Jump to content

Financial News


jasonxctf

Recommended Posts

Financial Times @FT

Good morning America. Our top story - Snapchat sets valuation as high as $22.2bn ahead of IPO http://on.ft.com/2lOtQLc

6:33 AM - 16 Feb 2017

 

How on earth is a company like Snapchat valued at $22.2bn? A global manufacturer who makes millions of cars a year like Ford is only valued at $50bn. There's got to be a gigantic looming tech bubble out there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Feb 16, 2017 -> 04:14 PM)
How on earth is a company like Snapchat valued at $22.2bn? A global manufacturer who makes millions of cars a year like Ford is only valued at $50bn. There's got to be a gigantic looming tech bubble out there.

 

They've manufactured 384 million photos of people with dog noses and ears in the last 3 months

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Feb 16, 2017 -> 09:14 AM)
How on earth is a company like Snapchat valued at $22.2bn? A global manufacturer who makes millions of cars a year like Ford is only valued at $50bn. There's got to be a gigantic looming tech bubble out there.

 

Just compare Tesla to Ford right now.

 

Crazy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I presume KPMG will be hit very hard over this. The real question I have is how wide spread / prevalent was the use of the information. How widely were they sharing the information and what happened. Ultimately it is leaders at the top, but you had that previously. For KPMG this is the second managing partner in like 5 years to get hit with a big issue. I don't remember if the other one was the audit managing partner or what, but a few years back one of their managing partners was hit for insider trading.

 

Obviously this is not Enron as this is more related to inspection items, so slightly different, but still extremely bad and looks poorly. Guarantee many audit committees will be discussing during their next board meetings, especially those who are audited by KPMG.

 

One big thing to remember is that all of these companies are big though, so 99% of people working and doing and all other things associated are probably fine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's hope it doesn't come out that Donald Trump, Jr., has a financial interest involved here...although my recollection is that the chain is privately held.

 

 

 

 

PITTSBURGH (AP) -- Donald Trump Jr. has taken to Twitter to mock a group of Pittsburgh college students opposed to the addition of a Chick-fil-A restaurant to their campus.

 

A student newspaper at Duquesne University reports that a student government representative last month proposed asking the university to reconsider the addition of a Chick-fil-A. Niko Martini told The Duquesne Duke that Chick-fil-A "has a questionable history on civil rights and human rights."

 

Trump Jr. tweeted a link to an article on the controversy Thursday and wrote: "Luckily these students wont likely have to tackle issues more stressful than a yummy chicken sandwich in their lives... Oh Wait #triggered"

 

Chick-fil-A CEO Dan Cathy has publicly spoken about his opposition to gay marriage. The Atlanta-based company said in a statement Thursday: "Everyone is welcome in our restaurants."

 

 

 

https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/trump-jr...-183433674.html

 

 

Greg775?

These freaks want to force little girls to share their restrooms with mentally ill men wearing dresses. If I catch one anywhere near my daughter. It's gender 'reassignment' surgery will be performed There.. on the spot BY ME FOR FREE with no anesthesia. Snap your fingers at THAT- SNOWFLAKES

 

Too vitriolic/confrontational, I think...

Edited by caulfield12
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Apr 26, 2017 -> 06:57 AM)
From a few weeks back, but that report on Well Fargo's sales tactics was pretty brutal

 

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/10-shocki...ices-2017-04-10

I absolutely f***ing hate that bank.

 

I had an issue with them about 5 years ago and refuse ever deal with them in any capacity again whatsoever. I even had a car dealer attempt to setup my financing with them, and I said I will take a higher rate to avoid dealing with them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He's really DESPERATE for any positive news with this 100 day deadline.

 

Launching the tax "reform" crusade way before Congress was ready, providing no details and pissing off all the members of Congress who have been working behind the scenes for the last year...par for the course.

 

What does he have left? Attacking North Korea?

 

Touting the stock market returns again?

Edited by caulfield12
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Over the same period of time the share of the GDP that belongs to the US government has also kept on a steady upward trajectory, which is not a coincidence. When your income is locked into the government, there is no room for growth. That is happening to more and more of the economy. It is also borne out with the labor force participation rate continuing to crash. You aren't going to grow wealth on social security, on disability, on unemployment or any other governmental paycheck.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Apr 28, 2017 -> 04:07 PM)
Over the same period of time the share of the GDP that belongs to the US government has also kept on a steady upward trajectory, which is not a coincidence. When your income is locked into the government, there is no room for growth. That is happening to more and more of the economy. It is also borne out with the labor force participation rate continuing to crash. You aren't going to grow wealth on social security, on disability, on unemployment or any other governmental paycheck.

 

Organized labor also fell steadily. So did manufacturing jobs. Productivity gains and wage increases became decoupled. The economy became increasingly financialized. The salaries between upper level executives and the rest of the workforce diverged quicker and quicker.

 

And actually, the federal budget as a share of national GDP has been more or less steady with some up and down modulation for the past several decades:

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FYONGDA188S

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ May 1, 2017 -> 08:01 AM)
Organized labor also fell steadily. So did manufacturing jobs. Productivity gains and wage increases became decoupled. The economy became increasingly financialized. The salaries between upper level executives and the rest of the workforce diverged quicker and quicker.

 

And actually, the federal budget as a share of national GDP has been more or less steady with some up and down modulation for the past several decades:

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FYONGDA188S

 

And exactly who has been trying to destroy organized labor since the 1980's?

 

http://mashable.com/2017/04/25/iphone-fact...a/#jPkJYAa5Xmq2

NYU student goes undercover in Chinese iPhone factory...those jobs are never coming back, not to China, either.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ May 1, 2017 -> 09:01 AM)
Organized labor also fell steadily. So did manufacturing jobs. Productivity gains and wage increases became decoupled. The economy became increasingly financialized. The salaries between upper level executives and the rest of the workforce diverged quicker and quicker.

 

And actually, the federal budget as a share of national GDP has been more or less steady with some up and down modulation for the past several decades:

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FYONGDA188S

 

When the bottom 20% of the country is on governmental incomes of one sort or another, they aren't going to build wealth. As that percentage pushes higher and higher, the percentage going to the bottom of the country is going to be less and less.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So what about the other 79% that aren't on governmental incomes of one sort or another but still saw 95% of the wealth gains of the past decade go to the top 1%? Maybe there's something wrong with the structure of our economy itself and not just 'government handouts' that has driven more and more wealth to the very top of the pile over the past several decades?

 

The argument seems sort of circular, anyway. People aren't on governmental assistance because they want to be, they're on it because there just aren't enough living wage jobs available, or health care has become too expensive for many people to be able to afford without assistance. The gains flowing to the very top have climbed much quicker as a percentage than government spending as a fraction of GDP, so that just doesn't really seem like a correlation let alone a causal effect.

 

edit: I mean, there are other countries with higher government spending per GDP, much more generous social safety net programs, and much higher economic mobility and lower economic disparity. If "government spending per GDP" is a major causal factor in more and more wealth going towards the 1% in the US, why doesn't it hold true elsewhere?

Edited by StrangeSox
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...