rupert1234

4 ms·

1.
by rupert1234 5y ago
Exactly. Worst article ever. The writer is either very silly or completely disingenuous. If a writer had to caveat every statement to be 100% accurate, they'd never get finished or if they did it would be so boring no one would read it
2.
by rupert1234 5y ago
Even further - Lehman had a giant book of derivatives. The counterparts to all those trades woke up to a nightmare - you don't even know what your own book looks like if you don't know what % of your positions with a given counter
3.
by rupert1234 5y ago
Look at this link. The US built very few houses in the last decade.... we are in a supply crunch. https://www.statista.com/statistics/1041889/construction-yea... Going back to 05-07 people were bidding up houses
4.
by rupert1234 7y ago
? They were way off last week. If that is your definition of optimistic, I don't want to see pessimistic.
5.
by rupert1234 7y ago
Sorry to single you out, but the stock market usually trades in anticipation of recessions. It's not a proxy for the current GDP, it's an expectations market. The stock market could start a slow rise tomorrow and go until the end
6.
by rupert1234 7y ago
PSA: No, wrong. It might not be the very best but it is absolutely not terrible . A cursory look at the correlation over time could have told you this.
7.
by rupert1234 7y ago
Prices is the answer. That's why you are failing to grasp the situation. If you can buy a house for 100 in boom times but 50 in panic times, it's often better to get it for 50. Same asset, lower price = less risk. The only thing w
8.
by rupert1234 7y ago
In 08/09 the market felt this bad, and ended up worse. S&P went from 1576 to 666 iirc. That's almost 60% down. We are only about 30% down now.
9.
by rupert1234 7y ago
He didn't publish a science paper. It's a specific claim and you can easily call Adyen customers and find out if it's true. It's not an outrageous claim and he goes on to acknowledge said competitors strength in another
10.
by rupert1234 7y ago
Good list.
11.
by rupert1234 7y ago
This is wrong. Just spend some time in finance, then spend some time in a field which is closer to a hard science and you'll realize it. As an example, most theories in physics are pretty darn good - ie you can use them to predict the
12.
by rupert1234 7y ago
Hence this raise. It makes mystery bucks less mysterious.
13.
by rupert1234 7y ago
Employees are paid stock. It's hard for prospective/current employees to take the valuation seriously without some external validation. This is a problem for both employees and employer. The investors (SL and AH) are seen to be sa
14.
by rupert1234 7y ago
It's difficult to know for sure where to store data in a GDPR world. People move. People have multiple citizenships. People open accounts in countries where they aren't citizens. People give up citizenships. People share documents
15.
by rupert1234 7y ago
Yes, I'm saying they are doing it accidentally, and that the specifics of the scenario will undoubtably be more complex than it seems on the surface.Every company is breaking some law somewhere. The legal environment is extremely compl
16.
by rupert1234 7y ago
It's difficult. You are pretending they are deliberately doing it. No one at Google wants to move your data to the US.