ypzhang2

They most likely have dual trigger RSUs, so the second trigger is typically a liquidity event.

You are talking about single trigger RSUs with only time based vesting.

Also a 83b means you pay taxes at the time of issuance rather than vesting. If these folks received their shares post founding, that means that there might be substantial tax burden for them when they received these shares if a 83b was filed. This is why most folks do not opt for a 83b after a substantial FMV has been established for their shares. This is also why double trigger RSUs are popular, so you can actually execute sell-to-cover.

Except it’s not government related action.

This is what a current official did prior to him becoming the minister while an executive of a rail company.

So the analysis and the discussion below all stem from a faulty premise

The best tasting ingredient in a dish is “someone else made it”

They did think about it and that was their plan? It would be helpful not to strawman arguments that can be directly refute by reading the article.

It didn't work out because of real world execution is harder than just saying that they are going to do it.

Effectively, its all just based on what indicators have a sufficient signal-to-noise ratio. If the signal-to-noise is high enough for any detectable behavior, then it can become a SAR.

You can absolutely have a public forum to share tips on how to stop this from happening. Just know that said public forum will be mined by money launderers and fraudsters and whatever work around is posted will most likely fail to work within months.

You have to imagine that the banking system exists in an adversarial environment with money-launderers and fraudsters. And instead of code that will always do whats written, the interface is a squishy human for a majority of these interactions.

I doubt there is truth to the common trope that "REAL rich people don't buy X/Y/Z". Its a No True Scotsman argument. In actuality, Kelly / Birkin are appreciated by a wide spectrum of people, even folks who are "0.1%ers". Just like "0.1%ers" buy luxury cars. Hell, Bill Gates (a "0.1%er" squarely) basically lobbied for a law just so he can import a Porsche 959. Jerry Seinfeld has a huge car collection. If you want to argue "old money", Prince Harry has a Jaguar E-type and a F-Type. Luxury goods are enjoyed by the leisure class, period, because they have disposable income and like nice things.

Yes wealth can be turned into power, but you know what already is power? Political power. Wealth is a counterpoint to political power. This is why communist systems become authoritarian, because there is no counterpoint to the power of the politburo. View xi’s crackdown on tech in China as a elimination of a potential competitor, just like his earlier corruption purges.

This is trivially easy: this home was sold in 2007 for 2.9m and was just recently solid for 1.8m 7 months ago. Top of market took a huge beating in 2007-2008.

https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/162-N-Wynstone-Dr-North-B...

The legal standard is material adverse effect. It’s a very high bar. As commentators have noted, it’s unlikely any court finds for that legal standard. This is why Elons lawyers have been using pretextual reasons to walk away. He is notably not saying he is walking because of “too many bots”. He is saying that twitter is breaching an information convenant because he needs to find a pretext that will stand up in the court of law.

https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/7807215106396985...

FTA:

"Canada is home to some of the world’s most admired and successful public pension organizations" and "The core characteristics of the Canadian pension model, articulated in more detail in the next section, have been demonstrated to improve performance. Strong, independent governance is often cited by experts as a driver of outperformance. Inhouse investment management tends to result in improved returns after taking costs into account."

The pension funds all take a much more broadly diversified AND deeper approach than actively managed mutual funds. They are more akin to a Blackstone or Apollo.

Almost all of the top Canadian pension funds have better performance to benchmark over a 3 decade horizon including during the financial crisis, so arguably the proof is in the pudding so to speak.

There is a big difference in Canadian pension funds and US pension funds.

Canadian pension funds are run more akin to a private equity firm. They invest directly in growth stage deals and therefore take commensurate risks like any other private equity firm.

That means that they make bets with more asymmetric risks and balance their entire portfolio rather than staying at a specific risk band with all of their investments. They pay for professional staff commensurate with that model. A canadian pension fund's employees earn salary and bonuses comparable to a investment bank or private equity firm.

You can't necessarily look at one off investments and have to look at return over time which is generally healthy and their funding ratio, which is generally much healthier than US pension counterparts.

There is a reason the "Canadian Model" is held up as one of the ideal pension management models.

Look up the "Canadian Model".

Canadian Pensions like OTPP are run more like private equity funds and they compensate their employees the same way in order to compete in terms of talent in order to generate deal-flow and deal identification.

Traditionally, this has meant above market returns and is one of the reasons that Canadian pensions are generally well funded.

This highlights the difference:

https://blogs.cfainstitute.org/investor/2016/05/17/lessons-f...

It’s not a duopoly? Amex exists and so does discover. Visa and Mastercard may be large but certainly not the only game in town

This seems to be the “popular” narrative but the actual truth seems to be much more nuanced. Labeling the senate as a block for example misses a large part of it:

https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/s7p2dk/how_m...

Panamera turbo s e-hybrid or the cayenne turbo s e-hybrid certainly doesn’t have “abysmal” performance

Yes but if you tighten nbbo by mixing retail and institutional orders, it by definition will still be worse than the retail market maker price, so end result is worse for the consumer anyways?

Anecdotally, western democracy was seen as a means to an end for many “common folk Chinese”. The end is prosperity. Now that the prosperity gap has drastically closed (also there are more clear paths to prosperity), the desire has also dissipated. China has also seen a China-like society in Singapore achieve a very strong economic and social outcome with authoritarian government, so western style democracies aren’t the only “role model” so to speak anymore

Two flaws would be to assume A) the ccp is a monolithic entity And B) they have complete control over tencent et al. Some control isn’t complete control.

Factions exist in the ccp and having outside concentrations of power can lead to dangerous fragmentation that can also affect the internal politics of the ccp

It’s not really bizarre at all. Parents and therefore students care about rankings, and it directly leads to enrollment, donations, and talent attraction. There might not be changes in overall rankings but individual college or program rankings do change substantially.

The administration will all profess a desire not to be so beholden but it’s part of the game so to speak, you have to play.

Source: current board member of a public university college

There really isn't any weekly obligations when I went through, other than a dinner weekly. You met with the partners as much as you liked. At Demo Day, there were folks in 2011 with no product, someone even pivoted the day before demo day and just had an idea on a powerpoint. Some of the folks went on to build very successful businesses. So the lack of demo day progress in of itself doesn't mean too much i think. The other points might though, to be fair.

Unlikely that this is just random.

These credit facilities all have covenants and reporting requirements. When these things get frozen or wound down, almost assuredly some sort of risk covenant or similar was breached, which gives the fund manager the option of freezing or winding down the facility.

So how does an investor manage the risk? They vet the company (Greensill), and trust that its risk department / capital markets team can manage their credit facilities. In this case, it turns out that bet might've been off, but thats what happens in fintech investment sometimes.

Anecdotally, this has happened in a lot of different places than just Cuba.

This article goes into in-depth detail on one particular person's experience:

https://www.gq.com/story/cia-investigation-and-russian-micro...

Not sure the numbers bear that out:

https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/porsche-posts-recor...

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/01/13/lamborghinis-2019-sales-jump...

Anecdotally as well, Hermes does VERY brisk business by where I live (midwest), pre-COVID

Yes there is value in the product, its like fancy Regus, which is a real business. Its not worth what it was worth.

It's obvious there is value, otherwise these companies wouldn't exist, no matter how much VC money is pumped in.

For consumers:

Ability to order from multiple restaurants through one consistent interface / payment flow. This cannot be undercut by every restaurant with a phone and a teenager with a car.

For restaurants:

A marketing / lead generation avenue that provides, ideally, incremental volume that is profitable. If it was not profitable, then they wouldn't do it, obviously.

Delivery itself, is just a method to deliver these value adds.

The argument can be made whether this value is worth a tech infrastructure and the human labor cost of delivery. It might be worth it in China, where delivery is actually more ubiquitous, but in America, where worker compensation / expectation / norms are higher, its debatable.

Conversely, America was also founded on the rights of private property, and the shareholders of Google has delegated the power to control their property to the management team at Google, who have then implemented this policy to remove this content from their property.

Its arguable just as important for the concept of America to let owners of private property not be deprived of their freedom and liberties.

These two articles are somewhat related and illuminating:

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2020-04-20/there-...

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-04-17/giant-u-s...

Long story short, part of the issue is that big banks have large complex regulatory and compliance schemes as a result of 2008. They are then unable to process SBA apps because of the low amount of government guidance, so smaller banks with smaller compliance teams were able to process more. This would also mean that smaller businesses would probably have a hard time getting all of their paperwork right vs bigger companies with dedicated legal and accounting teams. Also, banks will then prioritize existing customers, especially ones with loans, because most of the KYC and due diligence has been done already.

Part of the answer is that as an unintended consequence of previous compliance corrections, larger banks are just more unwilling to make loans under unclear guide lines, which obviously there will be if the government rolls out a program in a 1-2 weeks.

I don't have a good sense on the other points but I would point out the points about China are not quite right.

1. This is untrue. Masks were worn intermittently only on "bad pollution" days in cities like Beijing and Shanghai. Inland cities like Chengdu there is not widespread mask usage.

2. There is a difference between Xinjiang and the rest of China. You definitively do not see this type of security checkpoints in "regular" pre-covid China.

China is not back to "normal", there is fits and starts in the restarts to life, and there is also a psychological drag on consumer demand even though some shopping is reopened.

The point is that failed stores is not a good metric to optimize for.

You can have 0 failed stores if you open 0 stores. A successful operation will inevitably have failed stores. Having a long list of failed stores doesn't mean anything in of itself. You have to look at the rate of failed stores vs successful stores among other metrics.

But all that does is move up the threshold. Feels like you and the parent comment are assuming the threshold stays fixed. That is most likely not the case. Uber is setting the stars threshold at some arbitrary number to achieve some quality goal based on their internal data. Its not like Uber can't see the distribution of stars. Based on how people vote, they pick a cutoff in order to achieve their quality goals. If people change the way they are rating drivers, that cutoff will change as well.