benchmark

I get that fractional MTC helps to facilitate transactions. I think that the fact that by simply keeping money around you get the appreciation of the productivity/GDP growth would disincentivize some spending. Would it not cause the economy to not grow or grow very slowly?

Thanks for the reply. If the value of the money goes up, is it that an incentive to not spend money? i.e., if a paper clip is cost a 1 MTC today, I'd be incentivized to not spend that 1 MTC, as a year from now, that paper clip will cost only 0.5 MTC. This would in turn reduce economic activity?

@Vish_ram In your Mar's example, given that limited supply of Mar's coin, how does its economy grow? how is it measured then? the current capitalist system works with the underline assumption that one can 'create/print' money, afaik.

Have you sold out on Meta?

I agree in principle. However, in practice, the tax implication on the capital gains have made me twiddle my thumbs

Totally, Gurley is awesome, Gerstner just tries to sound intelligent.

I think that it still have some runway when the rate is finally cut...

Yes. I think we have found a good repeater/AI. No matter what new jobs get created, the repeater/AI will be the main worker in these new jobs. Thus the need for regular/average human will be greatly reduced unfortunately.

Thanks Prasad. Is that too packed for 10 days? Did you mostly travel by plane or train?

I need to go to Bangalore for business, but wants to spend around 10 days after to explore the country. Which area is too hot to visit during that time?

Going to India in late March to April for 10 days for the first time, any recommendation? Thanks.

Did you mean to something like buying Jan 25 45 puts, for example?

Merry Christmas and have a great new year. Really appreciate everyone's contribution to this great forum.

when do you expect that CPRI deal to close?

ah, ok

when did this happen?

Interesting to see that Credit Suisse and Charles Schwab at the top, and USB, PNC at the bottom.

This makes sense. From the owner's earning perspective, isn't SBC always bad? i.e., you now have more dilution. In this case, they have close to 4% dilution from a year ago.

Thanks @gfp So how should one treat SBC from the 'owner's earning perspective?

Thanks @Dinar @gfp On page 21, they've accounted for SBC in cogs and expenses, and it showed that they have $54 million (loss). But since SBC are 'funny money', they've added it back to cashflow to demonstrate the 'true' earning power (cash flow). Do I get this right? even if this is standard, but it's somewhat deceiving.

Just so that I understand, the $103 million SBC is basically them issuing shares to pay employees? As I understand it, assuming it's mostly RSUs, should it be that they issue some shares, and sell the shares to public to cover the tax withholdings for the employees. There is zero cash incoming from the operating perspective, how/why can they claim to be net cash flow positive?

In this case, the net operating income is negative, but how can they treat SBC as positive cashflow in the cashflow statement?

How is SBC generally treated in the cash flow statement? https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/MDB/cash-flow?p=MDB For example, this shows an operating cashflow of $53.7 million, but has a negative net income from operation of -$54.2 million. The only reason that the cash flow is positive is that they took about $103million of SBC and counted that as operating cash flow? I'm curious on if this is standard, and what other ways companies account for SBC?

Bought some more Google and Fairfax

I thought that their quarter report was decent, and bought some as well