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

Supreme Court sides with Slack, putting direct listings in jeopardy

axios.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 128 posts

Re: Supreme Court sides with Slack, putting direct listings in jeopardy

#111

Post by skinnymuch »

bravura wrote: post #109
DavidPeiffer wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've always been amazed at how much content he writes every day. Typically 3 topics, often quite different, with hypothetical situations added, laymen explanations of esoteric topics, legal arguments each side is likely to bring along with some of their pitfalls. Footnotes and other articles of interest are also provided.

What would be the easiest way to get his work on kindle with zero recurring effort on my part ? I love Money Stuff but hate reading for pleasure on an LCD display?

Interested in this too. I am trying to use Kindle Scribe more.

Re: Supreme Court sides with Slack, putting direct listings in jeopardy

#112

Post by HWR_14 »

SamReidHughes wrote: post #110
grumple wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Presumably this isn't actually true though? Like if you buy 5 shares, someone else's brokerage account goes down by 5 shares at the same time. The transaction is recorded on both sides, isn't it? Should be possible to establish who the seller was.

If you make a mid-day order on an exchange you would be able to trace the transaction to a specific buyer and seller, because a specific counterparty got matched with your order. But if you exercise an option, or buy at the opening or closing auction, the shares are naturally commingled together.

I thought options were also explicitly assigned for fulfillment (randomly among those matching) so you could match it to specific shares if you wanted.

Re: Supreme Court sides with Slack, putting direct listings in jeopardy

#113

Post by vkou »

eganist wrote: post #106
vkou wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why should we protect FB's investors from themselves? And given the tiny spread in how voting versus non-voting shares trade, it doesn't seem that investors value voting rights very much.

I don't know that this is the right counter-argument against the point parent comment made. This counter argument is defeated pretty easily by pointing at all the other regulation that applies to public markets that private offerings (and thus accredited investors) don't have. Op might actually have a point here, insofar as it would apply to public stock. If such a class separation exists with private stock, that's a…

There is a lot of regulation, but it focuses on not screwing minority shareholders to the benefit of majority ones, responsibilities of the board, and not lying to shareholders.

A dual-structure set of shares does not result in any of these problems, or prevent litigation and enforcement surrounding them.

What the regulation doesn't protect, and shouldn't protect people from, is investing in honest, but dumb companies. The metaverse play was obviously dumb three years ago.

Re: Supreme Court sides with Slack, putting direct listings in jeopardy

#114

Post by tzs »

koolba wrote: post #59
crazygringo wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure for private shares. But what about public shares, which is what people are usually discussing? Do publicly traded shares not have serial numbers or identification numbers or something to that effect?

> Do publicly traded shares not have serial numbers or identification numbers or something to that effect? No they’re fungible. The vast majority are held as book entries in the DTCC[1]. Even if you pull them out of that system, they still don’t have an individual identification number like a bond’s serial number. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depository_Trust_%26_Clearing_...

Being fungible does not imply that something does not have a serial number or identification number. For example US dollar bills are fungible but they have serial numbers.

Re: Supreme Court sides with Slack, putting direct listings in jeopardy

#115

Post by weeblewobble »

bravura wrote: post #109
DavidPeiffer wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've always been amazed at how much content he writes every day. Typically 3 topics, often quite different, with hypothetical situations added, laymen explanations of esoteric topics, legal arguments each side is likely to bring along with some of their pitfalls. Footnotes and other articles of interest are also provided.

What would be the easiest way to get his work on kindle with zero recurring effort on my part ? I love Money Stuff but hate reading for pleasure on an LCD display?

Subscribe to his newsletter (free) + set up a script/ifttt/zapier to convert to pdf and forward to your kindle email address

Re: Supreme Court sides with Slack, putting direct listings in jeopardy

#116

Post by SamReidHughes »

HWR_14 wrote: post #112
SamReidHughes wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you make a mid-day order on an exchange you would be able to trace the transaction to a specific buyer and seller, because a specific counterparty got matched with your order. But if you exercise an option, or buy at the opening or closing auction, the shares are naturally commingled together.

I thought options were also explicitly assigned for fulfillment (randomly among those matching) so you could match it to specific shares if you wanted.

Brokers get told how many assignments they need to make and then they hand them out randomly to their customers. My impression was that the number of exercises gets added up by the OCC and there is no chain of permutations recorded tying an individual exercise to an assignment from one broker's customers to another.

My belief here is based solely on having read some documents about the assignment process and having seen no reference to such record-keeping.

Re: Supreme Court sides with Slack, putting direct listings in jeopardy

#117

Post by smegger001 »

bravura wrote: post #109
DavidPeiffer wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've always been amazed at how much content he writes every day. Typically 3 topics, often quite different, with hypothetical situations added, laymen explanations of esoteric topics, legal arguments each side is likely to bring along with some of their pitfalls. Footnotes and other articles of interest are also provided.

What would be the easiest way to get his work on kindle with zero recurring effort on my part ? I love Money Stuff but hate reading for pleasure on an LCD display?

if he has a rss feed, you can use calibre to fetch it package it into a ebook format and send it to your kindle via email. each kindle account has a email address associated with it. You will have to allow the sender email that you set calibre to use in your kindle account but after that its automatic

Re: Supreme Court sides with Slack, putting direct listings in jeopardy

#118

Post by yieldcrv »

DigiDigiorno wrote: post #48
yieldcrv wrote: post #10

> "Naturally, Congress remains free to revise the securities laws at any time, whether to address the rise of direct listings or any other development. Our only function lies in discerning and applying the law as we find it." I really don't see how anyone that actually reads Supreme Court decisions calls this court illegitimate. They are very consistent about not being a super legislature, no matter how disruptive th…

Lawyer here. "[A]nyone that actually reads Supreme Court decisions" is the pertinent part of your comment. That is a very small group of people,* and usually a very quiet one that doesn't jump to the conclusion that the court is "illegitimate". The vast majority of the 50+ decisions each year do not make the news and the plurality of them are decided unanimously.** * Basically nobody, unless it's their job, reads eve…

I wish the common discourse was at this level

There is so much distorted information fueling people’s emotions, but the contents of the cases are actually very interesting and illuminating of many options left open for people to get closer to what they want, like when judges point out “well maybe if you brought a case forward this other way, we could evaluate these outstanding questions” but nobody passionate about a cause reads this stuff and only reacts to the outcome

Re: Supreme Court sides with Slack, putting direct listings in jeopardy

#119

Post by HWR_14 »

SamReidHughes wrote: post #116
HWR_14 wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I thought options were also explicitly assigned for fulfillment (randomly among those matching) so you could match it to specific shares if you wanted.

Brokers get told how many assignments they need to make and then they hand them out randomly to their customers. My impression was that the number of exercises gets added up by the OCC and there is no chain of permutations recorded tying an individual exercise to an assignment from one broker's customers to another. My belief here is based solely on having read some documents about the assignment process and having s…

Ah, I didn't realize the OCC commingled everyone's orders like that. Somehow I thought they were acting as an insurer on a bunch of 1 on 1 transactions. But I'll admit my understanding is probably incorrect in light of your specific knowledge.

Re: Supreme Court sides with Slack, putting direct listings in jeopardy

#120

Post by zeckalpha »

tedunangst wrote: post #28
zeckalpha wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When jurisprudence and the law conflict, which one wins?

What does this mean? The courts fill in gaps in laws. If lawmakers don't like the result, they can make new laws. It's a cycle. Law -> interpretation -> new law.

When the laws conflict, the courts make a decision. Subsequent court rulings generally follow that same decision. I meant to say stare decisis.
Post reply on HN