Elon Musk just lost $4.6 billion on Tesla and SolarCity  - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / general

author: member_xyz
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: February 11, 2016, 03:33:19 am
content: http://www.theage.com.au/business/elon-musk-just-lost-46billion-on-tesla-and-solarcity-20160210-gmqyjv.htmlTesla shares down 37% for the year (less than 6 weeks).

author: Muxr
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 11, 2016, 03:35:46 am
content: Ouch. They may have been overvalued though. Also the market hasn't been kind lately.

author: rx8pilot
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 11, 2016, 03:54:06 am
content: He is in an endurance race, the current stock price probably does not scare him. I am confident saying it was over-valued, but they have the right ingredients to become profitable in a reasonable amount of time. At the moment, they are scary to investors since they are burning cash and the revenue has a long lag time.

author: Brumby
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: February 11, 2016, 04:21:00 am
content: Share prices around the world are twitchy at the moment and while there may be an additional concern with those companies, I wouldn't be jumping off the top of the Empire State any time soon.

author: mamalala
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: February 11, 2016, 04:40:11 am
content: Quote from: member_xyz on February 11, 2016, 03:33:19 amSurely you mean "Some arbitrary fantasy number got down by 4.6 somethings", right?Greetings,Chris

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 11, 2016, 04:43:58 am
content: Quote from: mamalala on February 11, 2016, 04:40:11 amThose numbers aren't fantasy for investors with a small holding in a company. They are only a fantasy for those who hold enough that if they start to sell a significant amount, the value of the rest will plummet.

author: mamalala
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: February 11, 2016, 04:56:55 am
content: Quote from: coppice on February 11, 2016, 04:43:58 amIf the numbers would reflect the actual value of physical stuff, then i would agree with your first premise. But that's not how it seems to work. I can open up a shop, put 100k into it, and then issue 1000 shares at 100 bucks each. Overnight some drug addled wallstreet bozo goes on a frenzy, and suddenly each share is "worth" 200 bucks. But i still have the same stuff, nothing changed. The extra 100k are virtual, non-existant in the real world.I'd like to see where Musk has lost real 4.6 billion. What is the actual worth of the physical stuff in his fabs? From that substract the profits already made. What is left?Greetings,Chris

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 11, 2016, 05:00:58 am
content: Quote from: mamalala on February 11, 2016, 04:56:55 amSo you don't think the intangible has value? If so, I guess you think R&D is a waste of money.

author: mamalala
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: February 11, 2016, 05:07:40 am
content: Quote from: coppice on February 11, 2016, 05:00:58 amUh, of course it has a value. R&D is not a waste. But let's be realistic here. The way it is done currently is way out of proportion. Especially if a lot of leeches (shareholders) have to benefit. Usually people that know nil about the stuf, and are only in for the money. And whats worse, those people can decide the fate of the company. Like, uh, making it go down in 4.6 billion just so.Greetings,Chris

author: Brumby
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: February 11, 2016, 05:24:02 am
content: At this point, it's aPAPERloss. It will only become real if he sells his shares - or the company dies - and that's not going to happen any time soon.The media will take any opportunity to get eyes on their material and big numbers like this are just ripe for exploitation.From what I understand, emotional reaction to share market fluctuations cause more troubles for investors than real problems.

author: Muxr
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 11, 2016, 05:24:44 am
content: Quote from: mamalala on February 11, 2016, 05:07:40 amThe price of stock doesn't really affect the company directly (unless it's IPO). It affects employees who might receive bonuses in stock. And it can also affect the ability of a company to get financing. But for the most part it isn't a huge blow for the company to have its stock plummet like that. Especially not if it's short term.

author: Brumby
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: February 11, 2016, 05:26:31 am
content: Quote from: Muxr on February 11, 2016, 05:24:44 amThat's the bit I missed!

author: miguelvp
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 11, 2016, 05:28:13 am
content: It's simpler than that.There is a market worth X, your market share increases to 40 percent of the whole market, you get valued at 40% of the whole market share.Well this is a over simplified approach, but I hope you get what I mean.Edit: and yes, long term speculation is part of the valuation as well.

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 11, 2016, 05:29:37 am
content: Quote from: mamalala on February 11, 2016, 05:07:40 amIntangible things are really really hard to measure. Once you accept that some intangible things have substantial value you are in world where valuations are really hard, and you should expect them to bounce around quite a lot.Unfortunately, that also means they can be gamed. Does anyone have a way around that? I haven't seen one.

author: mamalala
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: February 11, 2016, 07:14:31 am
content: Quote from: coppice on February 11, 2016, 05:29:37 amThat's the thing i have a problem with. All that "IP". Given the fact that we have billions of people on this planet, the chance that a _single_ individual comes up with some nifty idea is basically non-existant. Usually a lot of people come up with the same thing. It's just that the idiotically messed up patent system grants stuff to only one. Yes, i know, patents can be challanged. But in reality, Joe Inventor has basically no chance to stand up against Billy Corporate.Which is to say: Yes, your idea may be worth something. But basing that worth on the assumption that you have been the only one to come with it is just idiotic. You can be sure that many more people came up with the same thing, but either decided it's not worth a patent, or simply couldn't afford it.So, in some way i don't really recognize the alleged IP value of some company, because the way it is handled is rather stupid. Yes, developing stuff costs money. Having that development done is worth something. However, the fundamental idea of such a development usually is not worth what some drug addled stock brokers make it out to be.Greetings,Chris

author: Muxr
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 11, 2016, 07:38:43 am
content: I can see why some might call certain share holders leaches. A lot of the investment comes from 401k mutual funds etc and I don't have a problem with that.. but the high frequency traders and day traders do exploit the market for their gain. They don't really care about companies they invest in, their only play is to game the market.Like microsecond trade machines which react on stocks before anyone is even able to see the change.

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 11, 2016, 08:04:41 am
content: Quote from: mamalala on February 11, 2016, 07:14:31 amIP that is nothing more than a mere idea that has been patented always gets the headlines. However, most IP is the result of a large team of people, paid for a considerable period, using lots of expensive equipment, who come up with a design that they hope will be competitive in the marketplace. Most of it is not protected by patents, but by copyright, trade secrets, and other means. In an age where many of the most successful electronics companies have no factories, and make nothing themselves, this kind of IP is the basic value of the company.

author: Galenbo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 11, 2016, 08:12:11 am
content: Quote from: mamalala on February 11, 2016, 04:40:11 amIt's true, that number is fantasy and highly emotional, it's all a greed-panic mechanism behind it.It doesn't affect the backend of a company directly, but in highly mediatised companies/products like this it's mainly about the frontend.If for whatever reason the stock value goes to his "real" value, the product will be seen for it's "real" value also, witch means, a 2-tonne vehicle on batteries, like we also had in the sixties. And some batteries acting as storage or UPS, that also existed with vacuum tubes.Investors, media, goverment money will all go away, that's what's all about, this is their highest concern.

author: miguelvp
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 11, 2016, 08:17:18 am
content: And it turns political once again

author: StuUK
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: February 11, 2016, 08:31:15 am
content: Quote from: Brumby on February 11, 2016, 05:24:02 amThats a fair statement...

author: HAL-42b
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: February 11, 2016, 08:37:04 am
content: The only thing I see is a buyer's market.

author: German_EE
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 11, 2016, 12:05:26 pm
content: I invest in the stock market but it is not my full time occupation. My 'system' is easy to understand:1) If I buy a product and I like it then I buy stock in the company2) If, later on, they screw up in one form or another then I sell the stock and move on.So, a long time ago I purchased an Apple //e and decided that it was a great machine. They even published schematic diagrams and ROM dumps so that folk like me could hack into the machine. I bought some shares in APPL and, a few stock splits later, I'm a happy camper. I still have that //e and, if I could find some 5.25 inch media, it would probably still run.In 2003 I purchased a Sony Viao notebook. For a while it was a great machine and that hi-res display was a thing of beauty so for the first time I invested in the Japanese stock market and purchased some Sony shares. Over the next 12 months the letters on the notebook keyboard started to rub off, the DVD writer failed and the network adapter got flaky so I contacted Sony Technical Support and asked them for a repair ticket. Because I had wiped the hard drive and installed Linux they voided the warranty (I was unable to run their diagnostics) so my machine was junk. The Sony shares were sold and I suggest that you look at the fall in the stock price over the last ten years.My current stock listAppleHyundaiSamsungLenovoVirgin AirlinesSingapore AirlinesKoneMerck

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 11, 2016, 02:46:28 pm
content: You should flip the coin and think of it this way: he has at least 4bn+ to lose.How much do you have to lose?After that, you may not think too bad for him.

author: mamalala
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: February 11, 2016, 04:15:56 pm
content: Quote from: wilfred on February 11, 2016, 07:24:11 amNope. Shareholders didn't build the comapny. if the did, they all would be $EO's. But they are not. They are people that pretend to throw money at some company, while usually having no clue what it is about, only lookng at what profit they can make with their shares.At least over here, most companies are owned by, well, what do you know, the person who actually created that company. Only after all that shares-crap started to gain a foothold things are constantly going in one direction only: down the drain.Greetings,Chris

author: Galenbo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 11, 2016, 04:19:50 pm
content: Quote from: German_EE on February 11, 2016, 12:05:26 pmThanks for your interesting insights.Do you invest in natural resources too? Gold, Silver, Oil, Thorium,... ?

author: mamalala
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: February 11, 2016, 04:22:15 pm
content: Quote from: Muxr on February 11, 2016, 07:38:43 amHigh frequency traders only exploit the flaws that the system already has. Sure, they basically do a good job at highlighting the flaws, but they didn't create those flaws.Simple logic: We all live on a finite sized rock floating in the finite milkiway. It is impossible to have constant growth. At some point, the resources are gone. The basic idea that a company is only worth something as long as it can grow is fundamentally flawed. It may be able to grow for some period of time, at the cost of some other growth, but it just can't grow forever. Anyone who "invests" in some comapny, expecting constant growth, thus making the owned shares more and more valuable, is a leech. It just can't be done long term.Greetings,Chris

author: mamalala
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: February 11, 2016, 04:26:15 pm
content: Quote from: coppice on February 11, 2016, 08:04:41 amOnce you get down to reality, you will quickly see that what you call "large team of people" is way smaller than the number of people that use a crapper at the same time.... That is, that allegedly "large team" is actually neglible. Just because someone has the means to pay for a patent does not mean he really had the idea first.Greetings,Chris

author: mamalala
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: February 11, 2016, 04:35:33 pm
content: Quote from: dannyf on February 11, 2016, 02:46:28 pmHe doesn't have 4 billion. Its funny to see how some folks get all up in arms when it comes to taxing such stuff, loudly yelling "but he does not have that as cash, so it shouldn't be taxed as cash", only to make a 180° turn and say "but he lost XXX as if it were cash". Greed makes people blind.Do you know how the french dealt with overly greedy folks? Look up "french revolution". Also look up "Guillotine". Should give you at least a vague hint as to how much things can be stretched before the breaking point. Whereas "breaking" has quite a boney meaning....Greetings,Chris

author: Muxr
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 11, 2016, 04:36:07 pm
content: Quote from: mamalala on February 11, 2016, 04:22:15 pmYes but seeing and acting on information because you have a fat fiber pipe in the same building as the stock exchange is borderline insider trading. They execute trades on information the rest of the world doesn't get to see until the opportune moment is over.On the other part of your comment. A profitable company is supposed to grow, even if they don't grow the business the assets (physical or IP) accumulate. Which increases the value. A collapse of a system can cause rapid devaluation of shares, whether it be the entire economy or just the market they operate in. But people who own shares aren't all leaches. Shares are the price of going IPO. Going IPO gives a company a huge influx of starting capital. Even if those shares were transferred to someone else they still represent the ownership, without which the company either wouldn't have had the money to grow or wouldn't have existed. That's all part of the contract of receiving that fat IPO check.

author: zapta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 11, 2016, 04:43:15 pm
content: Quote from: mamalala on February 11, 2016, 04:35:33 pmSo far the greedy here is you, lasting after other people money and threatening to behead them .

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 11, 2016, 04:57:07 pm
content: "Do you know how the french dealt with overly greedy folks? "By becoming fast a 3rd world country where everyone is equally poor. No wonder they have the world guys like pikkety.

author: retrolefty
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 12, 2016, 12:52:48 am
content: Quote from: mamalala on February 11, 2016, 04:15:56 pmI see that you are not a fan of capitalism and the liquidity of capital via free markets. Perhaps there is a better working system out there to compare to? China appears to be having trouble establishing an effective stock market but I'm sure they understand that long term that central control of an economy doesn't have a good track record.

author: retrolefty
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 12, 2016, 01:02:43 am
content: Quote from: mamalala on February 11, 2016, 04:22:15 pmMany speculate on stocks for growth opportunity, but many people conservatively buy stocks for the steady cash dividends paid by companies that use growth as only a tool to sustain dividends over time for the owners of the stock.

author: Brumby
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: February 12, 2016, 01:09:26 am
content: All this to-and-fro about share trading....Please.Has everyone forgottenWHYa company will list on the stock market?

author: mtdoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 12, 2016, 01:21:40 am
content: Quote from: retrolefty on February 12, 2016, 12:52:48 amFree markets? Ha Ha - that's a good one. So pre-2008. I wish we still had free markets.Regardless of one's political ideology (spare us the left vs right trolling please) - one thing's for certain - wealth inequality is near all time highs. Regardless of who you blame for that, history has shown this will end badly. Higher taxes, war or revolution - take your pick.

author: zapta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 12, 2016, 02:15:31 am
content: Quote from: mtdoc on February 12, 2016, 01:21:40 amYet another catastrophic prediction. Yawn.

author: mtdoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 12, 2016, 02:35:35 am
content: Quote from: zapta on February 12, 2016, 02:15:31 amNice try.But instead of trolling for conflict perhaps you can offer your ideas of what will happen with current trends in the financial markets and wealth distribution.How do you think the situation will resolve itself? Politics aside, would you like to see current trends continue and do you think it is possible they will continue on their current trajectory for the foreseeable future?I'm not interested in personal or political attacks. I am interested in others views of the situation and a conversation about the possibilitiesI have no specific predictions about outcome or timelines but I do try to learn from history.

author: zapta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 12, 2016, 04:22:41 am
content: Quote from: mtdoc on February 12, 2016, 02:35:35 amThe pattern I see is along the lines of catashtropes-will-happen-unless-if-my-political-view-point-will-be-adopted. Be it catastrophic global warming, very sharp decline in energy resources or wars and revolutions and this is typically expressed with very high real or fake confidence.In reality, the future may unfold with thousands of ways and variations, some we can imagine and some we can't. We should be more humble about our ability to predict the future, and also should not focus on negative outcomes.

author: mtdoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 12, 2016, 05:13:37 am
content: Quote from: zapta on February 12, 2016, 04:22:41 amOn this we agree.QuoteI profess no ability to predict anything other than a repeat of the broad cycles that have occurred for thousands of years of human history. Those are not specific predictions. I believe in the adage that history does not repeat exactly but it does rhyme. Believing otherwise would be hubris.My personal politics are likely not what you assume and in any case I have no illusions that politicians have the ability to effect much change at all (except perhaps at the margins) on the cyclical nature of history driven by human nature and biological impertitives.I do not see outcomes as positive or negative - that judgement is entirely one of perspective and timeline. Any potential near term outcome will be positive for some individual lives and negative for others but that is always true and constantly changing.From the broad perspective you cannot have a "positive" outcome without a "negative" outcome and visa versa. They're both part of the same thing - it's a cycle. Just like you can't have a "positve" part of a sine wave without the "negative" part of a sine wave.Any speculation I make is more about at what point along that wave I see us to be currently - based on current and historical observations. I do however think it is naive and polyanna-ish to believe that the we'll forever be on the upslope..

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 12, 2016, 11:44:42 am
content: 'Shareholders didn't build the comapny.'Yeah. Governments build the company. Welfare recipients build the company. Lazy bumbs sitting on the asses watching TV build the company.......

author: Seekonk
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 12, 2016, 03:13:40 pm
content: On a related note, when things took a tumble I started looking at beaten down energy stocks. SunEdison SUNE flashed on the screen when I was exercising and I looked it up later. One parameter I notices was % Institutional investors. Normally institutions range from 30 to 70% compared to us tourist investors. SUNE had 114.18%. And they wonder why we think the market is rigged!

author: Mechanical Menace
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 13, 2016, 03:52:11 pm
content: Quote from: dannyf on February 12, 2016, 11:44:42 amAre you saying everybody who has to resort to some sort of welfare/benefits are lazy bums? I apologise if you aren't but having been in that situation for a few years (some due to illness, some due to employers not wanting to take me on after I got well, and at least 1 year while holding down a full time job) I can assure you living on free handouts was never a desire and trying to get out of it meant I had no time to sit on my arse watching TV and the same is true of the vast majority. I have never had to work as hard as I did trying to get a job while unemployed.

author: zapta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 13, 2016, 04:44:42 pm
content: Quote from: Mechanical Menace on February 13, 2016, 03:52:11 pmWhere did you see 'everybody' in dannyf's post?

author: Mechanical Menace
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 13, 2016, 05:11:21 pm
content: Quote from: zapta on February 13, 2016, 04:44:42 pmIt was a question, not an accusation. Hence the punctuation and why I added:Quote from: Mechanical Menace on February 13, 2016, 03:52:11 pm:at the beginning of the following sentence. I'm sure you either stopped reading there or didn't get around to reading it until after you posted, otherwise you would have included it in your quote

author: zapta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 13, 2016, 05:37:44 pm
content: Quote from: Mechanical Menace on February 13, 2016, 05:11:21 pmYes, it was a question, but not about the danny's quote you posted but a distorted version of it.Quote from: Mechanical Menace on February 13, 2016, 05:11:21 pmYour post comes as a dishonest attempt to pull a straw-man. I apologize if this is not the case. ;-)http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html

author: Mechanical Menace
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 13, 2016, 06:10:31 pm
content: Quote from: zapta on February 13, 2016, 05:37:44 pmNope, my question was directly regarding dannyf's post and meant to seek some clarification toavoiddistorting it.QuoteI thought, actually no, I did make it very clear if that's not what he meant the rest of that post didn't apply to him, that's why I assumed you didn't read past the first sentence as there is no way you could have thought I was doing what you claimed if you had. If I was trying to build a strawman you wouldn't have to have done what appeared to be cherry picking to build a strawman of your own. I apologise if that wasn't your intention

author: zapta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 13, 2016, 06:13:00 pm
content: Quote from: Mechanical Menace on February 13, 2016, 06:10:31 pmApology accepted. ;-)

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 13, 2016, 08:13:03 pm
content: QuoteNot unusual as they may report shorts and borrowed securities.

author: xarragon
author_rank: Newbie
timestamp: February 13, 2016, 08:49:39 pm
content: Personally I think that the biggest threat to society is in respect to financial institutions is that they no longer perform their necessary core function; directing funds towards productive investments. Wise investment is hard and involves risk. Much easier to act as a monetary multiplier for the government, collecting interest and fees as more and more people are forced into the stock market to stave off inflation on their pensions and savings. And every penny pushed into this market furthers the amounts that can be skimmed off using HFT. Given this, why would anyone finance an entreprenur?

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 13, 2016, 09:01:31 pm
content: QuoteMore precisely, making money directing funds.Banks are in the business of intermediating: getting buyers and sellers of risks together. Today's banks do a lot of that as well. For example, they originate loans to consumers and sell those loans to investors. In that process, consumers get inexpensive loans (than otherwise possible) and investors get paid for taking risks.What happens in debt-driven societies, unfortunately for the banks, is that lots of consumers overestimated their ability to pay and see a larger and larger chunk of their income going to the banks (then going to the investors). Being stupid, those consumers resent the banks for (having made a loan to them and) insisting on getting paid, on behalf of the investors.I think you will find a significant deterioration of standards of living in most western countries (Germany and Japan may be the exceptions) if the banking industry is as severely regulated as Ms. Warren had wanted.To me, killing the banks is one of those examples where its advocates are too stupid to know that they are killing themselves as well.

author: Corporate666
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: February 13, 2016, 09:52:45 pm
content: Quote from: mamalala on February 11, 2016, 04:56:55 amThat is how it works. What do you consider "the actual value of physical stuff"? What defines the value of something? It's whatever someone is willing to pay for it. Keysight doesn't make a new scope and figure out their costs and add "a reasonable profit" and sell it for that. They try to make stuff as cheap as possible and sell it for as much as the market will bear. The "value" of something is whatever someone will pay. That goes equally for stocks as well as physical items.QuoteThat extra 100k is no different than 100k worth of the value of your house or whatever else your net worth is comprised of. And you do yourself a disservice to bash finance people as "drug addled wallstreet bozos". If it was so easy to earn huge money as you suggest, why wouldn't you do it? You don't want to earn money?QuoteOf course he has lost real $4.6b - because he could sell his share in the company and convert that asset into cold hard cash. It's not an intangible thing that exists only on paper, like the "value" of a college education. It's real money.

author: Corporate666
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: February 13, 2016, 10:04:10 pm
content: Quote from: mamalala on February 11, 2016, 07:14:31 amYou misunderstand IP law.You can't patent an idea. Nobody can. You can only patent an actual invention. It's a substantial difference and eliminates the problem of "many people would have had that idea", because it doesn't matter. Ideas don't mean a thing. The *implementation* of the idea matters.The 'injustice' of the IP system as you describe above effectively does not exist. Anyone can secure a provisional patent for just a few bucks and then either work on the actual patent or if they are as broke as you imply, they can shop the idea to people with money.The problem is not inaccessibility of IP to lower wealth folks, but rather a problem of hustle and ambition. You don't achieve success (or deserve to achieve success) merely for having an idea but rather for implementing an idea and then doing something with that implementation. And everyone has the right to apply for IP protection if they choose.

author: Corporate666
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: February 13, 2016, 10:09:54 pm
content: Sorry to readers to spam the thread - my last responseQuote from: mamalala on February 11, 2016, 04:22:15 pmNo, HFT's don't exploit flaws in a system... they provide liquidity. If it was only institutional investors then there would be no movement in stocks. If day (and faster) traders added no value they would fail to earn money.QuoteThe above is fundamentally wrong. The market is not finite, and A earning money does not take from B. Wealth is created and destroyed, not simply passed around. Companies can grow indefinitely and constant growth is not unachievable at all. The notion that people who invest for long term growth are "leeches" is laughable.

author: c4757p
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 13, 2016, 10:11:25 pm
content: I fail to see how an "implementation of an idea" is not itself an idea. It's just a relatively specific one. All you're saying is that there's a cutoff to how broad or specific the idea that you patent is allowed to be.

author: mtdoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 13, 2016, 11:03:23 pm
content: Quote from: dannyf on February 13, 2016, 09:01:31 pmThat's how itused towork under Glass-Steagall. Since its repeal in the late 1990s those lines no longer exist. The large majority of consumer loans are made by the big banks who also directly invest, speculate and take highly leveraged risks. That is - after all - what the 2007-2008 crisis was all about.QuoteThe truth is that banks benefit from a debt driven society - and in fact would not exist in their present form without a debt driven monetary and financial system - as all modern systems are (for better or worse).In the US, the entire fractional reserve banking system (and with it government and consumer debt) has expanded enormously beginning with Nixon's closing of the "gold window" in 1971 then picking up speed with the 1980s deregulation of consumer banking and then reaching critical velocity with repeal of Glass - Steagal in the late 1990s..This enabled both a major expansion of both government and consumer debt in a "borrow and spend" binge which allowed expansion of GDP without commensurate expansion of real wealth. The 07-08 crisis was the start of the chickens coming home to roost (round 2 to start in 1,2,3..) Since then all stops are being pulled out to prevent the party from ending and get consumers to resume the borrow and spend binge. (As if more of the same thing will fix the problem..) Goverment - alas - has had no problem continuing its borrow and spending binge.QuoteWhat consumers actually resent is the banks taking leveraged risks with their money - then being bailed out by the government when their bets went wrong.(and that resentment is something both Trump and Sanders are benefiting from). In fact it was the bond holders who insisted on getting paid.QuoteIn actual fact - the most prosperous period in history for the USA was the period under Glass -Steagall which is essentially what Warren would like to reinstate.QuoteBased on what you've posted, I'd suggest more education about the financial system and its history before you call others stupid.There's lots of room for honest debate about what the best parameters should be for a financial system that will allow a sustainable, prosperous society. In the Keynes versus Hayek debate, I decidedly lean towards the Hayek - Austrian school of thought but that does not mean I think Keynesians are stupid.Similarly there can be honest debate about how much regulation of the banking system is healthy - and as in most things - either extreme is likely wrong.

author: Brumby
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: February 14, 2016, 04:57:19 am
content: Quote from: c4757p on February 13, 2016, 10:11:25 pmThe "implementation of an idea" means taking that idea and making it work in a practical setting. Not post-it notes on the filing cabinet.

author: cdev
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 14, 2016, 05:14:48 am
content: "Financial institutions" are the modern day scam artists and their financial instruments the shell game in the back of the bus.They steal companies from entrepreneurs more often than not, and basically own governments and politicians now.

author: cdev
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 14, 2016, 05:36:43 am
content: There is a plan to deregulate them still farther. This is one bad deal this TiSA. I smell more bailouts in the air.Must watch video:http://www.democracynow.org/2014/6/20/a_plan_only_banksters_will_love

author: Kilrah
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: February 14, 2016, 06:54:27 am
content: Quote from: Corporate666 on February 13, 2016, 09:52:45 pmHonestly, not that way out of thin air, no. I believe being able to make money by building totally fake value around non-existing stuff (i.e. what's called speculation) is one of the biggest problems in the world right now. The fact your house's value can change by $100k while staying identical is the whole issue."Proper" investment to me is have an idea, go see someone and explain it and what it can bring to who in order to get financing for looking further into it. But until you've built something that works and can be shortly/easily made available as a product, and is backed by use cases and real world numbers allowing to have something to base a realistic estimation on it is not worth anything yet.The current trend of putting a value tag on things straight away e.g. a company sometimes even before a feasibility study for whatever they intend to make has been done yet is just so wrong - and why we get announcements like this. The initially quoted figure being based on nothing but how you've been sweet-talking whoever's interested in your project, i.e. absolutely nothing tangible it's no wonder the figure can fluctuate anywhere from zero to infinite based on the mood of people or the weather of the day (usually related)...I can create a company with an idea and $10k, then go pitch it and 2 days later somehow it is totally OK and accepted to say that given some discussion I had my company is now worth $7M in 2 years based on some business plan that is 100% hypothetical and relies on absolutely nothing tangible as I've done absolutely nothing yet, and might not even be able to. That value will naturally vary like crazy once real-world data starts flowing in... "wow it's easier than planned, we can finish a month quicker, it's now worth 4 times more!" - "ah crap, someone came up with a competing product, divide by 10"...If one refrained from valuing things before there is enough material (not necessarily physical of course, but also things like proof things can work as intended and there is actual interest in it) to back the estimation things would be a lot less volatile. But there are many people who like it that way because once there is a price tag on something they can further inflate it and take the difference - that is again nothing more than words. Yep I could do it - but couldn't live knowing I'm one of those.

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 14, 2016, 11:54:02 am
content: "I can create a company with an idea and $10k, then go pitch it and 2 days later somehow it is totally OK and accepted to say that given some discussion I had my company is now worth $7M in 2 years ba..."Are you willing to bet against that?You either over estimated your capabilities of raising money or the stupidity of your investors.

author: zapta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 14, 2016, 03:49:30 pm
content: Quote from: Corporate666 on February 13, 2016, 09:52:45 pmIt case of a startup this definition is tricky because you can't sell your shares and take the cash home but investors are getting newly issued shares.