__derek__

Also reported:

- https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35278588

- https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35281562

- https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35283379

- https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35288552

- https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35343850

If one is worried about forgetting, this probably isn't a good hack, but it should be possible to (a) buy a T-bill or CD maturing near the balance due date and (b) use Bill Pay to schedule a payment for the balance due.

You don't need to pay it off every month during the intro APR period: pay the minimum for the first N statements, then pay the full balance, and you'll pay $0 in interest or fees.

If you're in the US and have good credit, you can do better by opening a credit card with a 0% APR period for 12+ months in addition to a sign-up bonus (e.g., Chase Freedom Unlimited, Amex Blue Business Plus), although that takes a little more effort.

Even if the administration believes that they will ultimately speed up these projects, some of the extra rules are pretty clearly social policy:

- Requiring companies to provide child-care benefits

- Boosting applicants that commit to "environmental justice"

- Encouraging hiring of economically disadvantaged individuals

But of course it's all negotiable:

> She said that the department will take a holistic approach and negotiate terms of the agreement flexibly with individual companies as it applies the criteria stated in the application materials.

Ah, gotcha, basically the proliferation of veto points as companies grow into corporations. In its idealized state, Amazon avoided that by giving autonomy to the deeper nodes (the famous Two-Pizza Teams).

No, you're not the only one:[1]

> It’s important to take the time to celebrate that the VC’s attempt to gin up a banking crisis to pause rate increases failed and now they’re well and truly boned

[1]: https://twitter.com/SMTuffy/status/1638609733702524936?s=20

> Interesting that Amazon is as bureaucratic as it is. Isn't it Bezos himself that came up with the "multiple paths to yes" concept.

Are you referring to the "1 > 2, but 2 > 0" idea? That's compatible with the Amazon bureaucracy, which just requires finding a leader to sponsor the project even though it might end up redundant with another org's effort.

Something conspicuous like a gold sticker and a branded pad of paper?

According to the linked CFPB survey[1], 17% used BNPL at least once (and only 3% used it six times or more), so the percentage of the population using it for everyday purchases is probably small.

[1]: https://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/documents/cfpb_consumer-...

Ah, my pull-quote is confusing because it leaves out the context that the denominator here is all BNPL purchases, not all purchases.

That said, you're right that this could also just be a product of new offerings, as BNPL in point-of-sale systems is newer than BNPL online.

IMO, that growth makes sense given:

1. Lower friction because more stores offer free/cheap delivery with decent CX (maybe also wider SNAP acceptance?)

2. Higher opportunity cost for low-income shoppers because of labor market gains (maybe also higher gas prices?)

3. Lingering wariness of high-touch public spaces (not sure about this one, but I still see masks here in Seattle)

The pandemic created a big pull-forward in this demand, but it wouldn't surprise me to see the trend continue.

> Since 2008, the Fed has been paying interest on deposits using newly issued currency. That free money will keep entering the economy and cause inflation. The higher they raise the rates, the more free money will enter the economy.

This idea is an example of Neo-Fisherism.[1] It's not really a mainstream view, but Erdogan's central bank has been trying it out (cutting rates to ease inflation).[2] It hasn't exactly worked as he expected.[3]

[1]: https://www.stlouisfed.org/publications/regional-economist/j...

[2]: https://www.economist.com/the-economist-explains/2022/01/27/...

[3]: https://tradingeconomics.com/turkey/inflation-cpi

The article notes:

> everyday BNPL orders, including groceries, accounted for barely 1% of all [BNPL] purchases in 2021.

Presumably the share for groceries alone didn't increase meaningfully in 2022, or that would have been noted for effect, so we're looking at less than 1.4% of all BNPL payments for groceries. Of course, there was also the secular increase in online grocery orders:

> This trend may be partly due to the fact that Americans are simply spending more money on groceries online. Online grocery spending grew by nearly 27% year over year to $8.4 billion in February.

Not sure what state you live in, but file a complaint with your AG's consumer affairs office.

> “[...] To me the danger is that we’ll use our technology to become mutually unintelligible or to become insane if you like, in a way that we aren’t acting with enough understanding and self-interest to survive, and we die through insanity, essentially.”

It's surprising that the article doesn't mention Infinite Jest.

Who needs ChatGPT? MattLevineBot has existed for the better part of a decade![1]

[1]: https://twitter.com/mattlevinebot

I read yesterday's Money Stuff last night and was amused to see Matt Levine write the same thing:

> Another explanation is: They are in an industry, they hear nonpublic rumors about that industry, they compete on deals, they gossip with bankers and consultants, they know things, and they can often come upon material nonpublic information about their competitors. This one is interesting. “Insider trading,” I like to say, “is not about fairness, but about theft.” If you are an executive of a company (or its banker or lawyer or CEO’s therapist or whatever) and you learn things about your company and you trade the stock before the news is public, you are in some sense stealing information that belongs to the company and using it for yourself; you had a duty to the company not to do that. But if you learn information about your competitor, do you have the same duty? I think the answer is “maybe,” and it depends on things like how you learned the information and what your company’s trading policy says.

I guess I've read enough Money Stuff.

[1]: https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2023-03-16/credit...

If the insider interacts with that network and learns the information as part of doing their job, then they could be trading on information they stole from their own company's shareholders.

It was "prearranged" by one month. This honestly just demonstrates how easy it is to game 10B5-1 plans.

I submitted this guy's newsletter separately, but it appears that SVB also lacked a Chief Risk Officer for most of 2022 and failed to explicitly disclose that until March 8 (i.e. two days ago).[1] It all looks pretty shady.

[1]: https://nongaap.substack.com/p/sivb-held-to-mortem-governanc... (submission: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35098617)

Although some are filing proactively to say that they're not exposed.[1]

[1]: https://twitter.com/footnoted/status/1634302156303134720

Sure, Rabois will Rabois. My comment was aimed at the editorialized headline, which treats his provocative comment as fact and serves as clickbait for the article.

Actual title provides better context:

> Google overhired talent to do ‘fake work’ and stop them working for rivals, claims former PayPal boss Keith Rabois

The submitted title makes it look like a settled fact/conclusion, but there's no evidence provided AFAICT.

Oh, that's disappointing, but it answers the question of how the market is defined for the quoted statistic.

Can you link to research behind that? I'm really curious how this defines the "discussion" market.

Folks advocating for gun and border restrictions both focus on crime (mass shootings for the former, trafficking for the latter).

For Expedia, it used to be the case that they made more from someone booking via an ad on the site than they did via direct purchases. Same model as Amazon Ads, really.

Re: banks, you can find the ads under "___ offers".[1] Ditto any "special" partnership they have, e.g., TrueCar is a popular one right now.

[1]: https://thepointsguy.com/credit-cards/credit-card-merchant-o...

Most homebuyers don't hold their mortgage to term, whether due to selling or refinancing (like you). All things equal, an ARM will be priced lower than a longer-term FRM, so taking out the ARM with the intention to sell or refinance will mean lower guaranteed costs on the initial mortgage. They're basically a call option on rates during/after the initial fixed term. Even if rates go up a lot (like now), the pre-defined ratchet probably keeps them competitive relative to FRMs. Eventually, a weaker economy probably brings lower rates, especially combined with more equity and a shorter term.

When 30-year FRM rates are 3%, though, take the fixed.

Your GP wrote:

> I had to pay PMI

... meaning that they did not have a substantial downpayment. Assuming they bought in Washington state, they probably also had a non-recourse mortgage.