/biz/ - Business & Finance

>>59322690
I was having fun yesterday reading random 10-Qs and came across GME. IIRC it was like 13B mcap on 4B assets and low double digit millions in earnings. So bad

but can you profit from women?

>>54692983
wow, an actual answer on biz, even though copied from ct

Can you sell your college degree? Or would you have to sell your identity? Asking for a friend this is business related.

>>53208069
> dumbest, most Dunning-Kruger opinions
care to provide some examples?

>>53116167
I promise to give you $100 in 2030, and also to pay $4 every year until then. This is promise is basically a bond with face value $100 and 4% coupon. Both are fixed. I sell the bond to you and you pay me $90 today for it.

Tomorrow, we learn that there is insane inflation and the dollar will be worthless by the end of the week. You go on the open market and try to sell the bond to another sucker. Someone buys it from you for $2. He has, in effect, purchased a bond with a 200% coupon/divvy (the yearly payment of $4 is twice as large as the $2 he paid) and some insane yield (the $100 face value you get in 2030 is way larger than the $2 he paid).

capiche?

Is Ethereum a security? https://isethereumasecurity.com/
Hint: No.
Also fuck the SEC.

>>51703294
>>51703321
I've been telling you, we can stay in the thread way past its bump limit, they take like three hours to fall off page 10. We could get every thread to 1000 posts.
Saving on threads like this is called "economics".

I've started watching a lecture on corporate finance, gonna post my takeaways. Just finished lecture 1 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H8QYr-Z5qfY).). The prof has the nickname of "dean of valuation" I guess because he talks about valuation a lot. He's also a pajeet so he must be intimately familiar with tigers and how we can avoid them in these times of quiet forests.

Takeaways:
>"cost to capital" must be lower than "return on existing assets" for a company. Only 45% of companies worldwide meet this requirement. Companies that don't meet this requirement are actively destroying value and must start paying dividends and winding down.
>conversely, companies that do meet this requirement should not pay dividends.
>r&d investment is bad if you cant justify it financially (how much it costs vs how much you expect it to bring in). "Strategic" is a red flag, if an investment is defended as "strategic" its because it cant be justified financially.
>debt is bad because it is a mandatory dividend. Many CEOs take on debt because they want to retain control and so hate issuing equity. This is dangerous, it makes the company vulnerable to bankruptcy because it now has a mandatory obligation
>if you do take debt it should match the type of investment the company is doing. For example, long-term domestic investments should be financed by long-term debt in the domestic currency, even if short-term debt in USD is cheaper

>>51594408
>>51594508
The funny thing is the recursive definition of "climate action failure". Two years ago the sec was pushing to regulate companies on climate risk. Except, thats not a thing. The IPCC predicts 3% GDP loss in total over 100 years, basically nothing.

When directly asked, sec officials acknowledged that climate change is not a risk to the financial system directly. Instead, they are concerned about catastrophic regulatory consequences. For example, if the sec were to ban oil companies from getting loans, that might cause problems and so its a risk to the financial system. So to prevent climate risk caused by disastrous regulation, the sec must regulate companies over their climate risk.

That was argued with a straight face until the underestimated pandemic risk wiped out the sec's political capital.

>>51287693
The "natural" state of the bond market is that rates are higher for longer durations. If the yearly rate for 10 years is lower than the yearly rate for 1 year, there is no reason to lock your money up for 10 years, might as well just lock them up for 1 year and then do that again ten times. So usually, rates are higher for longer maturities.

When this inverts, when the longer maturities have lower rates, it shows uncertainty about the future. People are locking up their money for 10 years and driving the interest on the 10 year down, instead of doing the yearly arbitrage. Maybe they don't believe that rates next year will be as good.

But whatever the theory, yield curve inversions seem to always precede a recession historically

A fed interest rate of 3-4% is NOT tight policy when the natural interest rate is more than twice as high. It is an easy money policy, even when Jerry pretends that he's gonna stop buying bonds.

>>50237230
bonds seem like an awful investment category
if the company runs into trouble, you get some protection - until a bank restructures the debt and turns your collateralized senior bonds into noncollateralized junior garbage

so you're still taking a ton of risk, but you also sink your profits so much that you add new risks, like losing to inflation

>>49301205
the crab wins most when he is least expected
its in Sun Tzu's book

>>18561933