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

121–128 of 128 posts

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

#121

Post by wolverine876 »

miley_cyrus wrote: post #81
wolverine876 wrote: post #62

> "... Our only function lies in discerning and applying the law as we find it." The judiciary has other essential roles, including adapting laws to new circumstances, justice, fairness, and mercy. The judiciary fails when it hurts people or causes injustice simply because Congress didn't anticipate some circumstance (and obviously Congress can't anticipate every circumtance). They pull out the claim above when it su…

"The judiciary fails when it hurts people or causes injustice ..." Totally disagree. The judiciary should not make up law. They are 9 people who have not been elected, have life terms, and have zero accountability to the people. If there needs to be new law, that responsibility should fall on our elected representatives, in other words Congress.

Congress cannot cover every possibility, nor respond to every change in circumstance. The law has never worked that way. Judges apply the law.

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

#122

Post by wolverine876 »

zdragnar wrote: post #85
wolverine876 wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who here or anywhere has advocated decisions based on 'most sympathetic'?

Your earlier criteria of "fairness" and "mercy" certainly apply.

Those words mean different things.

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

#123

Post by lolinder »

crazygringo wrote: post #40
lolinder wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Money Stuff doesn't say it'll be the end of direct listings, but they do say that section 10 is much harder to sue under and therefore removing section 11 limits the company's liability a lot. It doesn't seem that far fetched to go from there to "so investors will avoid the risk".

But it's still the same risk of normal everyday trading of shares. So it does seem pretty far-fetched to me. If you followed that logic, the entire stock market would grind to a halt.

It's not quite the same, because with other stocks you have months or years of past performance to go on.

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

#124

Post by EE84M3i »

cornfutes wrote: post #98
EE84M3i wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Usually fractional shares are calculated to the third or fourth decimal place. Does this mean that it's possible that the total number of shares people own doesn't add up exactly to the number issued?

You’re conflating floating point numbers with decimals.

I m win it shares.are rounded to four places during a dilution event, what happens to the cumulative rounding error?

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

#125

Post by ThePowerOfFuet »

texuf wrote: post #7
puzzledobserver wrote: post #6

Is it just me, or are newspaper articles surprisingly difficult to read? From what I understand: 1. Instead of a traditional IPO, Slack went public through an alternative process called a direct listing. 2. As part of its direct listing, Slack sold some million "registered" and some million "unregistered" shares. 3. What are registered and unregistered shares? I could not find an explanation on Wikipedia. 4. Fiyyaz P…

Read Matt Levine’s newsletter today, he breaks it down better than anyone.

Link?

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

#126

Post by fsckboy »

EE84M3i wrote: post #124
cornfutes wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You’re conflating floating point numbers with decimals.

I m win it shares.are rounded to four places during a dilution event, what happens to the cumulative rounding error?

rounding is performed such that all the pieces add to 100%

so somebody gets the piece that in your mind is in question. I don't know where the piece goes or i would tell you, but it's not lost

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

#127

Post by SamReidHughes »

HWR_14 wrote: post #119
SamReidHughes wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I want to reiterate, I don't have specific knowledge, I am a retail end-user drawing conclusions from reading things like these assignment process documents:

https://www.theocc.com/getmedia/0cdda3c2-ab81-450f-b8b8-7ce8... https://gdcdyn.interactivebrokers.com/Universal/servlet/Regi...

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

#128

Post by JeremyNT »

lolinder wrote: post #16
puzzledobserver wrote: post #6

Is it just me, or are newspaper articles surprisingly difficult to read? From what I understand: 1. Instead of a traditional IPO, Slack went public through an alternative process called a direct listing. 2. As part of its direct listing, Slack sold some million "registered" and some million "unregistered" shares. 3. What are registered and unregistered shares? I could not find an explanation on Wikipedia. 4. Fiyyaz P…

I think the problem with this article is the subject doesn't lend itself well to Axios's bullet points style. Their thing is to get to the point with as little ceremony as possible, but that doesn't work very well when there is so much context needed to understand the story.

Weirdly the Axios style is usually the sweet spot for me, but this one misses the mark.

I think the specific problem with this is that they use the "unregistered" / "registered" jargon without actually defining it first. Just one opening bullet point in "Details" that defines unregistered/registered shares and explains that buyers can't tell which they have would have done the job IMO.

Post reply on HN