muzz

Also assumes he didn't sell shares previously, like if there was a tender offer when the valuation was $20B in 2015

Theoretically possible I guess, although looks more like employee 1 to 3

Palantir had 15+ rounds of funding including some whopper $440M and $880M rounds in the prior decade (2010s), so dilution must have been huge: https://tracxn.com/d/companies/palantir/__N9Uaw2GHjG5JVqvNtX...

How does the equity math hold up on that?

At $430B market cap he would have to have 0.5 to 1%, after dilution. Do "first ten" employees get that much?

But these seem to be two well-funded companies? I.e. both with $100M+ funding within the last 12 months

pg on X (formerly Twitter):

"It's a very exciting time in tech right now. If you're a first-rate programmer, there are a huge number of other places you can go work rather than at the company building the infrastructure of the police state."

https://x.com/paulg/status/1913338841068404903

How did the acquirer decide to pay a $2.85B for a company with only $200M in annual revenues? That's a whopping 14x.

It's a designation on paper, essentially

The company that filed the patent didn't sue anyone. It died almost 2 decades ago. The entity that acquired the assets is the one doing the suing.

He seems to want both, and also a change in voting power would be illegal per the article:

"Musk then went on to say that he would like a dual-class voting structure similar to the one at Facebook that gives CEO Mark Zuckerberg control of that company but which would be an illegal restructuring post-IPO."

> Since Obama became president, all legislation basically needs 2/3rds of the senate to pass if it's remotely controversial and every tax change is controversial.

This is an odd way to mention (abuse of) the filibuster

Of 2017 technically, although it was passed right at the end of the year.

This legislation is colloquially known as the "Trump tax cuts"

What exactly is the "abyss" you're referring to here?

Actual suffering mentioned in that hour-plus long interview: None.

A throwaway line that he's using to pat himself on the back.

Even if they mismanaged their cash to this extent, sometimes the VCs step up with the cash for this as a goodwill gesture.

Salaries in India have increased a lot-- they used to be one-tenth that of Silicon Valley but now they are more than one-third and closing in on one-half

More like "from low-interest borrowing"

Institutional buying peaked in 2022 and has fallen off a cliff as interest rates have gone up

No, those are states with the highest percentage of vacant homes, not the most.

The states with the most vacant homes are Florida, California, Texas, and New York.

https://www.lendingtree.com/home/mortgage/vacancy-rates-stud...

It wasn't the narrative. It wasn't the "overbuilding crisis", it was always the "subprime crisis"

Rising mortgage rates is literally mentioned as a cause in the title of the linked source from ATTOM, and seems to be completely ignored by all commenters.

No, they took risk by buying long dated bonds which had X% yield rather than short dated ones which had close to 0% yield.

It was a huge gamble.

It would have been even quicker than that-- a large portion of the uninsured deposits would have been available on Monday March 13 ie _the next business day_ after the bank was seized: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-03-11/fdic-race...

The "haircut" would have been less than 15%, this is why the bailout of $151B in uninsured desposits was less than $20B and not $151B.

So if they had $5M uninsured in SVB they would have received $4.25M and suffered only a 750k loss.

Hinton calls it a nuance: https://twitter.com/geoffreyhinton/status/165309276016385228...

Exactly. The cost will ultimately be borne by bank customers

This is eventually a subsidy to the sellers (while the program is in effect)

With externalities thrust upon the neighbors

I view it more like a corporate version of John Locke's social contract, and that it's not the way they laid off people, but the simple fact that they did.

Some good performers were laid off, so the pre-existing situation-- where one could join Google and focus on work without worrying about downsizing-- no longer exists

The article seems to be at odds with Garry's assertion just 20 seconds in to this clip: https://www.cnbc.com/video/2023/03/10/y-combinators-garry-ta...

The whole article appears to be about a few hours on Friday

The entire SVB situation was made to be much ado about nothing by self-promoters. You didn't see veterans from Sequoia, Kleiner, etc, screaming on Friday.