481–483 of 483 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sure, it should say PE not VC. But it was pretty accurate. The PE firm won't be on the hook for much of the debt. The nano-debate over the word "push" is probably obscuring more than it's revealing.
It sort of accurately described something, with the wrong terminology, that is orthogonal to the headline issue.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Either the price is higher than your bid, and your order won't fill (so why place it?) or the price is lower than your bid, and you should expect the market knows something you don't. There is no risk-free way to trade. You can place a market order and guarantee execution, bearing the risk that you get a bad price. You can place a limit order, and guarantee price, bearing the risk that your trade doesn’t execute. I…
Trades always execute at exactly the market price. A limit order says that if the market price reaches your limit price, execute the trade. At that moment, your limit price will equal the market price.
You earlier said that there’s no point in bidding anything but “current market price”, and that’s what I was responding to. Limit orders can execute at current market price but they can also execute at some future market price. It’s ok to place limit orders, they just have different risks from market orders.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think you're both right. Those were great opportunities, but the proportion of such opportunities which are made available to retail traders has greatly diminished over time. There's a great chart out there somewhere (I couldn't find it) which breaks down the impact of private equity on the availability of such opportunities in public markets. It showed a dozen or so companies (like Google, Apple, Uber, Stripe, etc…
That's quite an interesting observation. I suspect that the reason those "newer" companies were able to have the majority of their gains reaped pre-IPO was that during that time period, it was easy to acquire capital from investors without resorting to public market IPOs, where as the era of google and apple have not got the same level of private investment. And i think it has to do with low interest rates. During th…
If you're familiar with Ray Kurzweil's work, I wonder whether this phenomenon might be related. Kurzweil notes that better technology begets better technology in a self-reinforcing and ever-accelerating cycle of technological advancement. His thesis implies rapidly evolving capital requirements. Massive amounts of nimble private capital, secure in the hands of highly competent people with relevant domain expertise, may well be an important precondition for continual acceleration.