kcg

For anybody looking into VATSIM and alternatives, the pros of PilotEdge are that there is guaranteed ATC staffing with paid ATC (not volunteers like on VATSIM), controllers are likely higher quality on average, and you will be making all of the radio frequency changes you would in the real world (although often talking to the same controller just on a different frequency). The pros of VATSIM are much wider ATC coverage (PilotEdge is western US only, VATSIM is global) and much higher pilot volume (PilotEdge has 16 pilots online right now).

The controller you're referring to is still very active in the Boston area, he's just "retired" from streaming.

Interestingly, in the US, for all its "optimistic" procedures, a controller isn't allowed to issue a conditional ("behind X") line-up-and-wait.

But, if an arriving aircraft is still on the runway, a controller can clear a departing aircraft for takeoff if there will be adequate separation when the departing aircraft starts takeoff roll (i.e., the arriving aircraft will be clear of the runway at that point).

[1] 7110.65 3-9-5 Anticipating Separation

The rules specifically state how 2 miles of separation is defined. 7110.65 5-8-4-Note 1 says "This procedure permits a departing aircraft to be released so long as an arriving aircraft is no closer than 2 miles from the runway at the time. This separation is determined at the time the departing aircraft commences takeoff roll." [1]

Just to keep stating this: I'm not at all defending the AUS controller here. A squeeze play like this in low visibility is needlessly reckless.

[1] https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/atpubs/atc_html...

> Who is saying that procedures allow one plane to take off when one is "3 miles out"

The FAA says that, specifically the 7110.65 which governs ATC rules and procedures. In a radar environment it allows for departures when the arriving aircraft is 2+ miles from the runway, and there will be at least 3 miles of separation within 1 min of takeoff. A separate rule requires that the departing aircraft is at least 6000ft down the runway and airborne before the arrival crosses the runway threshold.

If there is a departing plane rolling up to the hold short line and confirmed ready for immediate takeoff, there is possibly time to get them out and maintain separation. If it's low visibility, the departing plane is rolling slowly and not confirmed ready, then it's a bad bad idea.

While I 100% think the controller in this situation made a terrible judgement call and likely shouldn't be working planes anymore, it's worth noting that that there are very specific regulations on multiple planes using the same runway (called Same Runway Separation). Specifically, for these types of aircraft (SRS Category III), the departing plane needs to be at least 6000ft down the runway and airborne by the time the arriving plane crosses the runway threshold. Heck, for smaller general aviation aircraft, you can have a plane land when another has landed and is still on the runway, as long as they are 3000ft past the threshold.

A different regulation (applicable only to radar environments, which AUS is) allows for a departure if an arriving aircraft is 2+ miles away from the runway, as long as there is at least 3 miles of separation within 1 min after takeoff.

All that being said -- it is possible to execute a squeeze play like this if everything is perfect, but you need the departure to go IMMEDIATELY. Trying this in low visibility was extremely reckless and incompetent.

This is completely correct. One of the first sentences in the 7110.65 (the FAA document governing ATC rules in the US, often referred to as "the book" by controllers) is "the primary purpose of the ATC system is to prevent a collision involving aircraft operating in the system." Loss of adequate separation between aircraft (called a "deal") is much worse for a controller's career than being inefficient.

Halts are based on specific criteria and rules, they aren't arbitrarily imposed.

See: https://www.nasdaqtrader.com/content/MarketRegulation/LULD_F...

That's not actually the point of this article. Many many lenders are not on good terms with their counterparties. Distressed debt and bankruptcy exist. And yet, I've never heard of another story of a bank accidentally wiring nearly a billion dollars to creditors.

Source: spent several years working in the loan and high yield space at a well-known fund.

I think people are missing the fact that the 3060 that NVIDIA is halving the hash rate on is not yet released. It is expected at the end of this month and different than the already-in-market 3060 Ti.

The 3060 Ti was already NVIDIA's mining efficiency leader (per W and per $). I think the 3060 would be in the same ballpark, if not better, which I assume is why NVIDIA is doing this.

Presumably they will do nothing to the existing cards (in part because it would solve very little if you could just use old drivers to get the unthrottled MH/s).

Person A can only sell the number of shares they've borrowed. If Person A borrows a share from Person C, they can sell that one share only. To sell more without borrowing additional shares would be naked shorting, which is prohibited.

You might be asking instead about the following scenario, though, where a single share is borrowed and sold short multiple times:

Person A borrows from Person C and sells to Person B

Person D borrows from Person B and sells it to Person E

Well, the covering of the shorts doesn't have to happen in an atomic transaction; there are thousands to millions of trades of a single ticker every day. Just as a single share can create a chain of multiple shorts (borrows and sales), a single share can cover multiple shorts too through a chain of trades.

>Also, apparently Gamestop itself used the gain in stock price to settle some debts by being able to issue more stock to meet demand at the higher price, thus getting a cash infusion.

False -- if you're going to spread information about financial nuances across this thread, you should look it up first. Go read the SEC filings for GME (SEC EDGAR is your friend), there has been no additional issuance since GME took off. Nor would it be realistically possible given the volatility.

> that extra 40% will fail to deliver, because those shares don't exist.

That's only true if you force all shorts to be covered at once without a chain of trades. That's not how it happens.

Person A covers their short by buying a share from Person B and returning to Person C. Person D then buys that share from Person C and returns to Person E to cover their short. That's 2 short shares covered with a single underlying share and no failure to deliver.

Yes, the SEC does track failure to deliver, but >100% short interest does not mean there is naked shorting nor does it imply there will be failure to deliver.

In this scenario, Person C still owns the stock and will gain/lose with the stock's rise/fall. Person A borrowing from C at the end is just borrowing, not buying. At some point Person A needs to return stock to Person C.

Except you're completely conflating terms and numbers here. A stock can have over 100% short interest with no naked shorting occurring. >100% short interest DOES NOT imply that there is naked shorting.

Yes. I took the question as asking whether absolute revenue per unit was going down or absolute COGS per unit was going up (or both).

Obviously there are different perspectives from which we can look at absolute and relative pricing pressure, and with everything in finance it depends on definitions.

They also disclose units shipped (1.15MM in 2011, 2.32MM in 2012 and 3.85MM in 2013).

A simple revenue/units calculation would imply that revenue per unit is increasing ($205 in 2011, $227 in 2012, $256 in 2013).

This is a primitive analysis for a number of reasons, but it suggests that pricing pressure is not the issue. The MD&A, on page 64, also states that higher product costs were the primary reason for the gross margin decreases in 2012 and 2013, and that there was a 14% increase in average selling price in 2012.

That was, and still is, the case where I went to school in New Hampshire. The decision to treat the body as a container is made at the state level, I believe (as the drinking age is determined by the individual states, although effectively federally-mandated by the threat of withholding significant federal funding).

Judo business strategy...what? You're telling me that you that motivation is a bigger asset to a few 20 year olds than all of the scale, capital and business experience of Walmart, and therefore you'd rather compete against Walmart? Do you think Walmart became the dominant business it is today by just sitting around and not competing (and winning)?

Sorry, but I have to disagree. Capital, economies of scale, strong management, etc. -- these things are very real advantages and matter to the viability of a business. I'm not saying it's impossible to compete with entrenched businesses, but don't think for a second they're not able to compete right back because they don't have "judo business strategy."

No, as of June 1 the company had $2.8B of cash, cash equivalents AND short-term investments (liquid securities). There's an additional $2.5B of accounts receivable on the balance sheet.

You are correct that BBRY has $3.4B of current liabilities.

I stopped reading at "toxic assets like financial derivatives." That sentence either suggests that the author has very little understanding of finance or has a sensationalist motive. Either way, there are much better articles and books to read about the financial crisis than this junk.

Even as a credit analyst, I agree that you can't really feel sorry for the bondholders here. If you want to lend in any market, you need to assume the risk that the debtor goes bankrupt. Pensioners are a different story though.

However it's absolutely not true that "a lot of money in the US is being lent with the assumption that creditors will always be bailed out by the state or federal government", at least not a large amount relative to the total bond market size. Rates are low now, yes, but that's because the Treasury rates are so low, not because of some implicit government backing of credit that is making assets less risky. In fact, spreads (bond yield - treasury yield) are near historical norms.

That's not anticompetitive though, it's purely competitive. Amazon has better underlying economics (because it has deployed capital to build infrastructure) and therefore is able to offer the same service at a lower price.

I'd be amazed if Dropbox had a 50% profit (net income) margin. It's likely that their gross margin is around there, but you still have to subtract SG&A and other expenses to get down to net income.

If Dropbox pulls in $100 million in revenue this year, a $10 billion valuation is 100x revenue. That is a very high multiple.

This used to be in their FAQ:

Will someone steal my grand piano?

Highly unlikely. Grand pianos weigh thousands of pounds and do not fit through doors.

As mentioned below, enterprise value is generally calculated as equity value + debt - (excess) cash. Ebay has approximately $5 billion more cash than debt, so its EV is less than its market cap.

One way to think about why cash is subtracted is that the acquirer gets to keep it. If I pay $10 billion for 100% of a company's shares, but get to keep the $1 billion in cash on the balance sheet, then the actual price of acquiring the company is only $9 billion (assuming no debt). With enough cash, it is possible to have a negative enterprise value.

EV is usually calculated with the current equity value, as that is what the market "believes" the company is worth. If an acquirer comes along and wants to purchase all of the shares at a premium, you can find an implied EV from the offer price.