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

U.S. regulators approve the Long-Term Stock Exchange

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 200 posts

Re: U.S. regulators approve the Long-Term Stock Exchange

#121

Post by riffraff »

icelancer wrote: post #114
eanzenberg wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Only degenerates throw $500k away at lottery tix, while significant amounts of the population invest their entire $500k in funds as found in 401k's or IRAs (or whatever). So yeah, I'd rather shield most of the country from the volatility of early stage shitfests, and make that bar high to climb if they really truly want to invest in early-stage.

Most mutual funds available at retail are borderline scams as-is. It is highly unlikely you will find one that has a true ROI / Sharpe Ratio above investing in basic Vanguard Index Fund ETFs, yet the public is still allowed to throw away 2% per year in management funds + loads + fees for buying garbage mutual funds and ETFs from enormous companies that sell at retail.

There is still a significant difference between earning less than you could in your retirement savings and wiping half of them because you put them in a bad investment though.

Re: U.S. regulators approve the Long-Term Stock Exchange

#122

Post by vinceguidry »

bufferoverflow wrote: post #62
mises wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Retail is left with "the scraps" because it is much riskier to invest early on. Companies that fail early aren't heard about as much, because Joe Average's pension plan hasn't invested in them, but are still plentiful. And maybe Joe Average's pension plan shouldn't be investing in what are effectively PE-stage firms. I don't know if I'm right about this, but it seems such an exchange might contribute to something lik…

A Joe Average is legally allowed to walk into a casino and lose all his money, pretty much guaranteed over long term. A Joe Average is legally allowed to play all kinds of lotteries, pretty much guaranteed loss over long term. A Joe Average is legally allowed to invest his 401k in the riskiest penny stock one can find. This has nothing to do with risk, it's 100% gate keeping.

The reason investing is treated with greater scrutiny than gambling is because of the psychological factor. When you gamble, you're under no illusion that you're guaranteed to win. But it's easy to be fooled into thinking there's a way to hedge risk without putting in the time and effort to learn how.

Every single time I see democratized access to riskier financial markets actually make it to the public, I can hold my breath and wait for the news reports to come out about the scams and grifters that come out of the woodwork to take advantage of little old grandmas, who wouldn't ever think of pulling the cash out from under the mattress that she's saving for little Penny's college fund and going to Vegas, but can easily be talked into "investing" it in the brand new wave of "tech" sweeping the nation.

It's not Joe Average these laws protect. It's Joe Average's less cognitively-blessed parents. It's so easy to fool old people that if we don't take positive steps to stop it from happening, it becomes an industry.

You can't get rid of all of it, but you can at least push the wolves out to the periphery.

Re: U.S. regulators approve the Long-Term Stock Exchange

#123

Post by thekhatribharat »

This is a silicon valley exchange, silicon valley VCs can't compete with multi-billion dollar "vision funds" so they'd use retail investors to drive their moonshot bets. Silicon valley startups would get a much better deal with an IPO on LTSE than a private deal with vision funds.

Re: U.S. regulators approve the Long-Term Stock Exchange

#125

Post by AsyncAwait »

memmcgee wrote: post #96
conanbatt wrote: post #86

I think there is big potential value in a new exchange that optimizes for cheap IPO'ing rules. Something between Nasdaq and Wefunder. I'm not persuaded by some of the ideas they have (like adding diversity to their governing board, seems designed to be exclusive to tech-startups that already have a bias toward that "value"). But if only by competition they make listing cheaper and easier it could have a big impact.

>I'm not persuaded by some of the ideas they have (like adding diversity to their governing board, seems designed to be exclusive to tech-startups that already have a bias toward that "value"). What on Earth does this mean?

I strongly suspect the parent is one who buys into the James Damore thing of companies adding diversity for the sake of it and the like...

Re: U.S. regulators approve the Long-Term Stock Exchange

#126

Post by labawi »

miohtama wrote: post #18
jayp wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am happy for LTSE. The article doesn't explains what makes LTSE different than NYSE? How will it actually encourage looking beyond the next quarter? Where can one learn about that?

If this exchange is mostly for value investing, as it sounds like, what barriers will LTSE set to prevent high frequency trading and other byproducts of access focused trading?

Reading the title, I was excited expecting something like a round-based stock exchange, only evaluating orders and publishing information every hour.

Re: U.S. regulators approve the Long-Term Stock Exchange

#127

Post by MandieD »

hellllllllooo wrote: post #24

I don't really see how the rules mentioned will change things that much. > asking companies to limit executive bonuses that award short-term accomplishments. Why would I care as an investor? I still want the stock to go up quickly. Executives own stock and without a cash bonus wouldn't this incentive trying to get quick increases in stock value. > more disclosure to investors about meeting key milestones and plans, a…

“Why would I care as an investor? I still want the stock to go up quickly.”

That is not what investors want; that’s what speculators want. I am saving for retirement in about 15-20 years; I want my investments to appreciate a reasonable amount over that period and show a stable pattern of generating good returns - I don’t really care what their prices are like in the next few months, except for that if they’re down in price for a while, I can buy more to enjoy later.

Re: U.S. regulators approve the Long-Term Stock Exchange

#128

Post by eries »

Hey everyone, Eric Ries here, founder and CEO of LTSE (and also you may remember me from such roles as the Lean Startup guy). Day one of approval has been kind of exhausting with all the attention but I wanted to stop by this thread and say hello.

Have questions? Happy to answer as best I can. Keep in mind that this is a highly-regulated startup so we are sometimes limited in what we can say publicly. I’ll do my best to give you a straight answer if I can.

Thanks for all the support over the years, this project has been a true community effort,

Eric

Re: U.S. regulators approve the Long-Term Stock Exchange

#129

Post by eries »

drawkbox wrote: post #115

Engineers, product focused entrepreneurs and innovators would like a Long-Term Stock Exchange (LSTE) quite a bit if it works out. Usually to list on public markets the whole bizdev/marketing/operations/VC/board/lawyer/executive machines end up taking most companies away from innovation and the founders, as well as taking large chunks of the company and the rewards, where the efforts become clouded in power struggles.…

Thanks!

Re: U.S. regulators approve the Long-Term Stock Exchange

#130

Post by eries »

natureboy21 wrote: post #124

Having been exposed to the shell games that go on at a large corporation, I think this could be really good. If this is actually executed properly, I think this could be a good exchange for more than just tech start ups.

I think so too :)
Post reply on HN