bfg_9k

16 ms·

1.
by bfg_9k 7mo ago
Whats so hard about taking the iPad out of they're hands? or laptop or whatever, once you catch them on sites they shouldnt be on?
2.
by bfg_9k 9mo ago
I mean, the guy was constantly high on nootropics and they had no idea what actual investments FTX made. I'd imagine most of the time was just spent untangling that web, his case was more or less a slam dunk.
3.
by bfg_9k 10mo ago
I find it so weird that you say public companies being 'evil' (which is to turn a profit) is a problem, yet you also say you'd like for companies to exist on the public market so that the public can access some of the upside.
4.
by bfg_9k 10mo ago
It's the old totalitarian playbook. Make everyone a criminal then selectively apply the law.
5.
by bfg_9k 10mo ago
There doesn't need to be a solution that works for everyone. It doesn't matter how many barriers you put in place, people will always get scammed - so don't punish the other capable 85%.
6.
by bfg_9k 10mo ago
And yet people don't realise that Epstein was talking in clear text for years through a gmail account that the government could access - and the powers that be didn't do anything about it. It's got nothing to do with protecti
7.
by bfg_9k 10mo ago
Awesome read. I always love Poszar's work, it's a shame that these days he's no longer working at CS - since most of his work is now stuck behind a paywall.
8.
by bfg_9k 10mo ago
1P is closed source and have had a number of breaches in the past. Bitwarden have had none that I'm aware of, and they're FOSS. I however have been preferring ProtonPass lately (also FOSS) and really like the layout over BW.
9.
by bfg_9k 11mo ago
No, it's not. Person A buys stock 1, stock one goes from $10 to $15. Person A makes $5. Person B buys it at $15 and then it pays a $1 dividend, person B makes $1. It's not zero sum, everyone can win.
10.
by bfg_9k 11mo ago
Because stock trading isn't zero sum.
11.
by bfg_9k 11mo ago
Speech?
12.
by bfg_9k 11mo ago
An interesting article that confirms something I've often been annoyed about - in Australia most of the top universities don't use GPAs but WAMs (weighted average marks). In a GPA system whether you get 100 or 85, you get an A whi
13.
by bfg_9k 11mo ago
Principles don't exist in a vacuum. When viewing someone else, you only consider them 'principled' because of the context they exist in. In a world where everyone donates 50% of their pay check to charity, the person who dona
14.
by bfg_9k 11mo ago
If they were run well, then you wouldn't be able to improve on them by buying them.
15.
by bfg_9k 11mo ago
Of which, some of that is PE funds. KKR for instance is publicly listed.
16.
by bfg_9k 11mo ago
They don't receive bonuses until they exit.
17.
by bfg_9k 11mo ago
Right, which implies that the business was not run well, or at the least didn't reach its full potential.
18.
by bfg_9k 11mo ago
It's most certainly not the same. An asset manager going broke because they bought some bad loans is infinitely better off for the public at large than a bank becoming insolvent and depositors losing their money.
19.
by bfg_9k 11mo ago
For the owners? Yeah, they do typically. For the service they provide stakeholders other than the owners? Probably not.
20.
by bfg_9k 11mo ago
Believe it or not, businesses don't exist to provide you a "good service" they exist to make money. So yes, they do in fact force firms to operate better when they attain a higher EBITDA. Until the definition of why a busines
21.
by bfg_9k 11mo ago
Read Matt Levine's newsletter, it's a VERY simple business model built on financial engineering (it's rare they do something "novel"). But broadly, if you've got money in any sort of mutual fund, pension or ret
22.
by bfg_9k 11mo ago
That was Broadcom and not a PE fund?
23.
by bfg_9k 11mo ago
> But imagine a world where every strong business goes private and only failing businesses are public. That's the opposite of what happens with PE. PE firms don't buy fairly priced, well run businesses. They (typically) buy und
24.
by bfg_9k 11mo ago
Regulations are what lead to private credit being what it is today. Post Dodd-Frank banks are unable to take on a lot of the lending risk with these style of transactions anymore which paved the way for asset managers to create the shadow b
25.
by bfg_9k 11mo ago
A 25% move in crypto isn't a catastrophic swing. Nor is $6bn in liquidations for some leveraged traders. If they're going to liquidate anything because they need the cash, it will be US treasuries first, since they're the eas
26.
by bfg_9k 11mo ago
> What concerns me is China can absolutely trigger a market meltdown in equities Agreed - if they wanted. > as well especially pull the rug out from entire companies with a flip of a button ex) SVB They didn't cause the collapse
27.
by bfg_9k 11mo ago
He, himself? I agree. He's a snake in the grass. His message is 100% correct though.
28.
by bfg_9k 11mo ago
> Anonymity enabled the troll culture And so what if it did? That's the price we collectively pay for a free internet.
29.
by bfg_9k 1y ago
>Would you agree that as a guiding principle for good government no one should be forced to associate with anyone they don't want to or disallowed from associating with anyone they do want to? For an individual? Sure. For a busines
30.
by bfg_9k 1y ago
I don't think they should ban it, but they shouldn't be allowed to ban good bettors.

More ›