401–410 of 491 posts
Why do we want to make the stock market mimic the crypto market? What need is the 24/7 trading solving? Just for hft companies to make more money? Seems like a genuine reason to diversify to Europe and Asian markets
There's a reason the Black-Scholes model assumes market prices are continuous. The discontinuity of the market makes hedging options a lot more complex and expensive.
24/7 trading doesn't completely fix that, but it does help.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is what confuses me about tech sales too. Why do I always get a discount for buying right at the end of the quarter? Seems like you could just get ahead on the next one.
Because of how performance targets are defined. If sales figures “fell” or didn’t grow at the expected rate it can be worse than having a few more points over next quarter.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That doesn't make any sense because the revenue is already booked for the sale which has nothing to do with when the delivery truck actually arrives.
Cash vs Accrual
When you wonder how much damage one person can do in 4 years...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Help me understand what you are saying here. For those that don't know this one is "a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure". I'm not advocating for a single metric that can be gamed. A business is fundamentally about dollars in and dollars out. Maybe add receivables in there and a few other metrics from the P&L. I'm not trying to be prescriptive here on purely cash in and out. I do think there is…
Dollars/receivables in and dollars/deliverables out is just a question of rate, unless I'm missing something. If a 10 billion dollar company has a per-second dollar out/in rate of $1,000,000 due to actual organic business, a company with $2,000,000 can set up an LLC it buys and sells from, and legally 'swap' $1,000,000 a second back and forth in services "bought and sold" to mimic the appearance of the $10B company,…
But it eventually comes out, so while you can do it short-term, it's a terrible long-term strategy. Your stock will eventually crash and burn if you do too much of it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can you enumerate some examples of when it having less information is better than having more?
It’s a common complaint of value investors that boards (especially in this post-Sarbox world) are solely focused on quarterly earnings reports, to the detriment of long term strategy. One way to talk about the added and persistent value of some companies is to note that many of them have powerful, recalcitrant, or somehow anti-quarterly-cadence founders: buffet, zuck, you could make a list.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Don't invest in companies that disclose enough information. They aren't banning quarterly reporting, they'd just no longer require it.
there is no F500 company that likes quarterly filing. this is why they've been lobbying for it, and with Trump in power they pushed and got it. once it is gone none of them will do it, or at best will do it half-heartedly for a while. 5 years after its repeal there will be no large company doing it regularly
My guess is that most report quarterly, my question is what they report. But we will see.
Simultaneously they are opening up 0DTE options on certain stocks starting with large market caps but don't be surprised when this expands. Currently this was limited to large etfs like SPX. They are also extending trading hours towards 24/7 and eventually 365. How they square increasing liquidity with delaying information is insane. I know there is a lot of manipulation to make quarterly numbers and the tax code is…
> if companies reported dollars in and dollars out live to shareholders at least we would have an idea of how the company is doing in a general sense. A former manager used to run his own company, it was a satellite internet company sometime in the 2000s, they were going into the negative, so they had a big TV in the office, showing everyday what was coming in, and how much they made vs how much they owed. They did i…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because of how performance targets are defined. If sales figures “fell” or didn’t grow at the expected rate it can be worse than having a few more points over next quarter.
Why do they define performance targets that way then? Are they making it hard on purpose for some reason?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The company I'm a director for licenses IP from my company. The company wouldn't exist without my IP (I'm one of the founders). Yet, I'm also a customer of the same. Dollars in/out, we're all kosher. This isn't fraud, it's just how companies work.
So long as the prices are fair and reasonable, sure. But that doesn't enable you to run up an arbitrarily large bill without either doing an arbitrary amount of actual work or committing fraud.