Why is Bernie Sanders and exception to your rule?
682 karma · joined May 13, 2014
With a mortgage, you're essentially leveraging around 1:5, which means you put down your 20%ish and get 100% of an asset. If the asset moves down 20%, your net equity is worth exactly 0. If the asset moves up 20%, you've made a profit of 100% (simplified, not considering the fees and other costs).
The trick to understand this is, if you put your down-payment money somewhere else, like a long-term index fund, what kinds of profits would you have expected? What about the risk, considering you're highly leveraged in a mortgage?
Thus the calculator to do the math for you.
It's interesting to note that they are trying to hire entrepreneurs the same way Google was trying to hire programmers 10 years ago.
I know what you mean, but from a writer's perspective, page creation is all about the time it takes her to create a page, which is, in general, several orders of magnitude more than 5 milliseconds.
The product looks quite good at first sight. I couldn't find pricing information though, which would be a very important factor in a decision to move to your platform.
Ten on Fifteen/Twenty means $10M invested in a company currently being valued at $15M/$20M, so the valuation after the investment would be $25M/$30M.
"Over the last 10 years, the return on those “public asset classes” has surpassed expectations by more than $2 billion, according to the comptroller’s analysis. But nearly all of that extra gain — about 97 percent — has been eaten up by management fees".
I read this as meaning that the extra gain meaning gain minus benchmark gain was $2B and most of it was eaten by fees (which is still bad, but not as bad as the article and its title seem to suggest).
This is incorrect. The reason is share buybacks, which Apple has been aggressive with. Remember, when the price was $100 last (split adjusted), its market capitalization was $700 billion. Today, it's price is $130, but the market capitalization is not $900 billion, but only $765 billion. This is because the number of shares outstanding has gone down significantly.
In this scenario, the price and market capitalization will not increase by the same percentage. In fact, it is possible for Apple to have a very good price return with no increase in market capitalization at all (consider it generates a lot of free cash flow to buy back stock).
Depends, actually, on how much of their stock they sold at the IPO price. Box is already trading above the last round valuation even though the IPO was priced below it.
>I haven't dug deeply into their financials or anything.
should be mutually exclusive, don't you think? If you haven't looked at their financials or anything, how do you know whether it is a good investment or not? You can't just look at 'macro-trends' and determine if individual companies are a buy or not.
e.g. since 1970s, cigarette industry has been in a steady volume decline. Guess which stock has been (by far) the best performing stock during since that period? Yep, Philip Morris (which recently split into Altria and Philip Morris)
I think that's why the founder is talking of expanding the service already, such as getting flowers on Valentine's, say. It might provide social worth to some, who see this extravaganza displayed on every other desk at their work.
Reporting-wise, I am with you. I think the current models are antiquated, and most of the solutions I see are outright wrong (Hint: If you're looking only at stock prices for returns, you're doing it wrong too).
The reporting side can definitely be very cool though, and it could provide serious benefits if done right.