You're viewing part of a thread.
I have no idea what sort of profit margins the auto companies are working on. I do think profit sharing is a pretty decent idea though. I am surprised the UAW isn't asking for something like that. Maybe it is too unstable for wage workers in case of a recession.
No, what matters is how much it would cost to pay their workers more, not what profit margin they're making. And do you honestly think their profits are lower than what they can pay their workers?
not what profit margin they're making.
True. You said profit and I even responded profit margin, but I was still thinking you said revenue.
do you honestly think their profits are lower than what they can pay their workers?
From second hand knowledge they did pretty good this year and the first year of covid, but had rough goes in between. I don't know if it makes up the difference or not.
Without workers there is nothing to sell, so you must pay the workers, but there is a real issue that investors will bail out if they aren't seeing returns. That said, I have a hard time believing the federal government would ever let the big three collapse, though they have already had to bail out GM once in the last couple decades. Hopefully, it does not become a repetitive issue.
there is a real issue that investors will bail out if they aren't seeing returns.
So we force them to cover bad bets instead of getting to walk away because they have money.
I have a hard time believing the federal government would ever let the big three collapse
So make those investors cover the loss instead of allowing them to pull out and short the shit out of the company requiring the government to infuse cash to keep them from failing.
This seems to be more getting into the issues with a stock exchange (and its rules), of which I have many. I have heard there are benefits to new companies having easier access to investors, but am not convinced that it is a good trade for the societal costs involved.
Even then, do keep in mind, when an investor divests from a company it isn't just burning their connection to it; someone else is buying it. Usually some middle-class chump who didn't understand the company was dying, and is indeed covering the loss by losing his retirement fund to it.
Edit: phrasing of italicized part.
The problem with the stock market is something we could be debating for hours here (fails to deliver, repacked bonds getting rating upgrades, margin requirements getting waived for big firms, lack of any transparency within the equities swap market, most trades being made off market, 401ks being used for locates in predatory shorting, etc). So I'll just touch on one thing here before it shoots into something completely morphed from the original discussion.
Even then, do keep in mind, when someone sells a company it isn't just burning their connection to it; someone else is buying it. Usually some middle-class chump who didn't understand the company was dying, and is indeed covering the loss by losing his retirement fund to it.
I know which is why I specifically stated we bar those bigger investors from pulling out to con the middle class/poor worker thinking they can make it big off some investment advice from a paid wall street mouth piece like Jim Cramer or countless other 'financial advisors'.
stated we bar those bigger investors
Oops, somehow missed that you were referring to the original bigger investors.
It seems like it should be easy enough to get those financial advisors for market manipulation. If a large firm says a stock will do better than otherwise expected and then sells their clients' stocks as soon as the price rises, how is it anything except simple market manipulation? Not going after them makes the SEC look like a captured organization, though I easily found articles stating that it isn't captured with a web-search.
It seems like it should be easy enough to get those financial advisors for market manipulation.
One would think until you see the actual suits brought against these entities where, just like fox they argue its purely for entertainment purposes and any rational person would understand this and not treat it as truth (i.e think when cramer called bear sterns a great investment about a week before tanking, or the fact we have an etf which does the opposite of cramer that makes like a 20% yield ytd). It's fucked to say the least in that regard.
If a large firm says a stock will do better than otherwise expected and then sells their clients' stocks as soon as the price rises, how is it anything except simple market manipulation?
the world of venture capital and algorithmic trading has entered the room
Yeah it's not done that simply. The basic game plan is as follows:
You never tell your clients directly what is great or not you point them to journals which can pump out articles like MontleyFool or yahoo finance who love their little disclaimer of this is not financial advise. Once you have primed the clients to want to invest for this upcoming ipo the next steps can follow: See YOU don't have to sell the stock when your funds are managed by a trading algorithm like Aladin used by all your big firms from Blackrock to Citadel, because now you get to say it was an automatic sale based on risk assessment made by your algorithm with zero human interaction. So, you had your buddies in the VC world give inflated investment offers to the budding company in question, allow a couple rounds of investments with some nice articles about put out from those financial jourals along this journey, which serves a dual purpose one allow other firms to persuade investment from clients and two that when the company decides to go public their growth goals become untenable and the initial IPO crashes. You as a VC want to hedge your bet right? So you make some equity swap deals with some unsuspecting banks under a couple of different shell corporations. These swaps allow you to essentially open a net short position, but thanks to some great CFTC regulations that came out barring reporting requirements on these swaps it's been even harder to see what's inside them. As an addition, since these are equity swaps, the bank does not need to report their position to the SEC nor does the entity in question who created this swap with the bank in the first place as they technically don't own the assets on hand (this is how archegos blew up and took creddit suise along with it). Now when the IPO hits your buddies down at the hedge fund's algorithms are going to see the risk in the reported financial data from the IPO and the over valued IPO share price. Place in some articles from something like the MontleyFool about how all of a sudden this IPO doesn't look so great and those VCs are going be screwed. Now you have the ammo, tools, and contracts set up to profit from the downside of this IPO. Then as a bonus by utilizing derivatives, you can short more than a hundred percent of a companies shares allowing you to profit in your equity swaps that have been going unreported obscenely. Now your coffer is full again you can pick up the next chump who is claiming to be the next 'Steve jobs' or at least pickup their assets for penny on the dollar when the company proceeds to bankruptcy. Then by the beauty of delisted stocks and warehoused FTDs on stocks who have been delisted no one ever has to know you shorted the fuck out of a company nor do you ever need to by back the 'shares' remember the scheme takes advantage of derivatives which bet on the price of a stock and allow you to buy/sell the shares at the price the contract was for.
There is a lot more nuance here in practice and some aspects were simplified for brevity sake, even if it already seems like a wall of text. The simple answer is its not simple to prosecute and yes the SEC is a mainly captured organization. Gary Gensler has been making strides in some regards but your previous heads, people like Hester Pierce and the constant revolving door from regulator to head executive at trading firms shows another issue with the system. Read the comments on SEC proposals. Another decent starting point if you haven't had any exposure to these issues is taking a look into the problem with Jon Stewart and his episode on the stock market. It's not perfect but can give you some insights into how rife with conflict of interest wall street and the SEC truly are.
This was indeed a fairly decent wall of text, but still well worth the read. I didn't realize these multi-layer scams went to this depth.
Also, it always seemed to me like listening to public trading advice and buying into a company at the same time as everyone else was a questionable proposition at best. Only so many would get the stock at a "good" price and everyone else was just buying in late anyways.
look into the problem with Jon Stewart and his episode on the stock market
I pulled up the video and will check it later. I look forward to hearing more about these issues.
Just watched the Jon Steward Stock Market video. I actually got to watch that Robnhood mess unfold live on reddit. It was quite the shock. Before then, I was under the impression that they were just doing batch trades, not all the backroom fuckery.
Still the video was definitely worth the watch. Are you aware of any other similar schemes with such interesting explanations?
Ahhh ok, so you really are talking out of your ass.
The workers are not asking for much. Just their fair share