Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Supreme Court sides with Slack, putting direct listings in jeopardy

axios.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 128 posts

Re: Supreme Court sides with Slack, putting direct listings in jeopardy

#71

Post by SpicyLemonZest »

olliej wrote: post #66

So what it sounds like to me is that unregistered shares exist specifically for the purpose of fraud - you can’t tell whether you’re buying registered or unregistered, so presumably you’re going to only ever be able to get unregistered ones. The only reason to do this is so you can put fraudulent info in the prospectus in the knowledge that the only people getting registered shares are those who are in on the fraud,…

You've misunderstood what the registration is. All of the shares which Slack sold in the direct listing were registered - but the direct listing process allows employees (and other insiders) to sell their preexisting unregistered shares in the same markets.

Re: Supreme Court sides with Slack, putting direct listings in jeopardy

#72

Post by rr808 »

puzzledobserver wrote: post #6

Is it just me, or are newspaper articles surprisingly difficult to read? From what I understand: 1. Instead of a traditional IPO, Slack went public through an alternative process called a direct listing. 2. As part of its direct listing, Slack sold some million "registered" and some million "unregistered" shares. 3. What are registered and unregistered shares? I could not find an explanation on Wikipedia. 4. Fiyyaz P…

Everything is clickbait and too long now. It used to be a good newspaper told you everything you needed to know if the heading and/or the first few paragraphs. Now you have to skim read a whole article to find the only sentence that has useful information. That is even if there is any.

Re: Supreme Court sides with Slack, putting direct listings in jeopardy

#73

Post by suprjami »

rr808 wrote: post #72
puzzledobserver wrote: post #6

Is it just me, or are newspaper articles surprisingly difficult to read? From what I understand: 1. Instead of a traditional IPO, Slack went public through an alternative process called a direct listing. 2. As part of its direct listing, Slack sold some million "registered" and some million "unregistered" shares. 3. What are registered and unregistered shares? I could not find an explanation on Wikipedia. 4. Fiyyaz P…

Everything is clickbait and too long now. It used to be a good newspaper told you everything you needed to know if the heading and/or the first few paragraphs. Now you have to skim read a whole article to find the only sentence that has useful information. That is even if there is any.

Wow, you're right!

From being on the school newspaper (nerd) with a ruthless English teacher as editor, I learnt the older style you just described.

Actually I learnt it by having large swathes of my text highlighted and deleted with an instruction "rewrite this".

I didn't realise how bad modern news is at this until you pointed it out. It's fairly common these days for me to start reading an article but still have little idea what it's about beyond the clickbait headline when I'm a third or a quarter way through an enormous read, so I just give up and leave.

I wonder when and why this changed?

Re: Supreme Court sides with Slack, putting direct listings in jeopardy

#74

Post by quesera »

DavidPeiffer wrote: post #54
jholman wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Honestly it seems like the best practice is always just "read Money Stuff". I'm not a serious follower of financial news, but various things do come across my radar, and since I've subbed to the email version of Money Stuff (about a year now), I always feel like I'm a week ahead of everyone else (again, at this not-serious-follower level, not a week ahead of the folks who are genuinely in the know). Like all the Twit…

I've always been amazed at how much content he writes every day. Typically 3 topics, often quite different, with hypothetical situations added, laymen explanations of esoteric topics, legal arguments each side is likely to bring along with some of their pitfalls. Footnotes and other articles of interest are also provided.

Matt Levine often spends six dense paragraphs of background explanation (much of which is review, if you are a regular reader) before getting to actual topic of the headline.

From a lesser writer, this would be disqualifying! Somehow I find myself enjoying it.

Re: Supreme Court sides with Slack, putting direct listings in jeopardy

#75

Post by xtracto »

suprjami wrote: post #73
rr808 wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Everything is clickbait and too long now. It used to be a good newspaper told you everything you needed to know if the heading and/or the first few paragraphs. Now you have to skim read a whole article to find the only sentence that has useful information. That is even if there is any.

Wow, you're right! From being on the school newspaper (nerd) with a ruthless English teacher as editor, I learnt the older style you just described. Actually I learnt it by having large swathes of my text highlighted and deleted with an instruction "rewrite this". I didn't realise how bad modern news is at this until you pointed it out. It's fairly common these days for me to start reading an article but still have l…

There are a couple og good Chrome extensions that use GPT to summarize websites. Gpt3.5 is good enough, so it's pretty cheap. Now I only need one that actually overwrites the text.

Re: Supreme Court sides with Slack, putting direct listings in jeopardy

#76

Post by djbusby »

DavidPeiffer wrote: post #54
jholman wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Honestly it seems like the best practice is always just "read Money Stuff". I'm not a serious follower of financial news, but various things do come across my radar, and since I've subbed to the email version of Money Stuff (about a year now), I always feel like I'm a week ahead of everyone else (again, at this not-serious-follower level, not a week ahead of the folks who are genuinely in the know). Like all the Twit…

I've always been amazed at how much content he writes every day. Typically 3 topics, often quite different, with hypothetical situations added, laymen explanations of esoteric topics, legal arguments each side is likely to bring along with some of their pitfalls. Footnotes and other articles of interest are also provided.

The magic combination of skill, experience and good tools.

Re: Supreme Court sides with Slack, putting direct listings in jeopardy

#77

Post by sumedh »

throwaway09223 wrote: post #33
puzzledobserver wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks! From the added context: 7. Pirrani's suit relied on Section 11 of the Securities Act. This alleges that the company lied in its registration document. 8. In an IPO, all shares are covered by the registration document. In a direct listing, the current shareholders of the company just start trading their shares on the market one day. 9. Notably, a direct listing makes it unclear which shares are registered (cov…

Regarding #1, #2 and #3: Most people no longer own their shares directly. Most online self-clearing brokerages are "nominee" accounts where shares are held in the brokerages' name rather than the end customer's name. Owning specific shares in one's own name would be a "direct" account. This is also how fractional shares are handled. Share ownership is a ledger at the brokerage, not an actual stock registered in your…

> Nominee brokerage accounts are cheap and fast.

India and Australia you own the share and you still have cheap and fast brokerage accounts.

Re: Supreme Court sides with Slack, putting direct listings in jeopardy

#78

Post by wolverine876 »

SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #70
wolverine876 wrote: post #62

> "... Our only function lies in discerning and applying the law as we find it." The judiciary has other essential roles, including adapting laws to new circumstances, justice, fairness, and mercy. The judiciary fails when it hurts people or causes injustice simply because Congress didn't anticipate some circumstance (and obviously Congress can't anticipate every circumtance). They pull out the claim above when it su…

But the judiciary also fails, and arguably fails worse, when they make people believe that the law is a game of Calvinball and there are no rules beyond "most sympathetic party wins".

Who here or anywhere has advocated decisions based on 'most sympathetic'?

Re: Supreme Court sides with Slack, putting direct listings in jeopardy

#79

Post by s1artibartfast »

dragonwriter wrote: post #67
xp84 wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As much as I've been deeply unsatisfied with a lot of SCOTUS decisions in the past few years, I have to agree with you completely that it is the legislative branch which "should" have resolved nearly all the high-profile (and possibly even medium-profile) cases that have been brought to the court, by passing actual laws. Should we have (abortion, vote by mail, immigration, etc etc)? Yes the answers are controversial,…

> As much as I've been deeply unsatisfied with a lot of SCOTUS decisions in the past few years, I have to agree with you completely that it is the legislative branch which "should" have resolved nearly all the high-profile (and possibly even medium-profile) cases that have been brought to the court, by passing actual laws. Most of the high profile cases are: (1) Questions about the meaning of the laws actually passed…

(1) certainly can be addressed by passing a law. Laws can be and are updated to add clarity or cover unforeseen circumstances all the time.

Re: Supreme Court sides with Slack, putting direct listings in jeopardy

#80

Post by miley_cyrus »

This is the most one sided news article ever. There is no distinction between the securities act of 1933 and the securities act of 1934. Without presenting that, this article is willful disception.

"Given that giant warning sign, it's unclear why anyone would buy into a direct listing, and thus why any company would attempt one." - How does that follow?

Post reply on HN