The 787 also pressurizes the cabin to a lower altitude. Most aircraft pressurize to an altitude of 8,000 ft (~2,438m). The 787 pressurizes to 6,000 feet (~1,828m), which is a noticeable difference - it's like being in Denver vs. higher up on a mountain. Your blood oxygen concentrations will be higher as a result.
I read this article and skimmed the original and I'm still not sure what the exact details of this exchange are. No robo/quant investing? Minimum hold periods? No requirements for quarterly earnings? No penny stocks?
There is no difference in incentives on the market itself. They just make the companies which are traded on their platform sign an agreement before they are allowed to be traded.
I think in practice this means that no one will use this exchange...
> Operating principles: In an earlier SEC filing, LTSE said that its corporate governance rules might include: increased voting rights for shareholders who hold company stock for long periods of time, restrictions on offering short-term incentives to executives, disclosure of impact of any stock buybacks, and requiring companies to have a board-level long-term product and strategy committee.
This would add a level of indirection to stockholders trying to influence the company though, right? You have to make the fund managers put pressure on the company to give you short term gains, rather than pressuring the company directly.
In a prior post the founder claimed that there are ways to deal with that. After all, AIUI stocks in the States are already actually held by the Depository Trust Corporation, so the system already deals with indirection.
Agreed. I suspect that it's more like "The Stock Exchange For LongTerm(TM) Certified Companies", so more like the requirement that exchange-listed companies are at least 70% public.
Presumably that could mean requirements on board memberships, dividend levels, types of employment perhaps? I find it a bit hard to see what stipulations they would have that aren't just good governance.
Same here. I was looking all over the site for "the idea" or the differentiator ... couldn't find it.
I think most of the approaches you mentioned wouldn't hold up for a large stock exchange because some off-platform trading site would spring up to fill the gaps. For example, you have a minimum holding period, but off-platform you can "sell" your shares at the current market price, then transfer them for free once the holding period ends. Or something.
I think you have to change the way the shares themselves work somehow (or how dividends work, etc). I'm not sure, seems like a hard problem.
It looks like a SaaS analytics platform. Maybe they will have different data than normal Quarterly reports coming in from companies who want to be part of the exchange.
Porsche SE was banned from certain stock indexes because they refused to publish quarterly reports. They claimed that too frequent reporting is not beneficial for companies. You can purchase Porsche SE stocks, but they are not listed in the DAX, which is the largest German stock index.
I worked for Dara before. Believe it or not, he is a sincere and honest person. Yes, he cares about the bottom line (as any CEO would) but he believes what he's saying here.
Wallstreet has rules. They're just not enforced. People would be shocked if they knew, for instance, how many hedge funds simply operate on a model of "black edge" insider trading.
People would be shocked if they knew how frequently soldiers put themselves in grave danger (and die) to avoid violating their command's ROI and the laws of land warfare.
Prevention, especially successful prevention, always has a terrible PR problem in that people forget the ills that motivated the original prevention framework. One can argue that the framework specifics need to be updated, but I doubt that many soldiers or officers want a reinstatement of dangers and effects chemical warfare for example.
I wasn't trying to imply the cost wasn't questionable! Part of the 'forgetting' is the imposition of new or extended interpretations of the original intent of such agreements that lose sight of the balance of value one gets.
Specially related to insider trading, the enforcement of the rules you mention is made more complicated by the fact that there are actually no laws (rules) on the books that make insider trading illegal (as well as there being no SEC rule against insider trading). When people get in trouble for insider trading, they normally point to it being securities fraud. That leaves the interpretation of what is insider trading up to the courts. I agree there are plenty of people in Wall Street that would do just about anything (including breaking a black and white rule of law) to make a buck, but there is also a pretty significant grey area for what constitutes insider trading. If you are interested, just google "Matt Levine insider trading" and a number of his daily columns with updates on various cases (and his much better explanations of the nuances of insider trading) will come up.
I'd be interested in hearing more about how these firms get away with this kind of thing. I interned at an investment firm last year and the lawyer who worked in their compliance department told me how detailed, thorough, and stringent the audit that was done by the SEC the year before I got there was. Keep in mind, this was a small firm. Do larger firms have some way of keeping those kinds of things secret? Sorry if I'm misinterpreting something here, I have almost no financial knowledge as I worked in the tech department as a programmer.
I work in an area of finance technology connected to this process. It's no different than escalation in any other form of criminality. Cops wear armor, criminals buy armor-piercing rounds. Auditors looks deeper, so the pertinent information is masked deeper.
At this point, the major gap in our financial regulatory process is at the detection layer, not the investigations layer. If you can keep specific scenarios under wraps, you can avoid things quite easily, especially if the scenarios you do cover are impressively complex and thorough. So you hire PhDs in math and physics to identify and create your algorithms. They do a great job identifying scenarios where known criminal activity occurs, but they aren't informed on the specific, complicated, and should-be-totally-illegal actions your firm is engaged in, so they are basically shooting in the dark with no chance of finding the real misdeeds. These algorithms are genius-level complex, greatly reducing the number of government employees that will be able to decipher them. You create hundreds or thousands of them, making it prohibitively difficult for anyone in a regulatory agency to take the time to understand them all, then you assure the regulators you have all your bases covered. You show them the evidence of all the wrongdoing you've identified (also an insurmountable mountain of data) and if you do not leave any glaring holes, they have to nod and walk away.
Financial regulations are important, but the idea that regulators could every truly keep the financial markets from abusing the rest of us is nonsense. They can only do so much.
What if the policy was that once a year, a set amount of people will be prosecuted? Kind of like setting quotas for speeding tickets... Where firms are ranked in terms of the volume/egregiousness of the actions committed.
Oh, and setup an anonymous tip-line. To allow other firms to "investigate" others in order to make themselves look better (might not happen every year, but I'd imagine it would be an option of last resort if something really bad needed to be covered).
Shady things will still happen, but there will be attempts to reduce it just enough so others take the hit. Plus, the public gets a few show trials to make them believe the regulators have teeth.
I've read the beginning. I cringed a little at the cartoony portrayal of Steve Cohen as some sort of emo teenager. The author clearly hadn't consulted anyone close to him and I had doubts about the accuracy.
Eh... the difference is when there's photos of war crimes something often actually happens. When it comes out that there were business crimes, no a whole lot ever happens. Maybe someone resigns. Real justice happening there...
Don't get me wrong, things slip by on both fronts. But when it's financial, there isn't any sense of moral/righteous indignation to incite actual action. It's more like, "oh, bankers are screwing people again? Well, that's what they do. They'll just worm out of this like they do everything else."
You know what? You're right. That is a huge difference, or at least, it was. Now? I think we're seeing a turning point on both; we see what happens in Syria, but realize that we're in no position to prosecute anyone... when people care at all.
That said, until very recently I would have agreed with you completely.
I've been following that through the UK news... what a hell of a thing. After Vietnam, and now with footage of these things, it seems clear that there is a truly strong desire to Not Know about some things. We'd just rather believe in certain myths, because the alternative would make it difficult or impossible to send young men and women into hell for less than dire reasons.
throwww.com might be a good alternative. No curation by editors. Recommended articles to come based on algorithms and not circle jerks. Full disclosure: I built it.
Hey, I'm the creator of Throwww. Sorry this is totally my bad. It's a result of a known bug, but recently I took my MBP to Applecare and they accidentally wiped my entire drive (long story). So before I can fix it, there's a bunch of dev environment stuff I need to setup. Sorry again.
TLDR: my bad.
I tried to email support@throwww and admin@throwww. None of the emails bounced back, but I wasn't sure if that was the right place to 'contact the administrator'.
Anyways, great platform, this piece immediately came to my mind when I saw your site; it inspired me to write. The timing is funny though. Credit to the hn crowd for posting the cached version immediately after I had posted the site.
From what I can tell, it went from above the fold on the first page to nowhere to be found on the first five pages (haven't checked beyond that) almost instantaneously. How does that happen?
On another note, I'm more concerned with the toxic gases coming out of people sitting next to me.