5,541 karma · joined April 23, 2021
This comment chain was started to question why limiting profits to 80% of claims has to result in insurance companies denying cheaper options.
I have yet to see an argument as to why a company isn't incentived to drop a health insurer if they're forcing employees _not_ to do a $50/month option and instead pick a $1k/month option.
I'll assume they're on company insurance. Which is often "self-insured" in that the company actually foots the bill as opposed to the insurance company.
Why don't corporations just drop insurance companies that decide to not allow cheaper medicines?
The text written in the link you did not read, states "Notwithstanding Sections I, II and III above, in the event of a Change in Control, the Operational Milestones shall be disregarded".
The goal is to give Elon his 2012 award package but making it his 2018 one.
It counts and it's not wrong.
Sure, the Tesla award takes into account any M&A but growing a 2T company to 3T is a 50% increase. While growing a 1T company to 2T is a 100% increase so it's expected to be easier for him to hit his award targets with the companies merged as opposed to not merged.
Like the customers were largely owed _not_ USD and so compared the USD value owed _4 years ago_ to the _current day_ USD value of something else that wasn't owed is just not correct.
---
To do some of the math, assuming all the funds owed were bitcoin then 9 Billion / $17,000 ~= 47 thousand BTC owed.
At current $64k/BTC prices that's roughly $30 Billion. Which while still lower than $75B is much higher than just $9B and doesn't excuse SBF from fraudulently and very publicly claiming that all the money invested as backed 1:1 when it wasn't.
I also don't know how much more FTX's stake would be diluted as well and another commentator talked about nearly half so then it might not cover the "actual" owed value.
Trump won by <1% against an incumbent in a time that incumbents lost by >10%.
It's absolutely not that people like Trump, it's just that democrats are inept. Literally all democrats had to do was run somebody that didn't have a record of losing primaries.
That's the thing about a bubble though. It's not about if things are profitable; it's if they will produce the profit in the future to support the current stock price.
Companies in 2000 were profitable and to this day still are (ex. Cisco [1] which despite only 26 years of inflation only reached it's dot-com stock price this year).
IIUC, Anthropic is $1T valuation on $10B revenue and $0.5B profit.
Google's has $4T valuation on $400B revenue and $100B profit. Which (dividing by 4 to get same valuation as Anthrophic) is $100B revenue and $25B profit.
IIUC, World GDP is ~$100T so Anthrophic "just" needs to get 0.1% of all economic activity to depend on them. Which to me actually seems like a tall order. Sure Google does more than that but Google spent ~30 years getting into that position.
So, Anthrophic 1/10 the required revenue despite every company in America pushing as hard as possible to use AI. What will it take for them to get it?
[1]: https://www.google.com/search?q=cisco+stock&oq=cisco+stock
So much of the financial world runs off excel.
Think about all the geneticists that complain about excel re-writing DNA sequences.
It doesn't matter if its high stakes or low stakes. People use the software that generates the results they like. Not the software that is "correct to use".
I don't think this means as much as you're putting weight into.
I think the fact that somebody like MJ or Tim Tebow could even get a try-out in a different profession sports really speaks to top level talent being fungible. Like just imagine somebody practices being a Doctor for 20+ years and then gets an interview to be a World Cup Referee. Sure, they might not succeed at the other sport but the fact they can still do it is I think proof of sports fungibility.
Eh, if you're not hiding behind a LLC I can see regulation not being necessary.
Like you want to build a factory and dump the sewage into the river? Fine, but uh you're personally going to prison forever then.
The public just distrusts large organizations now because those large organizations haven't been effective with their stated missions.
ex. Secondary (Sympathy) Strikes are illegal [1].
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solidarity_action#United_State...
Vanguard offers a bunch of ETFs so I can't exactly give you a solid answer.
One of their specific etfs (VTI) tracks the CRSP US Total Market index [1] which has its methodology described here [2] and looking at the "CRSP INVESTABILITY SCREEN SUMMARY" it sounds to me like SpaceX would be added to VTI after 5 days ("Seasoning of New Securities - 5 days or greater if satisfying the fast-track IPO rules".
[1]: "The Fund employs an indexing investment approach designed to track the performance of the CRSP US Total Market Index (the “Target Index”), which represents 100% of the investable U.S. stock market," https://personal1.vanguard.com/pub/Pdf/sp970.pdf
[2]: https://www.crsp.org/wp-content/uploads/guides/CRSP_Market_I...
I can't sue you for product liability if you strangle me but I can still sue you.
Gun manufacturers have been successfully sued for shootings before [1]; who cares if it's about "product liability"?
[1]: https://hls.harvard.edu/today/a-tough-road-for-suing-gun-mak...
IMO, the real problems with ads are
1) They just aren't relevant to you. No I'm not going to start drinking AG1 ...
2) There's no information about the product. How do I even know if AG1 is a good idea?
There isn't a single seller so the proper ones are
Oligopoly - Market with few sellers
Oligopsony - Market with few buyers
"few" really meaning that they have pricing power as opposed to 3 companies.
Monopoly is a single seller.
Monopsony is a single buyer.
The USG kinda used to do this by changing the headquarters for an agency/organization to be in the western (less populated) states.
But also I don't think the T&C's came into play here. This is strictly his employer (Google) told him to keep this information confidential and he didn't and instead profited from it.
Transacting on systems involving a currency (USDC) that is pegged to a US currency.
Pretty sure he sold Swiss Francs for USDC and deposited those onto Polymarket (after running them through mixers -- hence the money laundering charges).
Um yes, everywhere is either inside of or outside of the jurisdiction of SDNY. But argueable, if you're charging somebody it only matters if it's _inside of_.
I mean they don't. They have expenses like taxes and maintenance regardless of the properties vacancy. Nominally this is more profit than somebody with additional expenses (mortgage) but not always more than somebody who has additional income from say stock returns (the whole buy-vs-rent argument).
While your entire post has been directly about homeowners, (a) is also a crucial point about investment rentals. Other commenters have pointed that many commercial loans allow you to tack onto the end of the loan periods of vacancy. So during a bull market you can refinance and draw out your initial investment so that only the bank's money is backing the mortgage and then during a bear market when you have vacancies you just tack onto the end of the loan.
> b) the game theory of this case is frequently misunderstood
It's not misunderstood. It's exactly market dynamics. You don't list your property for rent at 3.5k when you have a 4k mortgage; you live in it yourself!
The reason people get 4k/month mortgages to rent out a property for 5k/month is exactly because the current market demand is 5k/month. They didn't buy a house first and then decide to price it at 5k/month because it's higher than their mortgage; they saw the market demand first and then bought the house.
> Landownership is one of the most lucrative and profitable enterprises in (American) history, so you might want to question the logic which has convinced you that market dynamics is so effective in taking its profits.
If you have an item of limited supply and demand increases since you obtained that item then you're going to have an (on paper) profit according to market dynamics.
You largely will not get margin called over your house. The bank doesn't want it. And also the house largely won't get re-assessed in value so you can launder the volatility through bad markets.
However, if you take out a $1M stock position and it drops down to $0.5M the broker absolutely will re-assesse your position based on market prices and then take liquidate you to ensure they're whole.