31–40 of 200 posts
What are the downsides of this?
It looks like founders and VCs get the majority voting shares by default. It's not clear if it's good for the company or not, but it helps founders to pick it as the stock exchange to go to. The slow vesting shedule makes a lot of sense though.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I meant operationally mature as in they have the financial controls, auditing and reporting to be public. That's not trivial for a company to do, especially a startup.
It is not trivial, but it is not unheard of. There is a fixed minimum cost on the compliance and it must offset the better price you get from public money or reputational benefits of being public. The trick is make sure that this cost is low as possible, but still ensuring the markets' integrity and fairness. * Quality information is available for investors to make rational investment decisions * Information is avail…
Existing reporting requirements does not ensure markets' integrity and fairness in much of the world, US included.
I think, to some extend, the presumption of truthfulness in financial reporting is even giving edge to bad players, and penalises "boring" businesses that have nothing to show but dividends, and a track record paying them.
It is much easier to "pool the wool" with some fancy paid off analyst reporting for a tech business with dubious repute than say a concrete factory.
> And the Council of Institutional Investors has argued (pdf) that LTSE’s voting mechanism could hurt shareholders by giving too much power to founders. I mean, the most high-profile tech stocks to hit the market as of late already give all the power to founders via voting class stock, so I don't think it's a big change other than truly standardizing it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's designed for long term investing. Not a place for day traders, high frequency trading and all sorts of sharks and piranhas that like to eat up pensions and 401k funds...
What exactly stops them from investing anyways
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's designed for long term investing. Not a place for day traders, high frequency trading and all sorts of sharks and piranhas that like to eat up pensions and 401k funds...
How exactly do you believe high-frequency traders "eat up" pension funds? The only time any limit order gets executed is when it is the best price available. From the other perspective, the price a market order is matched at is the price of the best limit order available. In the absence of high-frequency traders, the best price available will be worse , not better.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's designed for long term investing. Not a place for day traders, high frequency trading and all sorts of sharks and piranhas that like to eat up pensions and 401k funds...
How exactly do you believe high-frequency traders "eat up" pension funds? The only time any limit order gets executed is when it is the best price available. From the other perspective, the price a market order is matched at is the price of the best limit order available. In the absence of high-frequency traders, the best price available will be worse , not better.
Excited to see this. I hope it leads to a trend to listing sooner and giving access to retail investors much earlier. Buying Uber at a few dollars instead of $42 for example. The markets will operate like they want to unless there are explicit rules to stop it. Right now it's wait to IPO as long as possible, and HFT only accessible to huge companies. Retail is left with the scraps.
I don't know if I'm right about this, but it seems such an exchange might contribute to something like 2008. Then, it was the common man investing in over-heated real estate; now, it could become the common man investing in over-heated tech.
I feel like those who work in tech often forget that it can fail, have cycles of boom and bust, etc. like any other industry.
Of course, I do think it can serve a useful purpose, but there is reason early-stage, private investment is restricted to qualified investors.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What is a flurry startup and what is a mature company is relative. For example, Amazon originally IPO'ed in 1999 after raising only 10M USD. Especially since the last financial crisis over regulation has hindered SMEs access to the public markets. Being a public company means that you can often raise money on better terms. If only large enterprises can access good money, then SMEs and indirectly innovation is hurt. E…
There were times in India and Pakistan when every major city had a stock exchange. Pakistan held to tradition longer than India, and owners of 3 largest stock exchanges merged them into Karachi stock exchange, and later PSX only in 2016. In Pakistan, most listed businesses are much more "boring" than ones in US. Concrete factories, brick makers, seedling producers, farms. Regulations on disclosure are near nil, but l…
I wouldn't call this "public" ownership, as the "public" does not own a company. Investors own a company, the pool of investors is simply enlarged such that the public may invest.
Example: It seems like stock transfer would reset voting rights, which should depress prices and (intentionally, I think?) discourage sale. But what keeps a fund that owns vested shares from effectively selling their economics and voting rights through a secondary contract?