511–520 of 561 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just don't get divorced. The "shovel guy": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Brannan > Brannan's wife divorced him and he was forced to liquidate much of his real estate to pay her one-half of their assets. He died poor and in relative obscurity
Better still - don't get married. It's just a piece of paper that says somebody else can take half your stuff.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Better still - don't get married. It's just a piece of paper that says somebody else can take half your stuff.
Why downvote if you won't correct me?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Better still - don't get married. It's just a piece of paper that says somebody else can take half your stuff.
Modelling marriage as an unhedged call option, interesting.
I just don't see the benefit to the standard government marriage scheme. Domestic partner benefits have basically the same upside and very little downside these days. From a legal perspective marriage is almost entirely about property/money. There are plenty of people who have a loving and marriage-like relationship without getting the state's permission (piece of paper).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> & disallow shorting. Why would you completely disallow shorting ? I'd think that in such a framework, shorting would just need to become a longer term bet. So one could offer something like 2,5,10 year LEAPs, but restrict their trading to a window of 1 week per year (e.g. one can trade derivatives as much as one wants, but only during week X, which is the week when all derivatives expire, and all derivatives are lo…
Not only it's a bad idea to ban shorting, but it's almost impossible to do outside regulatory action by the SEC and even then. Shorting is essentially borrowing the control of stock to some other party. That's it. It doesn't have to be done on the market, it can be done in a private, confidential contract where I oblige myself to sell my stock when directed to do so by yourself, provided adequate warranties exist tha…
Let me try to summarize everyone’s same question: - The idea of a stock exchange that allows companies and investors to focus on 5, 10, 25 year horizons sounds great! - However companies on normal stock exchanges now already try to do this, but it’s hard because of quarterly earnings, pressure for quarterly growth, etc - How is LTSE different? Seems like: Companies and investors “promise” to have a longer term focus…
I used to be part of the system that built machines that auto traded on arbitrage opportunities due to millsec/nanosec differences in reported prices in different exchanges. Although probably not popular I would suggest that long term stocks needs to incorporate features that actively block certain trading patterns: limit price changes, limit buy/ sell frequency, & disallow shorting. I have been heavily involved in t…
Seems really cool, but after being on your site for 10 min I have yet to find the "meat". Other than a vague reference to "through member broker-dealers". For me the info I am interested in, and would want to see featured most prominently, is 1) A list of companies on the exchange and their last closing price. 2) An option (even if through a third party) to purchase shares of companies listed on LTSE. This informatio…
Today's announcement doesn't pertain to listings, so 1) is a ways off still You can do 2) through your existing broker, so long as they are a member of the LTSE, which they likely already are. You can check their membership status here: https://brokercheck.finra.org/
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This seems problematic. The longer you hold your stock the more voting rights and hence value it accrues. But if you sell the shares all the accrued value is lost. So it surely leads to proxy voting, where former owners still are registered as owners of their former shares, but vote them for whoever they secretly sold the shares to.
The loss of accrued value is a disincentive to sell, and sell-disincentives are a feature, not a big.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
'- How is LTSE different? Seems like: Companies and investors “promise” to have a longer term focus via planning' I don't think "promise" is the word. The fact the exchange says it's focused on long term, would incline companies that wanted to focus on long term to list themselves there. Likewise, it would incline customers to list themselves there. But what incentive is there for short term traders? Right now, on th…
all the incentives of the companies listing, and existing holders, are aligned to long term Are they? In what way? The only difference from a normal exchange appears to be that companies are "required to publish a series of policies". Why wouldn't that incentivize saying "the right things" in those policies but then otherwise behaving exactly the same as companies listed on a normal exchange? it sounds like voting po…
I am a business that wishes to focus on the short term; why would I list there?
I am a customer that wishes to focus on the short term; why would I buy there?
It's not a requirement. It likely doesn't need to be a requirement. The point is, investors and companies both have options; why would they pick the one that is misaligned with them, even if it's just in intention? Starting out there's no reason to (no critical mass to make it worth investing in), and if it picks up traction there'd be no reason to either, because now the incumbent companies, and their stockholders, are already aligned to long term thinking due to their being the only ones inclined to invest initially.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> & disallow shorting. Why would you completely disallow shorting ? I'd think that in such a framework, shorting would just need to become a longer term bet. So one could offer something like 2,5,10 year LEAPs, but restrict their trading to a window of 1 week per year (e.g. one can trade derivatives as much as one wants, but only during week X, which is the week when all derivatives expire, and all derivatives are lo…
If traders have to be covered with the actual stock, would that mean they can only short Foo shares up to the amount they own? Surely that's equivalent to just selling your holdings? Or are there people who'll loan out their stocks for 10 years, trusting the borrower has enough cash not to go bankrupt in 10 years no matter what happens?
The short seller has an account with a brokerage, the broker is ultimately on the hook for making sure that any borrowed short interest is returned. This is why brokers have margin requirements.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>That's an interesting take, and not one that I think you will find in common with experts on the subject. Many of these "experts" typically use outrage to justify their continued employment. Most of them come off as genuinely deranged to most of the people I know, so this isn't just a me thing. >I might largely be wasting my time in attempting to educate people on the internet You're not educating people so much as…
>You're not educating people so much as finding chances to belittle them. >You're trying to tell someone they are racist while not holding any racist opinion but for saying magic words I have explicitly stated in multiple places that I do not believe people are racist or have any sort of malicious intent, and are likely unaware of the connotations. You can see multiple posts in this thread where I have stated this. I…
You're mincing words. If the people are above reproach then what they are doing is probably also above reproach. What you are saying is effectively "I'm not saying they or their actions are racist, but they actually are."
>For the disenfranchised groups, sure. For everyone else? Not so much.
This doesn't make any sense. The disenfranchised groups need to be empowered; everyone else doesn't need to be, they are already empowered (by your own logic). So if this works for the disenfranchised groups that should be enough.
>I am trying to assume the most charitable possible interpretation from this post, but I'm struggling to do so and respond to it.
I'm trying to point out your position isn't really consistent. If you want to help people then you shouldn't be trying to drag other people down. The points I am making are meant to show that, regardless of what you say, what you are doing "works" by trying to ascribe racism to people that are not exhibiting racism.
In some specific cases language use guides thought, but more commonly language is dictated by people's goals and the existing nature of reality. Language did not cause the world to exist.