The banking syndicate takes on some risk in order to facilitate trading in a successful IPO. Usually to compensate for this risk the IPO price is (slightly) less than what they believe the stock will trade at. This way the IPO investors and the banks can make a bit of money for bearing this risk.
It's usually seen as unsuccessful and a bad-news story when a stock falls below its IPO price. Even though Lyft might have taken the max from investors, it will diminish its ability to raise further equity and its bankers will lose the trust of the IPO investors.
It's equivalent to the US implementing a VAT, except superior as it directly encourages replacement domestic manufacturing rather than merely acting as a tax on goods (as in the case of steel and aluminum, which are seeing US steel companies boom again with vast profit growth).
It doesn't merely redistribute wealth from one company to another. It reclaims critical domestic industrial investment and blue collar jobs as well.
Nucor's profit for all of 2016 was $796m, and $679m for 2014 (2015 was a bad year). For just the second quarter it was $683m and they've yet to see the full benefit of the tariffs. Alcoa, which has been a disaster the last several years, produced a billion dollars in operating income in the first two quarters, equal to a full year's operating income previously. US Steel which has been bleeding to death for years, looks capable of producing a billion dollars in annual profit again in the near future ($214m in profit in the second quarter on a large bump in sales).
Yes, we'll pay slightly higher steel & aluminum prices than we would have otherwise if we were getting artificially low dumping-level prices set by the Chinese impact on the global markets. It's worth it to regenerate major US industry back to health and the blue collar jobs that go with that. We can afford the slightly higher prices, we can't afford a hollowed-out industrial base.
It’s not at all like a VAT as it doesn’t impact everyone equally. It’s redistributing wealth to specific market participants from others.
In this case almost all profits that come to the domestic producers of steel come from the domestic consumers (and those impacted by tit for tat tariffs).
There might be very good reasons to prefer some industries to others but as a revenue source tariffs are not at all like a neutral VAT.
Long is short-hand for anyone benefiting from the price of the stock rising. This includes people who own the stock outright, have bought on credit, own call options, have sold put options, etc.
This seems backwards though. iAds failed because Apple was pro-privacy - iAds targeting features essentially didn't exist because they didn't collect any data.
He took one puff of weed on a casual podcast at ~11 p.m. local time. Not certain this is the canary in the coal mine some people are making it out to be... but I guess volatile stocks will find reasons to be volatile?
The problem is that most of the people who run the economy and the Government are still from a generation that views cannabis consumption as dangerous, anti-establishment drug use not appropriate for people they consider as "proper". This view has been codified into law by Marijuana ban laws, and as I realized just today, into banning it from being used by anyone with a security clearance.
As far as we've come with legalizing marijuana and shifting societies perception about cannabis, the vestiges of the old order still exist.
Why would all of today’s young engineers, who collectively consume marijuana and concentrates by the ton, suddenly take issue with one of their foremost peers partaking in the same activity? It makes more sense that the older investors who are making a bet on this generation’s promising stallion, in their eyes, are seeing what is to them, aberrant behavior. Given how often and well honored the theme of “older generation not progressing with the times” is, seems much more likely especially when thought in the same context as Occam’s Assertion.
My point was that I don't think there's a ton of productivity to be lost by smoking 1 puff in the middle of the night vs. smoking a whole joint in the middle of the day.
The "X" in this case has too wide of a range of interpretation to jump the gun on hypocrisy.
I work for a small consulting firm focused on improving productivity and building innovation systems within small-medium sized businesses. And having strategic plans, vision, values is hugely important in building a focused innovation program. It's become routine in my engagements to spend significant time defining goals and values where the companies had none previously! This sort of exercise is valuable for firms at any stage and size in my opinion.
Totally agreed! If you put in the time to define it upfront, it makes so many other tactical things (like hiring, goal setting etc) much easier down the road.
This is really great. I actually struggled to find ML solutions for a large relational data set at a previous employer. Ended up figuring out a way to flatten the data, but was not ideal. Glad that people are working on this, keep it up!
