Hacker News Reader

Comment by bizzletk | Hacker News Reader

Can you enumerate some examples of when it having less information is better than having more?

It’s a common complaint of value investors that boards (especially in this post-Sarbox world) are solely focused on quarterly earnings reports, to the detriment of long term strategy. One way to talk about the added and persistent value of some companies is to note that many of them have powerful, recalcitrant, or somehow anti-quarterly-cadence founders: buffet, zuck, you could make a list.

So, the answer to "when having less information is better" is "when YOU have less information".

Delisting and going private is always an option if you want to go at your own pace and talk to your investors 1:1.

They would not be allowed to do so - too many shareholders. That’s why e.g. SpaceX will be going public even though Elon Musk would want to keep it private

Musk wants liquidity. And SpaceX wants more cash right now than can be raised privately. Which is a pretty shocking amount of cash.

Musk absolutely does not want SpaceX to stay private

I mean those personalities are also hyperfocused on share price.

Yes, but focused on it being the highest it possibly can _tomorrow_ or the highest it possibly can be in ten years is a huge difference. Only some executives have the ability to take actions based on a long view without being replaced by the board. Usually founders and near-founders.

Right so if you are already hyperfocused on tomorrow then focus on the end of the quarter is pretty much a wash in terms of short- versus long-term decisionmaking.

I wouldn't say so - the ones I mentioned seem to be focused on long term value -- big difference.

When your decisions are driven by fear, anxiety and FOMO, knowing less can lead to fewer irrational reactions.

That’s why people hide information from bad bosses.

From a company perspective, compiling a quarterly report is a non-trivial amount of effort.

The company is employing additional resources (accountants) and distracting leadership (prepping talking points).

I'm not firmly in one camp or the other, but it is a substantial amount of effort to release on whatever cadence the SEC mandates.

Well, that's a whole area of active research, referred to as "info hazards":

https://www.lesswrong.com/w/information-hazards

There are multiples examples that are easy to see once you realise presenting information has a cost.

For example having daily morning 2 hour long stand ups provide more information for everyone involved. It's also worse for productivity and work atmosphere.

For the company it doesnt work well, you’re leaking too much info to competitors

Maybe. I'l am also not saying they need to say where the dollars came from, went to, or what they were for. Aggregate daily flows. Could you do some deductive reasoning to make an informed guess especially when large sums are involved? Perhaps.

I am also of the (perhaps wrong) opinion that the majority of the important stuff leaks anyways, just not on a level playing field.

If everyone is legally required to share it then we're all in the same boat.

Financials aren't like technology or IP where having the information open to all (perhaps with limited monopolies on usage a la patents) is essentially for the betterment of all mankind, they can be more like order of battle in a war zone.

If your competitors know that your Florida subsidiary is running inefficiently and being subsidized by your successful business elsewhere, they can target their own operations in Florida, undercut you more than you can possibly sustain, force you to exit that market entirely, so that they can monopolize there.

Sure, but others can also do that to your competitor. Hence my comment that everyone's in the same boat. The playing field would be level and the players would adapt to the new environment.

Of course I realize it's possible it might introduce systemic problems that I'm unaware of.

Isn't this exactly what we should want from a market system? If your division in Florida is inefficient, then from the market perspective we should absolutely want competitors to enter the market and crush them.

I think the problem is that people have gotten so used to seeing capitalism from the companies' perspective (i.e.: profits good), and forgot that it is supposed to be all about the collective good. So if you think sustained high profits are good... then you have missed the whole point (the market should always be driving them towards near-zero).

I think thats the “nothing to hide” argument. Im not saying its wrong but its a philosophy

Reply on news.ycombinator.com