- The idea of a stock exchange that allows companies and investors to focus on 5, 10, 25 year horizons sounds great!
- However companies on normal stock exchanges now already try to do this, but it’s hard because of quarterly earnings, pressure for quarterly growth, etc
- How is LTSE different? Seems like: Companies and investors “promise” to have a longer term focus via planning
- seems like that wouldn’t be enough and the same financial pressures would result in the same focus
- We were expecting something like: “investors must hold positions for 10 years”, or, “earnings only reported every 2 years”, etc etc. but there’s nothing like that.
- So, what is the big idea, the teeth, the new rule, that makes long term focus enforceable?
I used to be part of the system that built machines that auto traded on arbitrage opportunities due to millsec/nanosec differences in reported prices in different exchanges.
Although probably not popular I would suggest that long term stocks needs to incorporate features that actively block certain trading patterns: limit price changes, limit buy/ sell frequency, & disallow shorting.
I have been heavily involved in the gamification of the stock market and the above are used to maximise immediate returns to day traders and auto-trading machines. By fixing a price for the day, then there is less incentive to 'rush' to get to the price. Also, limit how quickly someone can buy and then sell a trade, rather than milliseconds (or smaller). I would strongly urge disallowing the buying of a stock by the same person, if they'd sold in the previous week. Shorting is never a long-term game and should be banned, as it never does the company any favours.
But what I see on this LTSE is nothing of what would actually constitute long term ownership of stocks. What I actually see with this LTSE.com is the opposite of value for a stock, as it is only driving increased gamification of the metrics mentioned above.
That is, if I were an automated machine trader, I would add LTSE and their slow price changes and compare them to NYSE and make zillions.
I don't see how this encourages any kind of long term investment, nor stability for a stock.
This reminds me of an article on HN from earlier this year by a reviewer of grant proposals, about how often they receive applications that clearly describe the problem the applicant wants to solve, but don't describe an idea with which to solve it: https://billwadge.wordpress.com/2020/02/10/im-good-enough-im...
> The idea of a stock exchange that allows companies and investors to focus on 5, 10, 25 year horizons sounds great!
But this already exists. It's just the regular stock exchange.
It's also worth noting that a majority of the capital in the market is already focused on very long term horizons. Most of it is sitting in boring mutual funds, who's investors are looking towards retirement as their horizon.
If you're looking for a market that is so focused on long term horizons that they don't even care whether you have enough revenue to remain solvent, and won't have enough revenue to remain solvent at any time in the foreseeable future, then that market already exists too. You can call it Private Equity, or Venture Capital, and HN often likes to discuss how it's trying to reinvent the 2000s tech bubble. It's also led to some incredible scams, and isn't really something you want consumer investors betting their retirements on.
> something like: “investors must hold positions for 10 years”, or, “earnings only reported every 2 years”
These wouldn't be good rules even if you were focused exclusively on long term results. Your longterm outlook can change from one day to the next.
'- How is LTSE different? Seems like: Companies and investors “promise” to have a longer term focus via planning'
I don't think "promise" is the word. The fact the exchange says it's focused on long term, would incline companies that wanted to focus on long term to list themselves there. Likewise, it would incline customers to list themselves there. But what incentive is there for short term traders?
Right now, on the normal exchanges, you have both types. And the loudest voices in the room are the short term types. They're the ones paying the closest attention, attending the shareholder meetings, etc. The long term holders are far less engaged.
What does this have for those short term traders? Nothing. There's no reason to pile into this when all the incentives of the companies listing, and existing holders, are aligned to long term. If you're looking short term, why would you want this, knowing all the other players will be aligned to take hits in the short term, if it pays off long term?
Not saying that this will be successful, but I can see it working because of that. Not because it's more attractive to long term holders, but because it's less attractive to short term.
That said, agreed that some ways to enforce it would be nice. But those have some noticeable downsides too (i.e., if a company makes decisions you don't agree with, but you're locked into a hold position...).
That said, as was mentioned elsewhere, it sounds like voting power is tied to how long you've held, as well as number of shares. So that certainly helps silent the churn and burn voices.
just want to float an idea that occurred to me that might explain the disappointment/confusion from HN:
the LTSE in its current form is a Minimal Viable Product.
It is maximally compatible with existing exchanges in order to encourage trading, listing and adoption from day 1. Eric picked the governance angle to start with, but it's probably not the final vision. He believes it is high leverage; reasonable people might disagree.
but it is perfectly explainable to have v1 of the LTSE be a little disappointing, given that this is the same guy that coined the MVP.
Though I barely understand such things, I'm very excited by your LTSE and Katsuyama's Investors Exchange (IEX).
Listening to your interviews about LTSE, my takeaway is that your goal is to allow companies to be judged on their own merits, instead of someone else's.
So one side effect may be to help migrate private equity funded companies back into the light. Terrific, right?
I hope others see that our markets are designed. They are human artifacts. They are not natural laws to be accepted as-is. That we can shape and nurture markets as we see fit. That the rules matter.
You and Katsuyama identified opportunities for improvement and engineered solutions. You're meta-geeks. Like programmers who make programming languages, so that others might benefit.
Eric, I worked at the world's first carbon market over a decade ago (Chicago Climate Exchange) and a group of us are at the early stages of designing some new exchanges focused on fixing market failures across several sectors.
I've been following your work for a long time, and I am excited to see LTSE finally launch.
I am concerned about the ability for people to create secondary markets the undermine the intention of the LTSE. How do you resolve this?
> I hope others see that our markets are designed. They are human artifacts. They are not natural laws to be accepted as-is.
“Markets” are not the same thing as “the market”. Markets are human artifacts; the market is an emergent behavior. It’s governed by laws beyond our control as surely as the behavior of materials are governed by thermodynamics.
If the behavior of your markets fails to match the reality of the market, the best you can hope for is to only introduce a small amount of inefficiency. Of course, utopians who ignore the real nature of the market usually find themselves lethally encumbered by deadweight loss.
> your goal is to allow companies to be judged on their own merits, instead of someone else's.
What is this supposed to mean? Why would a company’s subjective evaluation of themselves be a better basis for market valuation than the evaluation of the people who actually buy and sell interest in that company?
The blog post doesn’t explain what, if anything, is different about how the market works.
From the name, I expected that it would require holding an investment for a minimum period. But I see no evidence of that elsewhere on the site. I do see listing requirements that supposedly require companies to have a long term focus. But then elsewhere I see that all securities in the S&P 500 and the RUSSEL 2000 index will be included.
So I’m very confused? What even is this thing? Did I miss a concise explanation somewhere?
IMO, the main difference between LTSE and a traditional stock exchange is the way votes are allocated to shareholders. Traditionally voting power is proportional to shares owned. However, on LTSE the amount of time a stock has been held is also considered.
There is no minimum holding period, but there is an incentive to hold.
A bit of a tangent: Since there is a premium in voting rights (GOOG vs GOOGL), I'm curious to see how this new voting structure might result in strange behavior by traders and investors. For example, will people use single stock futures to hedge while retaining their voting rights? Will special purpose vehicles for holding shares be created?
I wonder what the actual business model for the company is and how the incentives from this will affect the LTSE vision behind "long-term investing". As far as I have seen on the website the company runs various freemium SaaS products like captable.io, startuprunway.io and hiringplan.io. They obviously want or need to monetize on that.
I spoke to a recruiter for LTSE a year ago and they were hiring lots of engineers to compete with Carta.
I was a bit disappointed with the pitch; sure Carta is useful but I had hoped LTSE was a place to do some really revolutionary stuff. It seems like that aspect of the company is a ways off and from my limited understanding, it doesn’t seem like today’s announcement makes it tangibly different than NYSE.
I’m neither a banker nor a major investor so I’m really curious to understand how they see this as a paradigm shift. For now it looks like a stock exchange started by someone I really admire but not much else.
it feels like the third page in the godaddy checkout flow where it's like 'maybe you need our wordpress, email, and VPS hosting in order to launch your website'
also feels like a data grab. traditional exchanges don't collect this stuff, and the SEC doesn't collect most of it.
Seems really cool, but after being on your site for 10 min I have yet to find the "meat". Other than a vague reference to "through member broker-dealers". For me the info I am interested in, and would want to see featured most prominently, is 1) A list of companies on the exchange and their last closing price. 2) An option (even if through a third party) to purchase shares of companies listed on LTSE. This information is no where to be found.
Today's announcement doesn't pertain to listings, so 1) is a ways off still
You can do 2) through your existing broker, so long as they are a member of the LTSE, which they likely already are. You can check their membership status here: https://brokercheck.finra.org/
We require companies that list with us to adopt corporate governance that aligns their behavior and incentives to the long term.
I know that doesn’t sound super sexy but we believe this is a high-leverage point for reforms
We will have more to say on reforms that relate to reading in the future, but we don’t limit the ability of “tourists” to trade in and out of stocks as normal.
The thing missing from this article is: What does this actually mean? When will companies start listing? Who will start listing? How do companies list? What are you offering? etc.
This short-term-pervades-the-market is based on the idea that the current stockholders are able to trick future stockholders into buying stocks that have eaten their seed corn, before those future stockholders realize this.
How can this process of continually tricking the next investor possibly work out quarter after quarter? Wouldn't the stock market have tanked long ago if this was, in fact, underlying the bulk of the market valuations?
The reality must be, as soon as investors realize a company is short-term only, they dump and run from its stock, because they will be unable to trick someone else into buying it at the high price.
Some years ago, I knew the CEO of a company who said he did the financials "according to what Wall Street short term investors wanted". The stock promptly tanked as investors actually do not invest that way, and certainly don't want to invest in companies that eat their seed corn.
Take a look at the companies with the biggest market caps in the world - who thinks they are driven by short-term thinking? I don't. The investors obviously don't. And the rewards of long-term thinking are off the charts.
>How can this process of continually tricking the next investor possibly work out quarter after quarter?
I imagine that if the next investor was someone like a retirement fund this could work out pretty well, since they have a steady flow of money being paid in. I don't know to what extent that actually happens.
If short term investing wasn’t valuable why would real estate closest to the stock exchange be priced higher simply because it enables HFT to shave milliseconds of execution time?
I don't understand from the website this bit which is about the "Long-Term Stakeholder Policy". What was the motivation for adding specific fields to this policy regarding diversity, the environment, and employee retention strategies? are these just examples?
- The company’s impact on the environment and its community
- The company’s approach to diversity and inclusion
- The company’s approach to investing in its employees
We wanted to make it explicit that these issues must be addressed in the stakeholder policy. Mostly we did this to create clarity for the regulators as to where such disclosures will live. This language mirrors other SEC-approved rules, but with stronger disclosure requirements here
Modern executives have incredible pressure to hit quarterly numbers and the ones that provide value in the long term are the ones that can effectively ignore this pressure.
Short term pressure also forces firms to play accounting games like taking big goodwill impairment losses in a down quarter, so they don't need to perform a writeoff in subsequent quarters.
This is a good example of an accounting trick that should not be allowed by an exchange-listed company. It’s simply a trick to make a loss not count against earnings. It’s not even shown as a liability like a self-loan would. In M&A situations it’s usually shown as an asset. The point being that you can’t trust the earnings number and you can’t trust the balance sheet asst value, so you really don’t know anything about a stock. I’m surprised that no analyst firm has published a common GAAP-based valuation. Perhaps because it’s impossible, but that underlies the problem for small investors.
Given current 50x multiples and high valuations for unprofitable tech companies I don't think there is much evidence that that current stock markets are unable to value long term ventures. As well the extent to which a company is expected to deliver quarterly results is more defined by their board and capital structure than anything in inherent to NYSE or the NASDAQ.
Yes, the major broker-dealers and market makers are members of the exchange. You can route orders to LTSE via your existing broker, just call them up and ask them to do so.
I believe Interactive Brokers, in particular, extends this privilege to all of their retail customers. But I don't have first-hand knowledge of this, just what I've heard.
Suppose LTSE becomes a thing, and they find some companies that they can certify as Long-Term(TM). What stops those shares from being traded on some other exchange, eg BATS?
What is it about the venue that makes it special? It seems that once an investor thinks a company has some desired characteristic, all they'd care about is where to get the shares as cheaply as possible.
NMS shares can trade on any exchange, but there is still a primary listing exchange. They're mainly (AIUI) responsible for publishing data on various administrative minutia such as the handling of dividends and splits. I imagine most of LTSE's attraction to companies is enhancing the perception of only accepting listings from companies with a long-term view
Much like as an investor you'd think twice before purchasing an OTCBB share today, or perhaps 30 years ago pay more attention to the difference in listing requirements between Nasdaq and NYSE, I think that's what's intended here
I think the companies can be traded on any exchange - it's not really a function of stock price. The LTSE kind of venn-diagrams around the requirements of the other exchanges (for now). So a company is then held to different (greater) standards (even if its also listed on other exchanges).
The real solution for better aligning corporate incentives with long term investing is to reform the public company board structure. The problem is current public boards are controlled by insiders, both C suite execs and entrenched board members, which leads to insular self dealing. Every CEO over time pollutes the board with their cronies to maintain their power base.
The solution is simple, allow shareholders to propose board slates. That guts the power of insiders to control the company, but the SEC has never had cajones to make it happen.
I’m a senior software engineer and software architect at a tech giant that has been lucky to have the experience of launching a new product twice, operationally treating it as a well funded startup and growing it to multimillion dollar revenue while instilling development practices that ensure quality while also being adaptive to change. I read the job description for the senior software engineer posting, and at first thought I might be a good candidate.
I generally want to dedicate my efforts to long term betterment of humanity, rather than “we make the world better by making a mobile app for dog walkers” sort of thing, so this position is attractive to me. However, this “full stack” position mentions only JavaScript and Rails as required experience.
Is your entire stack Rails and JavaScript? That turns me off entirely (and makes me unqualified).
I interviewed with the team not too long ago, didn't get the role in the end but the team was lovely and the interview process was great. Would recommend giving it a shot if you're at all interested, there are some great people working there!
Many private companies are staying private for longer, with an average time from launch to IPO creeping up toward 10 years or more. Most unaccredited investors are missing all of those substantial early gains.
Does LTSE have any plans to help speed the path to IPO and let more unaccredited investors participate in early growth and success?
It is my hope that we will be able to reverse this trend by making the experience of being a public company dramatically better. It will take time to see this play out, just as it has taken time for us to get into this mess.
But in the long run, it's important that the broad public be allowed to participate in growth investments, and I think the public markets could once again be the best place to enable that to happen. Frankly, I think it's immoral that at a time in history when we are pushing more and more of the responsibility for people's retirement onto individual savers, we have also made it illegal for them to make most growth investments. If we don't correct this imbalance, I fear the backlash to tech will only worse and intensify.
Tech didn't cause this problem but we will bear the brunt of the backlash if people feel left behind.
[+] [-] eries|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bricemo|5 years ago|reply
- The idea of a stock exchange that allows companies and investors to focus on 5, 10, 25 year horizons sounds great!
- However companies on normal stock exchanges now already try to do this, but it’s hard because of quarterly earnings, pressure for quarterly growth, etc
- How is LTSE different? Seems like: Companies and investors “promise” to have a longer term focus via planning
- seems like that wouldn’t be enough and the same financial pressures would result in the same focus
- We were expecting something like: “investors must hold positions for 10 years”, or, “earnings only reported every 2 years”, etc etc. but there’s nothing like that.
- So, what is the big idea, the teeth, the new rule, that makes long term focus enforceable?
[+] [-] cmroanirgo|5 years ago|reply
Although probably not popular I would suggest that long term stocks needs to incorporate features that actively block certain trading patterns: limit price changes, limit buy/ sell frequency, & disallow shorting.
I have been heavily involved in the gamification of the stock market and the above are used to maximise immediate returns to day traders and auto-trading machines. By fixing a price for the day, then there is less incentive to 'rush' to get to the price. Also, limit how quickly someone can buy and then sell a trade, rather than milliseconds (or smaller). I would strongly urge disallowing the buying of a stock by the same person, if they'd sold in the previous week. Shorting is never a long-term game and should be banned, as it never does the company any favours.
But what I see on this LTSE is nothing of what would actually constitute long term ownership of stocks. What I actually see with this LTSE.com is the opposite of value for a stock, as it is only driving increased gamification of the metrics mentioned above.
That is, if I were an automated machine trader, I would add LTSE and their slow price changes and compare them to NYSE and make zillions.
I don't see how this encourages any kind of long term investment, nor stability for a stock.
[+] [-] laughinghan|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] AmericanChopper|5 years ago|reply
But this already exists. It's just the regular stock exchange.
It's also worth noting that a majority of the capital in the market is already focused on very long term horizons. Most of it is sitting in boring mutual funds, who's investors are looking towards retirement as their horizon.
If you're looking for a market that is so focused on long term horizons that they don't even care whether you have enough revenue to remain solvent, and won't have enough revenue to remain solvent at any time in the foreseeable future, then that market already exists too. You can call it Private Equity, or Venture Capital, and HN often likes to discuss how it's trying to reinvent the 2000s tech bubble. It's also led to some incredible scams, and isn't really something you want consumer investors betting their retirements on.
> something like: “investors must hold positions for 10 years”, or, “earnings only reported every 2 years”
These wouldn't be good rules even if you were focused exclusively on long term results. Your longterm outlook can change from one day to the next.
[+] [-] lostcolony|5 years ago|reply
I don't think "promise" is the word. The fact the exchange says it's focused on long term, would incline companies that wanted to focus on long term to list themselves there. Likewise, it would incline customers to list themselves there. But what incentive is there for short term traders?
Right now, on the normal exchanges, you have both types. And the loudest voices in the room are the short term types. They're the ones paying the closest attention, attending the shareholder meetings, etc. The long term holders are far less engaged.
What does this have for those short term traders? Nothing. There's no reason to pile into this when all the incentives of the companies listing, and existing holders, are aligned to long term. If you're looking short term, why would you want this, knowing all the other players will be aligned to take hits in the short term, if it pays off long term?
Not saying that this will be successful, but I can see it working because of that. Not because it's more attractive to long term holders, but because it's less attractive to short term.
That said, agreed that some ways to enforce it would be nice. But those have some noticeable downsides too (i.e., if a company makes decisions you don't agree with, but you're locked into a hold position...).
That said, as was mentioned elsewhere, it sounds like voting power is tied to how long you've held, as well as number of shares. So that certainly helps silent the churn and burn voices.
[+] [-] swyx|5 years ago|reply
the LTSE in its current form is a Minimal Viable Product.
It is maximally compatible with existing exchanges in order to encourage trading, listing and adoption from day 1. Eric picked the governance angle to start with, but it's probably not the final vision. He believes it is high leverage; reasonable people might disagree.
but it is perfectly explainable to have v1 of the LTSE be a little disappointing, given that this is the same guy that coined the MVP.
[+] [-] specialist|5 years ago|reply
"We shape our buildings; thereafter they shape us." -- Winston Churchill
Though I barely understand such things, I'm very excited by your LTSE and Katsuyama's Investors Exchange (IEX).
Listening to your interviews about LTSE, my takeaway is that your goal is to allow companies to be judged on their own merits, instead of someone else's.
So one side effect may be to help migrate private equity funded companies back into the light. Terrific, right?
I hope others see that our markets are designed. They are human artifacts. They are not natural laws to be accepted as-is. That we can shape and nurture markets as we see fit. That the rules matter.
You and Katsuyama identified opportunities for improvement and engineered solutions. You're meta-geeks. Like programmers who make programming languages, so that others might benefit.
Happy hunting.
[+] [-] ryan_j_naughton|5 years ago|reply
Eric, I worked at the world's first carbon market over a decade ago (Chicago Climate Exchange) and a group of us are at the early stages of designing some new exchanges focused on fixing market failures across several sectors.
I've been following your work for a long time, and I am excited to see LTSE finally launch.
I am concerned about the ability for people to create secondary markets the undermine the intention of the LTSE. How do you resolve this?
[+] [-] centimeter|5 years ago|reply
“Markets” are not the same thing as “the market”. Markets are human artifacts; the market is an emergent behavior. It’s governed by laws beyond our control as surely as the behavior of materials are governed by thermodynamics.
If the behavior of your markets fails to match the reality of the market, the best you can hope for is to only introduce a small amount of inefficiency. Of course, utopians who ignore the real nature of the market usually find themselves lethally encumbered by deadweight loss.
> your goal is to allow companies to be judged on their own merits, instead of someone else's.
What is this supposed to mean? Why would a company’s subjective evaluation of themselves be a better basis for market valuation than the evaluation of the people who actually buy and sell interest in that company?
[+] [-] eries|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] om2|5 years ago|reply
From the name, I expected that it would require holding an investment for a minimum period. But I see no evidence of that elsewhere on the site. I do see listing requirements that supposedly require companies to have a long term focus. But then elsewhere I see that all securities in the S&P 500 and the RUSSEL 2000 index will be included.
So I’m very confused? What even is this thing? Did I miss a concise explanation somewhere?
[+] [-] lappa|5 years ago|reply
There is no minimum holding period, but there is an incentive to hold.
A bit of a tangent: Since there is a premium in voting rights (GOOG vs GOOGL), I'm curious to see how this new voting structure might result in strange behavior by traders and investors. For example, will people use single stock futures to hedge while retaining their voting rights? Will special purpose vehicles for holding shares be created?
[+] [-] yayr|5 years ago|reply
edit links: - https://captable.io - https://startuprunway.io - https://hiringplan.io - https://fast409a.io - https://startupdisclosure.io - https://notegenie.io
[+] [-] sbilstein|5 years ago|reply
I was a bit disappointed with the pitch; sure Carta is useful but I had hoped LTSE was a place to do some really revolutionary stuff. It seems like that aspect of the company is a ways off and from my limited understanding, it doesn’t seem like today’s announcement makes it tangibly different than NYSE.
I’m neither a banker nor a major investor so I’m really curious to understand how they see this as a paradigm shift. For now it looks like a stock exchange started by someone I really admire but not much else.
[+] [-] awinter-py|5 years ago|reply
it feels like the third page in the godaddy checkout flow where it's like 'maybe you need our wordpress, email, and VPS hosting in order to launch your website'
also feels like a data grab. traditional exchanges don't collect this stuff, and the SEC doesn't collect most of it.
[+] [-] hitpointdrew|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] eries|5 years ago|reply
You can do 2) through your existing broker, so long as they are a member of the LTSE, which they likely already are. You can check their membership status here: https://brokercheck.finra.org/
[+] [-] fastball|5 years ago|reply
Do you prevent day-trading or something similar?
[+] [-] eries|5 years ago|reply
I know that doesn’t sound super sexy but we believe this is a high-leverage point for reforms
We will have more to say on reforms that relate to reading in the future, but we don’t limit the ability of “tourists” to trade in and out of stocks as normal.
[+] [-] owens99|5 years ago|reply
The thing missing from this article is: What does this actually mean? When will companies start listing? Who will start listing? How do companies list? What are you offering? etc.
[+] [-] canada_dry|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gjs278|5 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] WalterBright|5 years ago|reply
How can this process of continually tricking the next investor possibly work out quarter after quarter? Wouldn't the stock market have tanked long ago if this was, in fact, underlying the bulk of the market valuations?
The reality must be, as soon as investors realize a company is short-term only, they dump and run from its stock, because they will be unable to trick someone else into buying it at the high price.
Some years ago, I knew the CEO of a company who said he did the financials "according to what Wall Street short term investors wanted". The stock promptly tanked as investors actually do not invest that way, and certainly don't want to invest in companies that eat their seed corn.
Take a look at the companies with the biggest market caps in the world - who thinks they are driven by short-term thinking? I don't. The investors obviously don't. And the rewards of long-term thinking are off the charts.
[+] [-] pirocks|5 years ago|reply
I imagine that if the next investor was someone like a retirement fund this could work out pretty well, since they have a steady flow of money being paid in. I don't know to what extent that actually happens.
[+] [-] bumby|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] calvinmorrison|5 years ago|reply
- The company’s impact on the environment and its community - The company’s approach to diversity and inclusion - The company’s approach to investing in its employees
[+] [-] eries|5 years ago|reply
It’s not meant to be an exhaustive list
[+] [-] MrPowers|5 years ago|reply
Modern executives have incredible pressure to hit quarterly numbers and the ones that provide value in the long term are the ones that can effectively ignore this pressure.
Short term pressure also forces firms to play accounting games like taking big goodwill impairment losses in a down quarter, so they don't need to perform a writeoff in subsequent quarters.
[+] [-] jl2718|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dtrailin|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|5 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] biznickman|5 years ago|reply
Also, as a side note, it would be interesting if you had an LTSE index fund!
[+] [-] eries|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] eries|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dfabulich|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] eries|5 years ago|reply
I believe Interactive Brokers, in particular, extends this privilege to all of their retail customers. But I don't have first-hand knowledge of this, just what I've heard.
[+] [-] joshdance|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lordnacho|5 years ago|reply
What is it about the venue that makes it special? It seems that once an investor thinks a company has some desired characteristic, all they'd care about is where to get the shares as cheaply as possible.
[+] [-] james412|5 years ago|reply
Much like as an investor you'd think twice before purchasing an OTCBB share today, or perhaps 30 years ago pay more attention to the difference in listing requirements between Nasdaq and NYSE, I think that's what's intended here
[+] [-] toufka|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] valuearb|5 years ago|reply
The solution is simple, allow shareholders to propose board slates. That guts the power of insiders to control the company, but the SEC has never had cajones to make it happen.
[+] [-] eries|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Galanwe|5 years ago|reply
First IT? Wait, how is the exchange running?
[+] [-] aisofteng|5 years ago|reply
I generally want to dedicate my efforts to long term betterment of humanity, rather than “we make the world better by making a mobile app for dog walkers” sort of thing, so this position is attractive to me. However, this “full stack” position mentions only JavaScript and Rails as required experience.
Is your entire stack Rails and JavaScript? That turns me off entirely (and makes me unqualified).
[+] [-] gsumpster|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cwkoss|5 years ago|reply
What are the specific features/differences between LTSE and other markets?
Will companies listed on LTSE be listed exclusively there, or also on other markets?
[+] [-] m1117|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] baccredited|5 years ago|reply
Does LTSE have any plans to help speed the path to IPO and let more unaccredited investors participate in early growth and success?
[+] [-] eries|5 years ago|reply
But in the long run, it's important that the broad public be allowed to participate in growth investments, and I think the public markets could once again be the best place to enable that to happen. Frankly, I think it's immoral that at a time in history when we are pushing more and more of the responsibility for people's retirement onto individual savers, we have also made it illegal for them to make most growth investments. If we don't correct this imbalance, I fear the backlash to tech will only worse and intensify.
Tech didn't cause this problem but we will bear the brunt of the backlash if people feel left behind.