reverse causality. There is no such mechanism in the rules (i.e. laws or regulations).

Oh, and if you are appalled because you believe that all this means that banks can just make loans as they please: they can't. However, the limits on loans are set by capital requirements, and for good reason: capital is a suitable buffer against defaulting loans, reserves aren't.

Re: TWTR

#339

Post by foobarqux »

nhaehnle wrote: post #338
foobarqux wrote: post #333

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you think I am wrong about this, please explain the mechanism by which you think QE increases the ability of private banks to make loans. Not the parent but I thought depository and possibly other types of loans were limited by the size of reserves.

The rules say that amount of reserves held by a bank must be at least r * X, where r is the reserve ratio and X is the amount of deposits owed by the bank. That is, there is absolutely no link between loans and reserves in the rules (laws and regulations). As long as the amount of reserves is close to the legally required minimum amount, there is an indirect link between loans and reserves, but its causality goes in…

So say I have $100 of deposits, reserve ratio 0.1, lend out $90. My reserves are $10. Now say the government increases my reserves by $5. Can't I now lend out an additional $5 that I wasn't able to before?

Re: TWTR

#340

Post by oijaf888 »

0A0D66 wrote: post #240
phonon wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't 29 USC § 1109 about corporate benefit plans? What does that have to do with general Director breaches of fiduciary duty (which is covered under state level business corporate law...)

Wow, it totally is. It's the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. GP are you just pulling stuff out of your ass?

First link that came up on Google, I didn't really dig into it further since I was just refuting that "breach of fiduciary duty" was a made up thing.
Post reply on HN