Publish = File and send - either a paper or email copy - shareholder's perfance. File = Put a copy up on the company's web site and SEC's Edger. Mailings only happen if a person requests it.
Public Companines must publish once a year, and file the other 3 times. Funds must publish twice a year (Annual and Biannual) and file twice a year.
Annual reports tend to be audited by a independent 3rd party, everything else is held to a lower standard.
That information is heavily restricted, and there is no good source. However, from personal experience, there is going to be a huger dispersion in numbers so averages are going to do you any good.
You can go to the red hearing now, put it won’t tell you how many shares they are planning on selling or at what price. We will know that on the day of the sale.
Most of the shares will be sold to institutions. If they are public they report their holdings once a quarter. It won’t tell you if they bought it from the underwriter or in the secondary market, but you can guess.
However, some will go to individual investors, and nobody reports on them due to privacy issues.
MZ holds over 30% of the company so he is going to have a lot of power. And the IPO is for a thin slice (IIRC 5%) so there not going to be a big shift in who is sitting on the board. And there is no debt - which would be another avenue which could force change.
This is very different then Steve Jobs and Apple or Jerry Yang of Yahoo - who held far less. Even if FB blows up he should be able to hold out for a long time.
It’s not a question of age or productivity. The issue (I am willing to bet) deals with actuary science and low interest rates. IBM has a lot of people on their Pension Plan. They tried to push people to a hybrid plan, but lost a court case.
Pension obligations are based on expected future payments (as calculated by actuaries) and discounted by a interest rate – in this case long term government bonds.
So we have older workers whose future payments are more or less fixed. Government interest tank, so the obligations go through the roof, so the company has to contribute more, so the older work’s (effective) pay goes through the roof. Kind of the dark side of having a defined benefit plan which few people talk about.
At my company everybody had a BlackBerry because of it’s secure e-mail push feature.
Then we went with “Good”. (I love modern names – I still have fond memories of working on a enterprise piece of software that was called BETA.) In any event, we now can have secure e-mails on any phone.
Everybody turned in their business Blackberries and started using their personal phones (Mostly Apples).
As far as I can tell their dead in the water.
Re:Shouldn't shareholders demand an asset auction.
on
BlackBerry 10 Unveiled
·
· Score: 1
And books still get translated into Esperanto – but less then Estonian. And more are books are translated into Spanish then Estonian.
But 3rd party Apps are proving to the killer app in the smart phone market. Why would a developer want to build a polished optimized app for the Blackberry – even if it’s a 6 month old version of their current product?
While Betamax was the gold standard, Sony got out when it realized it was going to be a nich product. Now, nich products can survive and thrive – but they tend not to rely on the networking effects on the modern computer era.
I just don’t see much life for a small, propriety phone OS. They are going to need to dig Steve Jobs out of the ground and come up with a new dead brilliant idea if they are going to remain independent.
You may want to read the article a bit deeper. It's not as narrow as you think.
Yes, it does refer Grey market cars and textbooks.
However, the article also refers to the underground economy in legitimate goods to avoid taxes. The article refers to bootlegging alcohol to avoid taxes - which is very darn close to your example of cigarettes. And to paying workers under the table.
We are splitting hairs, but generally speaking activities which are legal but are done illegally (to dodge taxes, regulations, and the such) is considered to be Grey Market activity.
Cash under the table is considered more of a economic crime, and is generally considered a lesser moral offence.
Black markets deal with illegal actives done illegally or within a criminal organization.
i.e. bootlegging untaxed cigarettes that you picked up at the reservation is one thing. Running a organization (multiple people, bribing officials, selling to retails stores who should know better) is something else.
It’s a bit more bizarre than that. The Port Authority had just leased the WTC to Silverstein. The ink was barely dry on the lease, and the temporary issuance polices (and there were multiple – too big for just one company) were still in place, and thus did not clearly specify the details of what a event should have been. (Because, for something this complex, you hand over the insurance premium first, then negotiate the details.). That was a fun legal case.
But I was not referring to that.
Now, the WTC had been criticize as been ugly – but from a cost perspective they were very efficient.
Silverstein had paid the Port Authority $3.25 billion for the 99-year lease. Just because the buildings were destroyed did not get Silverstein out of the lease agreement. So he needs to build enough space to generate cash to pay for the lease.
This put everybody in a bind. There was no good way to rebuild that amount of space and not build on top of the WTC. So everything had to be renegotiated.
Don’t forget the insurance companies. The way policies are written, equivalent buildings would have to been built. Which means, basically building new towers over the sites of the old ones (insensitive on so many levels) and not fixing the road layout.
The item that I find interesting, and we are not talking about, is that Microsoft is taking an ownership position in their college bookstore operations. Now, why is MSFT doing that? I mean, yes, selling overpriced sweatshirts to the student's parents is amazing profitable - but it's not exactly in MSFT core line.
Why do I think that MSFT is trying to sneak into the online book selling business via text books? And why am I thinking about more DRM / lock down on text books?
We are talking about people who are moving from extreme rural poverty to better factory jobs. As there are fewer extreme poor, wages should rise. I understand that we are seeing this in China already.
And then comes the robots. But that is a different story.
After all, in bowling X designates a strike. I wonder if we could come up with a headline that is a palindrome?
On a more serious note, I think we are going to see these types of stories a lot. Lesser developed country turns into an industrial country via low pages wages. As economy grows, workers strike for a higher wage / bigger piece of the pie.
To build on MTTs's argument - but how would this work in practice? I am seeing a huge logical hole that I can’t figure out. Picking a ISA would seem to work against them. Does anybody have any ideas?
This is how I understand the proposal. The Government (and I can use upper case here because China is lead by a “Communist” party that leads state-owned enterprises – slightly more monolithic then elsewhere.) wants to save money (i.e. not pay western firms) by endorsing a ISA. O.K. I am not exactly a supporter of big government, so I don’t like the actor, but I do approve of AMD reverse engineering Intel’s x86 architecture.
Obviously this is to boost technical skills in chip design. Many people have suggested that this would make it easier to install back doors.
But the ISA would have to be published. WTO says it must. China can tilt the playing field to domestic companies – but only so far.
So, how would a backdoor that was openly documented work? I mean us slashdoters laugh all the time on “Security via obscurity”. How would a security hole via openness work?
It’s not that weak rule of law lowers the cost of crime, it also raises the cost of legitimate business.
If you build a large permanent business powerful interest will try to expropriate your profits. Bureaucrats will demand bribes to do their job, Tax inspectors will find violations in the opaque tax code unless the right politicians are paid off, etc.
Better to invest is something light and cheap. First, it’s harder to find. Second, when the "Rent Seekers" come they will only find a empty shell – and thus you can move on to the next operation.
Informative article – it’s given me something to think about.
o.k. – so when is a “scientific” ballistic missile test not considered to be a nuclear missile test? I have read that for the most part they are indistinguishable e from each other because they are functionally the same (well, one is better at coming down, but).
Or is this just a big loop hole that you can drive anything though? I am thinking about the Nuclear Non-Proliferation treaty were Iran can legally spin up low enriched uranium for their research reactor – which is exactly the same infrastructure they need to spin up the highly enriched uranium.
North Korea had just signed a agreement not to test weapons – which specifically included not testing long range missiles for “scientific purposes” in exchange for food aid. The ink was not even dry when they 1. launched the missiles and 2. said there would be dire repercussions if the U.S. did not deliver on the food aid.
The rationality and stability of the North Korea regime is very different then that of India.
Normally the CEO picks the C Level employees and the board rubber stamps the selection. The board has a little more sway over Finance and Compliance (If they have one) because these should have more independence from the CEO .
However, there are no set, formal rules. In reality the CEO helps pick the board that’s going to supervise him, so there that.
For example, the board can fire anybody they want. If the CEO backs CIO A, and the board fires A and hires B, what does that mean for the working relationship between the board, CEO and CIO? Boards should be setting goals and standards for the CEO. They should not be engaged in trench warfare. If that happens, the CEO normally goes.
The paper shows a logical, possible, way that the virus could mutate in the wild.
Vaccines take a long time to develop, test, and manufacture, so you want to get ahead of the curve. Which means you want to do some ground work with your enemy. What can it do? How can it evolve, etc. Now we know.
But it is cheap compared to a nuclear weapons program. A couple of smart & fanatical people with a modest payroll can go a long way. I have read scenarios (sorry, can’t cite them off the top of my head) that one could do really interesting stuff with 100k worth of equipment and supplies. 500k is well within the range of smaller states and larger criminal organizations.
I am reading this not as a narrow legal dodge (it falls outside the laws) but as a broad claim of researching being able to freely publish scientific data without prior censorship, and thus a campaign of Civil Disobedience.
The point of Civil Disobedience is not to break unjust laws, it’s to change them. Read up on the theorist of your choice, but I am picking Gandhi’s Salt March. The idea is to state your case on why you think your action is just, announce you are doing it, then do it. The authorities then must public arrest you. Do it long enough, loud enough and the capricious law will crumble.
Anonymous Pirates take note. If you think IP laws should change (which I do), stand up and be counted, just don’t download the latest whatever. If you don’t do what you do with pride, people will just assume you are cheap unemployed people ripping off starving artistic.
Lenovo was bought by a People's Republic of China (i.e. mainland) company, not a Republic of China (i.e. Taiwan) (Of course, it is kind of a moot point because both official claim that there is only 1 china, but...)
I am going to disagree with you here. It’s better to do one thing perfectly then two things well.
Partly this is informed by seeing Toyota Camry beat up GM’s mid size cars for decades. If Toyota figured out how to improve manufacturing of the Camry they would implement it worldwide. GM was catching up at the end – before it went bankrupt it had two different models (Chevrolet Malibu , Saturn Aura (which was a rebranded Opel)) that could hold it’s own. But it still boggled my mind that G.M. would spend so many resources duplicating itself.
Slashdot Mirror
Here are the rules:
Publish = File and send - either a paper or email copy - shareholder's perfance.
File = Put a copy up on the company's web site and SEC's Edger. Mailings only happen if a person requests it.
Public Companines must publish once a year, and file the other 3 times.
Funds must publish twice a year (Annual and Biannual) and file twice a year.
Annual reports tend to be audited by a independent 3rd party, everything else is held to a lower standard.
That information is heavily restricted, and there is no good source. However, from personal experience, there is going to be a huger dispersion in numbers so averages are going to do you any good.
You can go to the red hearing now, put it won’t tell you how many shares they are planning on selling or at what price. We will know that on the day of the sale.
Most of the shares will be sold to institutions. If they are public they report their holdings once a quarter. It won’t tell you if they bought it from the underwriter or in the secondary market, but you can guess.
However, some will go to individual investors, and nobody reports on them due to privacy issues.
Why 3.5 years?
MZ holds over 30% of the company so he is going to have a lot of power. And the IPO is for a thin slice (IIRC 5%) so there not going to be a big shift in who is sitting on the board. And there is no debt - which would be another avenue which could force change.
This is very different then Steve Jobs and Apple or Jerry Yang of Yahoo - who held far less. Even if FB blows up he should be able to hold out for a long time.
Why borther with buying a share? Anything they send out to shareholders they also have to publish on SEC's Edger. It is a great little resource.
http://www.sec.gov/edgar/searchedgar/companysearch.html
Now, buy a share of Berkshire Hathaway. You can get the information off the SEC, but Buffett really knows how to put on a show.
It’s not a question of age or productivity. The issue (I am willing to bet) deals with actuary science and low interest rates. IBM has a lot of people on their Pension Plan. They tried to push people to a hybrid plan, but lost a court case.
Pension obligations are based on expected future payments (as calculated by actuaries) and discounted by a interest rate – in this case long term government bonds.
So we have older workers whose future payments are more or less fixed. Government interest tank, so the obligations go through the roof, so the company has to contribute more, so the older work’s (effective) pay goes through the roof. Kind of the dark side of having a defined benefit plan which few people talk about.
I’ll second that.
At my company everybody had a BlackBerry because of it’s secure e-mail push feature.
Then we went with “Good”. (I love modern names – I still have fond memories of working on a enterprise piece of software that was called BETA.) In any event, we now can have secure e-mails on any phone.
Everybody turned in their business Blackberries and started using their personal phones (Mostly Apples).
As far as I can tell their dead in the water.
And books still get translated into Esperanto – but less then Estonian. And more are books are translated into Spanish then Estonian.
But 3rd party Apps are proving to the killer app in the smart phone market. Why would a developer want to build a polished optimized app for the Blackberry – even if it’s a 6 month old version of their current product?
While Betamax was the gold standard, Sony got out when it realized it was going to be a nich product. Now, nich products can survive and thrive – but they tend not to rely on the networking effects on the modern computer era.
I just don’t see much life for a small, propriety phone OS. They are going to need to dig Steve Jobs out of the ground and come up with a new dead brilliant idea if they are going to remain independent.
You may want to read the article a bit deeper. It's not as narrow as you think.
Yes, it does refer Grey market cars and textbooks.
However, the article also refers to the underground economy in legitimate goods to avoid taxes. The article refers to bootlegging alcohol to avoid taxes - which is very darn close to your example of cigarettes. And to paying workers under the table.
We are splitting hairs, but generally speaking activities which are legal but are done illegally (to dodge taxes, regulations, and the such) is considered to be Grey Market activity.
Cash under the table is considered more of a economic crime, and is generally considered a lesser moral offence.
Black markets deal with illegal actives done illegally or within a criminal organization.
i.e. bootlegging untaxed cigarettes that you picked up at the reservation is one thing. Running a organization (multiple people, bribing officials, selling to retails stores who should know better) is something else.
It’s a bit more bizarre than that. The Port Authority had just leased the WTC to Silverstein. The ink was barely dry on the lease, and the temporary issuance polices (and there were multiple – too big for just one company) were still in place, and thus did not clearly specify the details of what a event should have been. (Because, for something this complex, you hand over the insurance premium first, then negotiate the details.). That was a fun legal case.
But I was not referring to that.
Now, the WTC had been criticize as been ugly – but from a cost perspective they were very efficient.
Silverstein had paid the Port Authority $3.25 billion for the 99-year lease. Just because the buildings were destroyed did not get Silverstein out of the lease agreement. So he needs to build enough space to generate cash to pay for the lease.
This put everybody in a bind. There was no good way to rebuild that amount of space and not build on top of the WTC. So everything had to be renegotiated.
Don’t forget the insurance companies. The way policies are written, equivalent buildings would have to been built. Which means, basically building new towers over the sites of the old ones (insensitive on so many levels) and not fixing the road layout.
Samsung is the largest by value, overtaking Nokia.
I think Nokia is still number 1 by volume. (They sell a lot of cheaper "dumb" phones)
The item that I find interesting, and we are not talking about, is that Microsoft is taking an ownership position in their college bookstore operations. Now, why is MSFT doing that? I mean, yes, selling overpriced sweatshirts to the student's parents is amazing profitable - but it's not exactly in MSFT core line.
Why do I think that MSFT is trying to sneak into the online book selling business via text books? And why am I thinking about more DRM / lock down on text books?
Break out the Champagne?
We are talking about people who are moving from extreme rural poverty to better factory jobs. As there are fewer extreme poor, wages should rise. I understand that we are seeing this in China already.
And then comes the robots. But that is a different story.
After all, in bowling X designates a strike. I wonder if we could come up with a headline that is a palindrome?
On a more serious note, I think we are going to see these types of stories a lot. Lesser developed country turns into an industrial country via low pages wages. As economy grows, workers strike for a higher wage / bigger piece of the pie.
To build on MTTs's argument - but how would this work in practice? I am seeing a huge logical hole that I can’t figure out. Picking a ISA would seem to work against them. Does anybody have any ideas?
This is how I understand the proposal. The Government (and I can use upper case here because China is lead by a “Communist” party that leads state-owned enterprises – slightly more monolithic then elsewhere.) wants to save money (i.e. not pay western firms) by endorsing a ISA. O.K. I am not exactly a supporter of big government, so I don’t like the actor, but I do approve of AMD reverse engineering Intel’s x86 architecture.
Obviously this is to boost technical skills in chip design. Many people have suggested that this would make it easier to install back doors.
But the ISA would have to be published. WTO says it must. China can tilt the playing field to domestic companies – but only so far.
So, how would a backdoor that was openly documented work? I mean us slashdoters laugh all the time on “Security via obscurity”. How would a security hole via openness work?
It’s not that weak rule of law lowers the cost of crime, it also raises the cost of legitimate business.
If you build a large permanent business powerful interest will try to expropriate your profits. Bureaucrats will demand bribes to do their job, Tax inspectors will find violations in the opaque tax code unless the right politicians are paid off, etc.
Better to invest is something light and cheap. First, it’s harder to find. Second, when the "Rent Seekers" come they will only find a empty shell – and thus you can move on to the next operation.
Informative article – it’s given me something to think about.
o.k. – so when is a “scientific” ballistic missile test not considered to be a nuclear missile test? I have read that for the most part they are indistinguishable e from each other because they are functionally the same (well, one is better at coming down, but).
Or is this just a big loop hole that you can drive anything though? I am thinking about the Nuclear Non-Proliferation treaty were Iran can legally spin up low enriched uranium for their research reactor – which is exactly the same infrastructure they need to spin up the highly enriched uranium.
North Korea had just signed a agreement not to test weapons – which specifically included not testing long range missiles for “scientific purposes” in exchange for food aid. The ink was not even dry when they 1. launched the missiles and 2. said there would be dire repercussions if the U.S. did not deliver on the food aid.
The rationality and stability of the North Korea regime is very different then that of India.
Normally the CEO picks the C Level employees and the board rubber stamps the selection. The board has a little more sway over Finance and Compliance (If they have one) because these should have more independence from the CEO .
However, there are no set, formal rules. In reality the CEO helps pick the board that’s going to supervise him, so there that.
For example, the board can fire anybody they want. If the CEO backs CIO A, and the board fires A and hires B, what does that mean for the working relationship between the board, CEO and CIO? Boards should be setting goals and standards for the CEO. They should not be engaged in trench warfare. If that happens, the CEO normally goes.
The paper shows a logical, possible, way that the virus could mutate in the wild.
Vaccines take a long time to develop, test, and manufacture, so you want to get ahead of the curve. Which means you want to do some ground work with your enemy. What can it do? How can it evolve, etc. Now we know.
But it is cheap compared to a nuclear weapons program. A couple of smart & fanatical people with a modest payroll can go a long way. I have read scenarios (sorry, can’t cite them off the top of my head) that one could do really interesting stuff with 100k worth of equipment and supplies. 500k is well within the range of smaller states and larger criminal organizations.
I am reading this not as a narrow legal dodge (it falls outside the laws) but as a broad claim of researching being able to freely publish scientific data without prior censorship, and thus a campaign of Civil Disobedience.
The point of Civil Disobedience is not to break unjust laws, it’s to change them. Read up on the theorist of your choice, but I am picking Gandhi’s Salt March. The idea is to state your case on why you think your action is just, announce you are doing it, then do it. The authorities then must public arrest you. Do it long enough, loud enough and the capricious law will crumble.
Anonymous Pirates take note. If you think IP laws should change (which I do), stand up and be counted, just don’t download the latest whatever. If you don’t do what you do with pride, people will just assume you are cheap unemployed people ripping off starving artistic.
Lenovo was bought by a People's Republic of China (i.e. mainland) company, not a Republic of China (i.e. Taiwan) (Of course, it is kind of a moot point because both official claim that there is only 1 china, but...)
I am going to disagree with you here. It’s better to do one thing perfectly then two things well.
Partly this is informed by seeing Toyota Camry beat up GM’s mid size cars for decades. If Toyota figured out how to improve manufacturing of the Camry they would implement it worldwide. GM was catching up at the end – before it went bankrupt it had two different models (Chevrolet Malibu , Saturn Aura (which was a rebranded Opel)) that could hold it’s own. But it still boggled my mind that G.M. would spend so many resources duplicating itself.