jobyts

Read somewhere that Gates was obsessed with getting a Nobel peace prize, which he thought Epstein had influence. Not sure if it is Gates' PR team is creating this news for the damage control. My logical question is if Bill's interaction with Epstein was totally for getting a Nobel Peace prize, why should Melinda strongly oppose the connection with him?

Hi, I just started learning about the SPAC world. Here's my basic question. Through a SPAC, a company becomes public. After the company becomes public, what is the typical relationship between the SPAC owner and the acquired company? Does the SPAC owner remain in the board and guide the company, or they usually leave and start on the next SPAC/acquisition? I'm trying to figure out if the SPAC owner is still important after the acquisition and is it worth investing in a company looking at the credibility of the SPAC owner. I was specifically looking at PaySafe (PSFE). Thanks,

When the ETF issuer does trading of its constituent stocks, don't they have to pay tax and eventually get pushed onto the ETF holder?

I was randomly listening to a podcast 2 days back by Ted Seides, who used to work with David Swenson. In the whole interview, he was referring to David Swenson and his skills. https://www.theinvestorspodcast.com/episodes/how-to-invest-like-the-best-w-ted-seides/

May be because Pabrai is a good man? Also probably impressed by the charity initiative Pabrai has done. Pabrai is not just donating money to a charity, he is actively behind running it efficiently.

From what I've seen, people get envious to other people who they constantly interact. And the comparison usually happens only with people that are more or less comparable to our own level. You don't get envious on people who you know only through internet. People may get envious to their colleague or a friend who made a killing on say, Tesla stocks. But most of us don't get envious to Elon Musk. No one even bothers to compare.

Is that because he thinks the cloners get some free ride for the hard work he has done, or is it because he thinks cloners - without independent thinking - will not succeed in the investment game? Has he ever mentioned the reason in any of his previous interviews?

Hilarious! especially if you're a canadian.

He is running for the California governor job. He's building a fan base with all the tweets and interviews. That's why he donated his profit+capital from Gamestop. His vision if he becomes the governor looks very good in my view. * Creating a "0% State Tax" (which presumably means repealing the state income tax). * Raising minimum teacher salaries to $70,000 a year (Glassdoor estimates that in 2021, the average annual salary for a teacher in California ranges from $40,000 to $60,000). * Making California "the global center of all tech & climate jobs." * Allowing students to choose their schools by offering free school vouchers. * Guaranteeing income share agreements (ISAs) "so you don’t have to get student loans ever again." * Giving families $2,000 for every new child born in California.

Could it be the case that they are trying to prevent the scenario that, if the interest rate is raised in the US, US stock market collapses and some other country (which keeps the interest rate artificially low) gets the full benefit? Would we be okay if the US stock market crashes, and China accelerates its trajectory by a decade or two, to become the world's financial/GDP number one?

Can Cathie legally load up the shares of a stock from the secondary market before they officially add it to the ETF, and unload before officially taking out from the ETF?

For most companies that is true. It is not true for companies that need to access the capital market frequently, like most financials or even MLP that have financing needs to that access capital markets for debt and equity. Financials in particular need to roll over debt, over gibt credit etc literally every day and and their reputation is extremely important in the view of their stakeholders (counterparts, customers, depositions, creditor). A severely lower share price and undermine confidence na impact the business very quickly. That’s the reflexivity principle. For other companies (industrials, even tech) that is much less the case. My understanding is that the scenario you mentioned is the problem with the lower stock price - which maps to the low equity value for the company. But does shorting bring down the price of the stock artificially? (The news about someone's short position or badmouthing about the company could bring down the company. But does the process of shorting - will it bring down the stocks?)

I do not see shorting a stock causing any fundamental damage to the company. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Thank you all for the inspiring words. Thanks SD for the blockchain reference. Looked into it. The collapse of choon.co makes me thing it is a bit early for it. May be in a year of two.