Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just buy $QQQ. The correct time to invest in individual companies is never.
How much?
OpenAI’s promise to stay in California helped clear the path for its IPO
161–170 of 359 posts
Re: OpenAI’s promise to stay in California helped clear the path for its IPO
#162Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is the opposite of true. It's actively wrong. Location is almost everything; people move to financial and tech centers for a reason -- it matters where you are and who you know.
nah also, where you are and who you know are very different things
> where you are and who you know are very different things
Different but related. Getting a purposeful introduction involves a lot more friction than being invited to someone's home for dinner with their colleagues and contacts.
Re: OpenAI’s promise to stay in California helped clear the path for its IPO
#163Earlier quoted context omitted.
Jacques, I've been reading and enjoying your posts here for at least 15 years. (Thank you for your service.) But I think you're totally incorrect on this; oAI is going to be one of the enduring tech consumer brands built in this half of the 21st century.
Why do you say so? They’re burning cash and don’t currently have a viable path to profitability. Sure they have millions of MAU but not many paying ones.
Look at all the companies that have 'burned cash' with no viable path to profitability over the last 20 years. The good ones outlive that criticism, easily. Think Uber, etc. They clearly see a path to profitability and they have plenty of room to experiment here with what works. With new partnerships and dependencies, they won't run out of cash for a long time.
Re: OpenAI’s promise to stay in California helped clear the path for its IPO
#164Can someone explain to me why California would believe Sam Altman plans to stay in California? This is a weak handshake agreement that could easily be flipped post IPO. The very flip from non-profit to IPO shows he will do what it takes for OpenAI to "succeed", so why would the geographical location be any more permanent than corporate structure. This isnt a diss to Sam either, it just shows he is motivated by whatev…
Can someone explain to me how staying in CA has anything whatsoever to do with whether or not they IPO? Because it seems like it should have absolutely nothing to do with it. (Linked article is a paywall, so I can't read it.)
Re: OpenAI’s promise to stay in California helped clear the path for its IPO
#165Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yup, but the IPO will still have happened in CA, and there's going to be a tax windfall from that. It's about a moment in time, not an "in perpetuity" agreement.
Not if the big holders aren't residents, they can move away just before like Rogan with his Spotify deal, or Jonathan Blow just before a game release after developing in California and going to public college there, etc. Since it's a non-profit still holding it any gains to the non-profit entity upon the conversion don't go to California, and principal stakeholders can move away. Other funds raised from the IPO can b…
I'd recommend anyone expecting to profit from OpenAI stock and aiming to avoid California taxes to look into the subject in depth with paid advisors. The California FTB is not stupid or naïve and has a history of successfully getting paid for stock that vested with a California nexus, even if the beneficiary moves out of state. Good luck!
Re: OpenAI’s promise to stay in California helped clear the path for its IPO
#166How can a non-profit IPO? I know that technically OpenAI is a for-profit company that is owned by a non-profit, but I still don't get it.
There's so, so much misinformation about this out there. For example - every US nonprofit starts as a plain old vanilla C corporation, and then applies for 501(c)3 status which the IRS may or may not grant . It's a privilege to be a nonprofit. The punishment that may be levied on a nonprofit is ... loss of that status and a return to a commercial corporation. That loss of status might have knock-on impacts on things…
A corporation is locked into its nonprofit status due to its articles of incorporation and state law regardless of its federal tax-exempt status.
Re: OpenAI’s promise to stay in California helped clear the path for its IPO
#167Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because the development of this technology was originally done under a certain set of promises ostensibly intended to prevent pure capitalist profitmaxxing. The workers and supporters who were taken by this idealistic vision, believe it was a bait-and-switch, and that the original promises were never intended to be kept.
> workers and supporters who were taken by this idealistic vision The only people who can claim harm are donors and workers who actually left, e.g. Murati. "Supporters" aren't stakeholders in any material sense.
choosing whether to use, or advocate for, a company's services is a form of support
Re: OpenAI’s promise to stay in California helped clear the path for its IPO
#168This is kind of a wild story. Sam Altman is openly flexing that he was able to skirt the rules and regulations by threatening economic damage to California. It's not even subtle anymore. This reminds me of when the former CEO of Hyundai, Chung Mong-koo, went to prison for embezzlement. In just 3 years he was pardoned because the President of South Korea basically said, "we need you for the economy." We're not even pr…
> threatening economic damage to California. whoa there. corporations have the right to move to the best location for them. California does not have the eternal right to OpenAI's taxes and employee base. think about what you're implicitly assuming here. if one company simply leaving causes concerning "damage" then perhaps it is the government that is the problem, not the corporation driving economic growth.
Maybe its the insane wealth gap that's the problem...
Re: OpenAI’s promise to stay in California helped clear the path for its IPO
#169Can someone explain to me why California would believe Sam Altman plans to stay in California? This is a weak handshake agreement that could easily be flipped post IPO. The very flip from non-profit to IPO shows he will do what it takes for OpenAI to "succeed", so why would the geographical location be any more permanent than corporate structure. This isnt a diss to Sam either, it just shows he is motivated by whatev…
> Can someone explain to me why California would believe Sam Altman plans to stay in California? The simple answer is unless developing LLMs becomes commoditised, the best place in the world to do it is in San Francisco. You don't take your manufacturing business out of Shenzhen without very good reason.
Seems a little easier than that, though, because there are no supply chains involved (other than for the data centers, but those are already not in SF). Why else would the CA government be worried?
Re: OpenAI’s promise to stay in California helped clear the path for its IPO
#170Earlier quoted context omitted.
They're concentrated there because they've been asked to concentrate there. That can change on a dime. It's not like data centers are mainly in SF.
You've got it backwards. Well paid engineers congregate in California because it's a nice place to live if you can afford it. Therefore if you want to hire the best engineers, and want an in-office work culture, you need to go to California.
Well paid engineers congregate in CA because that's where the companies that hire well paid engineers congregate, and they (mostly) want those well paid engineers to come to the office every couple of days. I don't know how you could get the causality so completely backwards on this.