Good afternoon

Read the Story

Show Top Comments

Well, when you put it that way, maybe there *is* something to be worried about.

s_mcc

Nothing like manufactured events to make the markets deflate.

No Venezuela? Kashmir?

First and second world problems only.

GoldHill108

If you’re worried about italian fiscal policy i suggest you go long physical marijuana

cstgmrd

This looks like the coffee station in my office

benleubitz

We should add Germany, Kashmir and Brazil over the wall.

MrJKoe

The CEOs of nearly 200 companies just said shareholder value is no longer their main objective

Read the Story

Show Top Comments

> Investing in employees, delivering value to customers, dealing ethically with suppliers and supporting outside communities

…in order to maximize shareholder value

abcxyd

What’s actually happening here is sort of true – companies that obsess over shareholder value usually end becoming less valuable (the book Good to Great talks about this). Companies that DGAF about shareholder value and instead obsess over the business usually end up dominating (see Amazon’s history of pissing off shareholders).

Really, everyone here is just copying Amazon’s lead and repackaging as woke marketing.

badcheetoman

*The CEOs of nearly 200 companies just said creating short-term shareholder value is no longer their main objective

LeonBlacksruckus

This is a bit silly… in the long term, acting responsibly and fairly to employees and partners etc. _is_ maximizing shareholder value. It’s just an evolution.

moutonbleu

I’ll believe it when their actions align with their words.

unstabletaco

SoftBank plans to lend up to $20 billion to employees to invest in new fund: WSJ

Read the Story

Show Top Comments

Borrowing money to invest… What could go wrong?

moutonbleu

>Japan’s SoftBank Group Corp (9984.T) is planning to lend up to $20 billion to its employees, including Chief Executive Masayoshi Son, to buy stakes in its second Vision Fund, the Wall Street Journal reported on.wsj.com/307Ljih on Saturday, citing people familiar with the matter.

>Son himself may account for over half of that amount, the Journal reported, adding that executives feel that such a step will make employees more accountable as the investments of the fund can be canceled if a manager leaves or is found to have engaged in a “reckless deal”.

>The loans are likely to have an interest rate of about 5%, the WSJ said, citing a source.

>The government of Kazakhstan, an investor in the fund, is expected to make a contribution of about $3 billion while banks such as Goldman Sachs Group Inc (GS.N), Britain’s Standard Chartered PLC (STAN.L) and Japan’s Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group Inc (8306.T) have also indicated they are willing to invest several hundred million dollars each, according to the report.

michapman2

Cannot possibly go tits up

piratepowder

Guys lots of companies do this. It’s a perk. The company’s loan gets repaid on distributions and the company isn’t going to go after employees if the fund busts. It’s equity upside at the price of debt.

hankemer

Softbank / Vision Fund will be the cause for the next big crash. Start up bubble will go down like the Dot com bubble…

headshotmonkey007

Understanding Yield Curve Inversion

Read the Story

Show Top Comments

This is solid all around, only thing i’d include is the main reason why yield curves are upward sloping is that there is more uncertainty in the future. I’m willing to lend to you for 6 months at say 4% because based on your current farm and cash flow I expect there won’t be a high probability that you can’t pay me back. But over 10 years I’m less sure what will happen. Crop yield could drop, you could become less competitive/efficient, etc. So for longer term debt I ask a higher rate because there is naturally more risk in the long term.

​

For USTs this logic holds for investors in general USA economic growth, but another way to think about it is just that longer term changes up/down in yield reflect changes in the market’s view on future economic growth at that point in time. So an inversion could signal a potential recession because we say it’ll be worse growth/return potential later than today… Not that this couldn’t change based on market opinion. As for the FED, their main goal is stability so they can’t be seen reacting too quickly (especially if its a intraday inversion which is prob caused by buying pressure). TBH this is super top level, and the devil is a bit in the details

lostVkng

That’s a lot of banking theory, which is good and correct, but it fails to include enough human nature. The yield curve inverts when there is greater demand (relative to some “normal” supply) for longer-term treasuries than shorter-term. Full stop. There are a number of reasons this can occur. It can be an aggregate expression of future rate expectations. It can be a panic flight to quality by global buyers who prefer specific maturities. It can result from investment reallocation based on the unwinding of a particularly crowded trade. The fact that specific inversions preceded recessions in the past has never been adequately explained on a fundamental level. Look at a graph of the 2/10 CMT spread with the inverse of the Fed Funds rate overlaid.

DialMMM

There is some talk the curve inversion has more to do with too much demand for longer treasuries, rather than not enough demand for nearer. Maybe DB downsizing (did they pull out of Argentina, to cause the recent market crash?) has something to do with it. Or maybe America is still offering the best rates long term (some nations are moving to negitive rates), and the government shows no signs of slowing spending, thus increasing supply?

stochasticFartBot

It’s not just about banks, investors also buy those long dated treasuries at low yields because they believe that rates will fall in the future and don’t see better opportunities. Banks are not the ones issuing those treasuries.

Yaro35

The inflation contributes to economic growth also we need destroy money for overvalued prices in the economy. the best kept, of economy’s strength by producing less money and it’s growing with remarkably guaranteed Ventures with less risks

bitdom8

Founder’s grip on WeWork may be hard for investors to stomach

Read the Story

Show Top Comments

Back in the 60s charismatic sociopaths would just start polygamist cults, not boring, transparently fraudulent companies. How times change.

APIglue

These guys could have mastered cold fusion and I’d be skeptical.

Nuemann has cashed out $700M+ already… From a company that has never generated a profit. He hasn’t just gotten rich, he’s gotten mind boggingly rich, from a young company that isn’t doing anything particularly new.

I don’t see how the average investor could think that Neumann’s incentives are remotely close to aligned with theirs.

slightlyintoout

This initial IPO will come out to mixed reviews, but a ton of press. The banks will tout it as a great buy because they’ve already lent WeWork a ton of debt and have skin in the game. The economy will slow, the Saudis will demand SoftBank to stop fueling this WW growth, and once the push for growth stops will force them to be profitable. That is when the actual business model is tested.

WW has high upfront costs to lease and fitout centers as they stabilize. Once stabilized, these centers will make money. Servcorp, Regis, etc. all make money with this model, but these companies actually have cash flow. WW’s fear is to have a valuation actually based on their earnings, and not “selling the dream” of upside.

This is standard end of cycle activity that we all look back at and laugh. In this case, everyone knows it’s crap, but the banks want to push it through before the music stops. What no one has been able to answer is why is this a tech stock?
Can these companies really just self identify as a tech company because they want to be valued as one? WW is a serviced office company master leasing from LL’s and subleasing to individual tenants. Nothing more. So where does the tech come in?

chrisb5583

>Investors in the upcoming initial public offering of WeWork’s parent, The We Company, are being asked to lower their standards for corporate governance beyond what other technology startups have demanded, securities law experts said on Wednesday.

>Adam Neumann, the company’s CEO and co-founder, will control the company through his ownership of shares with high voting power, a common structure among newly listed Silicon Valley unicorns, including ride-sharing startup Lyft Inc (LYFT.O), Snapchat owner Snap Inc (SNAP.N) and social media giant Facebook Inc (FB.O).

>The We Company will take a financial hit for this decision, as the S&P 500 and some other major indices exclude companies with dual-class shares. On the other hand, many investors have overcome their concerns about founders retaining a tight grip on fast-growing startups, because of fear of missing out on potentially lucrative returns.

>“WeWork is pushing the outer bounds of what’s acceptable for a public company,” said Glenn Davis, research director at the Council of Institutional Investors, an investor advocacy group. “The IPO filing indicates that the objective is to preserve incumbent control indefinitely.”

>We Company co-founder Rebekah Neumann, Adam Neumann’s wife who is the company’s chief brand and impact officer, will pick his successor if he dies or is permanently disabled in the 10 years following the IPO, alongside two company board members. She will get to pick those board members if two people currently on the board, Bruce Dunlevie and Steven Langman, step down.

>The set-up is odd, according to Charles Elson, director of the corporate governance center at the University of Delaware.

>The couple is also incentivized to donate $1 billion to charities over the next decade to keep their control of the company at current levels. Neumann will retain his high vote shares if he hits the target, if not, the number of votes per share will decrease, according to the IPO filing. While he would still likely control the company, his grip could loosen if the voting power of his shares becomes diluted.

>Neumann has entered into several transactions with the We Company over the years, making the company a tenant in some of his properties and charging it rent. He has also secured a $500 million credit line from banks using company stock as collateral.

michapman2

Anyone investing in this deserves to lose lots of money

NeptunePlage

GE Fraud

Read the Story

Show Top Comments

Lots of people calling bullshit on the fraud allegations. The proper methodology for estimating long term care liabilities is highly debatable and the consolidated Baker-Hughes reporting is required by law! They may be in rough shape financially but fraud seems like a stretch to say the least. Today the market saw the 2nd wave of reactions on this report and the sock rebounded big time.

jayy42

Large purchases by insiders. CEO bought 2 million dollars worth yesterday.

JimC29

Until we take corporate crime seriously like Iceland did, it’s just gonna keep coming.

scottieducati

Greater Enron

Dog_Gas_Whistle_Lite

Oof

lIgMA43