1,747 karma · joined November 14, 2016
I agree buybacks create adverse incentives. As I’ve stated elsewhere in this thread, the damages of these adverse incentives are outweighed by the tax advantages buybacks have over dividends.
Many companies also issue dividends when it doesn’t really make sense.
The overall level of shareholder compensation (dividends + buybacks) has not increased over the last couple decades.
If you compare the dividend yield of the s&p500 from 1980 to today, it dropped by around 3%. Based on today’s market cap, that 3% equates to around $900b. In the last year, we’ve had around $700b in share buybacks for s&p 500 companies. These data suggest that the shift to buybacks did not negatively impact liquidity, r&d, or overall ability to maintain employment levels.
I don't see how workers are getting screwed. The main charge in the article is that executives take advantage of positive signalling around share buybacks to boost share price prior to selling shares. If this claim is true, the share price should go back down once more material public information is released that suggests a lower valuation. The losers in this scenario are shareholders who purchased in the short period following the buyback. Although some workers may fall into this group, the vast majority do not.
Also, the article implies that companies should go back to issuing dividends over share buybacks. This doesn't make sense. The tax advantage nature of share buybacks far outweighs the ill-gotten gains executives reap from this strategy.
On average, share price increases ~2% following a buyback announcement. So, while execs can 'scam their shareholders' with this scheme, the loss to shareholders is nowhere near the ~10-20% benefit shareholders get by realizing gains as capital gains instead of income.
> As a society, we decide what things are important to us and everyone gets to help support those, like it or not.
If GP doesn't care about supporting parents or future generations (and he is in a position to make this decision), it's certainly his prerogative to not do so.
There is nothing in our legal system that compels you to care about future generations -- at least not in the way you're proclaiming.
These childless workers are 100% entitled to their opinions about equitable compensation -- and they're entitled to lobby for these changes as well.
If the professor was executed for this, for most people, there's reason to go to war.
If the professor was fired, for most people, there's reason to be outraged.
If the professor was voluntarily placed on leave with pay, well, maybe you still find reason to be outraged, but less so than the aforementioned scenarios.
In any case, most people in this thread are assuming the professor was fired, and that's incorrect.
I think this is an important distinction because it leaves the door open to the possibility that: 1) the professor voluntarily stepped down 2) the professor will return after the semester is over 3) the professor is being paid during this leave and will suffer no real professional consequences.
In other words, there's a real possibility that the Dean had the following conversation with the professor: "Hey, I know this wasn't intentional on your part, but this is quickly becoming a PR nightmare and I'd like to nip it in the bud. Would you mind stepping down from your post for just this semester until this dies down and I can get a handle on it? This will make everyone's life easier & you'll still get paid anyways."
In this light, there's less reason to be outraged at the Dean.
Based on what information? So far, all that's been publicly confirmed is that the sale price was below $600M, which presumably leaves opportunity for your shares to be worth something.
Why? Driving distracted with autopilot is at least an order of magnitude less dangerous than drunk driving.
As others are mentioning, the survey was very simplistic and most drivers don't understand the full ramifications of AB5.
That said, I still think the majority of fully-informed drivers would vote against AB5.
Enforcing AB5 will very likely result in: 1) substantial increase in benefits 2) slightly lower base pay 3) half of drivers losing their job 4) scheduled shifts.
My guess is #3 is the biggest issue for most drivers.
Even if drivers don't game the system, there will always be natural imbalance between supply and demand. Surge bonuses can mitigate this imbalance, but scheduling shifts is the more economically efficient way to solve the imbalance problem (hence why they say schedule flexibility will no longer be a feature in a driver employment model).
My guess is that at the beginning, hospitals were only testing COVID-sick patients, and as time went on testing became more widespread.
OK, but wouldn't a random sampling at least provide an answer to what pct of the population was infected at some point? That seems like a great starting point.
Just take a random sample of 1K NY residents and test them for antibody/t-cell presence. 1K is plenty to make a statistically significant sample size when you're suggesting the true infection rate is double digits.
Why do we NOT know what the population infection rate is? It seems relatively easy to do.
This is the misunderstanding I'm pointing out. You will end up being 45% less wealthy regardless of whether your assets grow or not. If your assets grow YoY, you will still end up being 45% less wealthy bc your YoY gains are also taxed by the 1% wealth tax.
At a 1% wealth tax, you will end up being 45% less wealthy in 40 years than you would be without the wealth tax.
There is a 100% cap on what the government can take from you. And, with a 1% wealth tax, they are taking 45% of it (spread over 40 years).
Put another way, the 1% wealth tax is similar to a 45% capital gains tax (where the cap is also 100%). Capital gains is just more front-loaded (paid upon liquidation) whereas wealth tax is paid over time.
Raising more money (especially on non-onerous terms, as suggested in the article) grants you additional optionality down the road (when shit inevitably hits the fan). This sort of optionality is a great way to mitigate risk in what is already a very risky endeavor.
At the end of the day, there's nothing stopping you from being just as efficient with your time/capital. If you want, just set aside that extra money as a safety net, and if you don't want to use it, close shop and return it to your investors.
All it takes is ~500 tests in each state per week to get a significant sample size. And, it would definitively answer what the population infection rate is, and how it’s trending.
"Clinical development is a three-phase process. During Phase I, small groups of people receive the trial vaccine. In Phase II, the clinical study is expanded and vaccine is given to people who have characteristics (such as age and physical health) similar to those for whom the new vaccine is intended. In Phase III, the vaccine is given to thousands of people and tested for efficacy and safety."
">30% of drugs entering phase II studies fail to progress, and >58% of drugs entering phase III studies go on to fail"