philrapo's comments

A common zoning distinction is that a bed & breakfast is a private home where the host lives in the home. If the host does not live there, many cities/towns would then consider it a hotel and subject it to different rules.

I think a lot of the arm waving about airbnb is because of the latter situation. I don't think many people seem to have issues with renting out a spare room.

AirBnb is also collecting occupancy tax in many cities [0]. I don't have a view on whether this tax is well justified, but it does seem like if hotels are required to charge it, then full time airbnb hosts should be required to charge it as well.

[0] https://www.airbnb.com/help/article/653/in-what-areas-is-occ...

Prominently displayed in large font on page 1 of the Goldman research report on Tesla:

"Goldman Sachs does and seeks to do business with companies covered in its research reports. As a result, investors should be aware that the firm may have a conflict of interest that could affect the objectivity of this report. Investors should consider this report as only a single factor in making their investment decision."

(I put this in the reply to a child, but I felt it was relevant enough to reply directly to the parent.)

You are conflating the investment banker and the equity research analyst, which have legally mandated information sharing firewalls. Also this potential conflict is clearly and openly disclosed, e.g. "This company publishes research and also seeks to do investment banking business with Tesla".

Further, Goldman conducted a secondary share offering for Tesla as recently as summer 2015, so it was exceedingly obvious to anyone who makes investment decisions based on the research that this conflict exists.

I have worked at several wall street firms and also worked for firms in silicon valley, and I frankly noticed more numerous and blatant conflict of interest situations in silicon valley.

EDIT/UPDATE: Prominently displayed in large font on page 1 of the Goldman research report on Tesla:

"Goldman Sachs does and seeks to do business with companies covered in its research reports. As a result, investors should be aware that the firm may have a conflict of interest that could affect the objectivity of this report. Investors should consider this report as only a single factor in making their investment decision."

It is much harder for investors to do their homework on private companies, because (as described in TFA) many private companies selectively disclose metrics that paint them in a positive light. And there are no requirements or standardized metrics of disclosure.

I think this is why regulators are concerned about the steep drop in "startups" going public. You have these huge companies with enormous valuations, and they arent subject to the disclosure and reporting requirements that regulators have designed for public companies...

The most ridiculous recent example was Morgan Stanley marketing Uber to high net worth individuals. [0] Potential investors were not even allowed to see the financials! You just had to take Morgan Stanley's word for it that the valuation was "reasonable".

[0] http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-01-14/here-s-wha...

A different rational response could be to raise parking ticket prices.

I live in NYC. Parking here is so expensive that paying for a parking ticket (if you happen to get caught parking illegally) is cheaper than paying for the parking garage!

A monthly parking garage in my neighborhood (west village, manhattan) can cost $700-800. Parking on the street is not a perfect substitute, but I can get 10-12 parking tickets a month before the cost of parking illegally exceeds the cost of paying for garage space!

"I think this means building something on the internet, but not using AOL"

Levered people, whether rich or poor, are the ones who are forced to sell. There are always some over levered folks from both ends of the economic spectrum.

As long as you can make your monthly payments, you'll never be forced to sell.

The average founder is (or was) already 30+:

https://hbr.org/2014/04/how-old-are-silicon-valleys-top-foun...

Broadly speaking, investment banks perform two roles:

1) Act as advisors in financial transactions. You expect them to have your best interest in mind here. That's the core reason you are paying them -- to give you good advice and look out for you.

2) Act as brokers when you want to buy or sell something. Sometimes it's hard to find buyers or sellers for your particular transaction. Imagine trying to sell a hotel... or a 10% stake in Tesla... or a few million barrels of oil. You might not know anyone who has interest in that, but you still want to buy or sell. An investment bank can help broker a transaction. In this case, you're (implicitly or expicitly) paying for liquidity, i.e. access to their relationships with buyers and sellers around the world. The service being provided is arranging a buyer(seller) for your transaction. (The service is not about providing advice in your best interest).

There are certainly examples of shady dealings in role #1 above.

But in role #2, a customer of an investment bank generally understands that the service is matching buyers/sellers, and you don't rely on the investment bank to do your diligence. You're not paying for advice in this case.

It's like if your real estate agent was representing both the buyer and the seller, and you know they get compensated only if a transaction occurs. of course you expect that they are doing everything in their power to get everyone to transact.

> Uber said it had not received any national security letters or orders under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance act.

This statement is likely a warrant canary:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warrant_canary

Is there any reason you can't fly subsonic over land, then accelerate to supersonic over the ocean?

What do you eat at home for $1 a meal?

i was thinking this too. i'd like to also have a screen, for example on my fridge, where echo can post visual data replies.

Commercial planes and cruise ships buy insurance to deal with these issues.

Actually I have heard/read that it gets more common in very late stage (near-IPO) financing rounds as well. For example, when a company is expected to IPO in the next 12-18 months but needs some more cash runway, there are funds that specialize in providing this type of "bridge loan" financing, which often comes in the form of preferred stock with heavy liquidation prefs.

I haven't seen any data on it, but that's my understanding as well. (>1x is rare in today's market). But the NYT article does mention Honest Co. with a 2x on $1.7bn valuation, so there's at least that anecdote.

To put it another way, downside protection / insurance has value.

Are you saying you'd value shares at the same amount with or without a liquidation preference? I'd value the shares with liquidation preference at a premium, no contest.

e.g. 1,000 total shares. You can buy 10% (100 shares) for $10mm with 2x liquidation preference included.

Now say I remove the liquidation preference. Your valuation model doesn't change? Mine certainly does. I'd value the shares lower, causing a lower company valuation for the 10% of the company that's changing hands.

>The reason there are $1B+ valuations is primarily because the VCs believe the ventures will come to dominate major areas of commerce, will typically go public with sky-high valuations, and will continue to grow and dominate even after all that. Investing $100M at $1B valuation is risky but pays hugely if the company later becomes valued at $100B+.

It pays hugely even in a down round with liquidation prefs. I'd invest $100mm at a $1bn valuation with 2x liquidation preference, even if I thought the monetization event would occur at a $300mm valuation (down -70%). I'd still get paid out $200mm for a +100% return. If I didnt have the liquidation preference, I would've lost -70%.

that's why you always voice confirm...