|
That doesn't make much sense, because the argument is not logical. They talk about how improving real quality of life across the board involves a more equal society, and then talk about environmentalism. There is no mechanism of transition between the two topics, and there is also very little logic that actually supports their claims that improving equality will be more beneficial than gross growth. I could talk all day about how equality = good and environmentalism = good but nobody would take me seriously if I didn't actually have an argument beyond a mere statement of my beliefs.
On a more serious note, the economic growth rate in developing countries is really fast. There has to be a way for a westerner to get a piece of that pie by providing capital, right? If you are an individual who does not run a business but has something like ten thousand dollars lying around, would there be a way to invest in foreign markets?
|
On August 30 2013 06:16 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2013 05:55 GreenGringo wrote:On August 30 2013 05:39 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
Wikipedia lists agriculture as ~4% of Australia's economy. No, it's 12% when you account for processing. Even Wikipedia says that. I think all of my points were valid and I'm sorry that you're trying to hold on to your religion that having land is bad or neutral and vast quantities of new land wasn't a factor driving the New World's success, and the American Dream could be realized anywhere if only they cut taxes on the rich so the wealth can trickle down. Because you heard it on Glenn Beck, etc. Processing isn't related to land. You can process food in a city. The processing in question is closely related to the farming. As in that industry wouldn't exist without the agricultural base. Frequently agriculture is quoted as 12% of the Australian economy, because it's tacitly assumed that the processing is part of that industry.
But seriously, what is wrong with you? Every step of the way you clutch at straws like the most dyed in the wool religious zealot.
|
On August 30 2013 06:16 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
For clarification, my position is that land is good, but inconsequential compared to other factors. Please explain to me how you propose to eat without lots of arable land and farms.
Is it tacitly assumed among you people that you have an army of brown-skinned slaves at your disposal?
User was temp banned for this post.
|
On August 30 2013 06:24 Chocolate wrote:That doesn't make much sense, because the argument is not logical. They talk about how improving real quality of life across the board involves a more equal society, and then talk about environmentalism. There is no mechanism of transition between the two topics, and there is also very little logic that actually supports their claims that improving equality will be more beneficial than gross growth. I could talk all day about how equality = good and environmentalism = good but nobody would take me seriously if I didn't actually have an argument beyond a mere statement of my beliefs. On a more serious note, the economic growth rate in developing countries is really fast. There has to be a way for a westerner to get a piece of that pie by providing capital, right? If you are an individual who does not run a business but has something like ten thousand dollars lying around, would there be a way to invest in foreign markets?
You can buy stocks in foreign companies (though China is quite difficult due to regulations). But it should be noted that expected growth rates should theoretically already be reflected in the stock prices, which is often the problem when discussing these things. You are also not really providing capital, just transfer of existing equity. Also, putting everything on one horse, or a few horses, is probably not very wise.
To provide actual capital you would have to go the route of an angel investor, or somehow get into a venture capital scheme, neither of which is realistic for the typical guy with ten thousand in the bank. And you cant do this at all in China i think.
|
Interesting information, thanks for posting.
|
On August 30 2013 05:55 GreenGringo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2013 05:39 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
Wikipedia lists agriculture as ~4% of Australia's economy. No, it's 12% when you account for processing. Even Wikipedia says that. I think all of my points were valid and I'm sorry that you're trying to hold on to your religion that having land is bad or neutral and vast quantities of new land wasn't a factor driving the New World's success, and the American Dream could be realized anywhere if only they cut taxes on the rich so the wealth can trickle down. Because you heard it on Glenn Beck, etc.
Oh geez, I really did not want to jump into this argument as you don't really appear to have any "objective" you wish to argue.
Let me break this down. Your very first post was:+ Show Spoiler +On August 28 2013 22:40 GreenGringo wrote:
I don't know if the statistics concerning the Australian economy mean anything at all in this connection.
Due to its population density (the lowest in the world), inhabitants of Australia are "living the dream" and it seems like folly to try and replicate the Australian conditions in another country with 50 times more people living in every square mile.
The United States also experienced a utopia-like economy for its first couple hundred years. It's a natural consequence of the low population density.
All that talk about "liberty" is well and good for New World countries where they have detached houses even in ghettos. However, the data says that it simply doesn't work for countries with high population density. E.g. the UK has one of the highest "ease of doing business" indices in the entire world and is the most underperforming economy in Europe.
(Half-assed conjecture about history: I suppose the main reason South America didn't experience the success of the English-speaking colonies is that the Catholics weren't as zealous as the Puritans and didn't kill as many natives.)
Your post that argues that the population density of Australia in 2013 has it's population "living the dream" (Very vague about what that even means.) and that "the Australian conditions (What conditions??? Try to be specific.) in another country with 50 times more people living in every square mile." would be "folly"
And here's your next post: + Show Spoiler +On August 29 2013 05:53 GreenGringo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 29 2013 03:08 legor wrote:
This is complete rubbish. A low population density does not have positive effects on GDP per capita. I checked for some studies to proove this point, but this fact seems must be so obvious that research in this area doesn't exist.
. Obviously it is ridiculous to take a bunch of countries that are mostly desert and use them to work out a correlation. And obviously your entire post is a strawman, as I never claimed there was a general correlation. My only point was that an utterly extreme case of vast resources and land to expand into is almost certain to lead to a growing and healthy economy. Lo and behold, that is exactly what we find again and again throughout history as frontier regions were settled and grew into thriving communities. If I were wrong, then the New World would never have been settled in the first place. There would be more prosperity in clustering together in one area. Everyone knows that that is preposterous and it makes perfect economic sense to expand into an area with extremely low population density -- regardless of your chart that completely misses the point and speaks to nothing but an inability to think critically.
Some how you have changed your argument from your original post: "Due to its population density (the lowest in the world), inhabitants of Australia are "living the dream" and it seems like folly to try and replicate the Australian conditions in another country with 50 times more people living in every square mile.
To being: "My only point was that an utterly extreme case of vast resources and land to expand into is almost certain to lead to a growing and healthy economy. Lo and behold, that is exactly what we find again and again throughout history as frontier regions were settled and grew into thriving communities."
Let me tell you that population density and resources are two independent items that the user (legor) tried to show you, and you then responded with a terrible insult ("speaks to nothing but an inability to think critically") that had ZERO evidence to back what you said. Evidence being links to articles from experts on the subject that would agree your views. You then rinse and repeat this process for every following post.
I do however understand that the reason you do not provide evidence as others have asked for, is so that you can keep your arguments vague so can defend yourself without actually having any knowledge on the subject.
Edit: Darn he was banned >.<, now I know I shouldn't have said anything.
|
On August 30 2013 06:40 GreenGringo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2013 06:16 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 30 2013 05:55 GreenGringo wrote:On August 30 2013 05:39 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
Wikipedia lists agriculture as ~4% of Australia's economy. No, it's 12% when you account for processing. Even Wikipedia says that. I think all of my points were valid and I'm sorry that you're trying to hold on to your religion that having land is bad or neutral and vast quantities of new land wasn't a factor driving the New World's success, and the American Dream could be realized anywhere if only they cut taxes on the rich so the wealth can trickle down. Because you heard it on Glenn Beck, etc. Processing isn't related to land. You can process food in a city. The processing in question is closely related to the farming. As in that industry wouldn't exist without the agricultural base. Frequently agriculture is quoted as 12% of the Australian economy, because it's tacitly assumed that the processing is part of that industry. But seriously, what is wrong with you? Every step of the way you clutch at straws like the most dyed in the wool religious zealot.
Yeah, processing is generally more efficient near a farm. I'll give you that. However, not all processing is the same. You can do a little processing (like they do in poor countries) or a lot of processing (like in rich countries). This was an important dynamic over the past commodity boom. Poor countries that processed food only a little were much more exposed to commodity price fluctuations than rich world consumers.
Moreover, in many cases it is possible to import raw food products and process them domestically.
I don't know why you think I'm clutching at straws or a zealot. I'm making well informed statements about the economy that are well established in mainstream economics. You, on the other hand, are repeatedly resorting to personal attacks and keep falling back on the idea that since land was oh-so-important in the 1700's it must be today as well.
|
So there's nothing like a mutual-VC where everybody pitches in a relatively small amount of money in exchange for equity? I knew that stocks were different from actual capital, but was just wondering if there was a way to ride the developing gravy train, so to speak. I'm also not too interested in China because I think the prospect of a housing bubble there is quite scary.
|
On August 30 2013 06:56 Chocolate wrote:
So there's nothing like a mutual-VC where everybody pitches in a relatively small amount of money in exchange for equity? I knew that stocks were different from actual capital, but was just wondering if there was a way to ride the developing gravy train, so to speak. I'm also not too interested in China because I think the prospect of a housing bubble there is quite scary.
I am not sure if such a thing exists, but I don't think so.
On a sidenote, for an amount like 10k, and if you have a bit of time to manage it, I think a very interesting investment strategy would be to buy into any initial public offering you can find for the minimum guaranteed amount (and no more) indiscriminately and then selling it on day one of trade, also indiscriminately. Average day one returns are like 20% or something crazy like that, and you are pretty much 100% guaranteed to not make a loss. Requires no thought at all.
|
On August 30 2013 06:56 Chocolate wrote:
So there's nothing like a mutual-VC where everybody pitches in a relatively small amount of money in exchange for equity? I knew that stocks were different from actual capital, but was just wondering if there was a way to ride the developing gravy train, so to speak. I'm also not too interested in China because I think the prospect of a housing bubble there is quite scary.
You can certainly buy existing shares on the market directly or through a mutual fund or ETF. There are a few emerging market companies that list on advanced world exchanges. For example, Mongolian miner South Gobi lists on the Toronto exchange (SGQRF, complete shit though, don't buy). ETFs would be the most popular route currently.
Keep in mind that while if you just buy stocks you aren't contributing directly to the company, but you do make it easier for them to raise more money in seasoned offerings. So if you want, you can figure that you really did give them cash directly, even if you didn't.
Another option is to invest in a rich world corp that does a lot of business in emerging markets.
If you want to directly contribute you could try to catch an IPO with a broker that offers that access.
I don't know of any VC's that specialize in emerging markets. Emerging markets tend to be unfriendly to the typical VC formula.
One thing to keep in mind is that emerging market investing is inherently risky. As is IPO / VC investing. So putting both aspects together is really not for the feint of heart!
|
On August 30 2013 07:10 Crushinator wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2013 06:56 Chocolate wrote:
So there's nothing like a mutual-VC where everybody pitches in a relatively small amount of money in exchange for equity? I knew that stocks were different from actual capital, but was just wondering if there was a way to ride the developing gravy train, so to speak. I'm also not too interested in China because I think the prospect of a housing bubble there is quite scary. I am not sure if such a thing exists, but I don't think so. On a sidenote, for an amount like 10k, and if you have a bit of time to manage it, I think a very interesting investment strategy would be to buy into any initial public offering you can find for the minimum guaranteed amount (and no more) indiscriminately and then selling it on day one of trade, also indiscriminately. Average day one returns are like 20% or something crazy like that, and you are pretty much 100% guaranteed to not make a loss. Requires no thought at all.
IPO's are hard. You suffer the 'winner's curse' and so any one investor's return is worse than the average.
|
On August 30 2013 07:13 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2013 07:10 Crushinator wrote:On August 30 2013 06:56 Chocolate wrote:
So there's nothing like a mutual-VC where everybody pitches in a relatively small amount of money in exchange for equity? I knew that stocks were different from actual capital, but was just wondering if there was a way to ride the developing gravy train, so to speak. I'm also not too interested in China because I think the prospect of a housing bubble there is quite scary. I am not sure if such a thing exists, but I don't think so. On a sidenote, for an amount like 10k, and if you have a bit of time to manage it, I think a very interesting investment strategy would be to buy into any initial public offering you can find for the minimum guaranteed amount (and no more) indiscriminately and then selling it on day one of trade, also indiscriminately. Average day one returns are like 20% or something crazy like that, and you are pretty much 100% guaranteed to not make a loss. Requires no thought at all. IPO's are hard. You suffer the 'winner's curse' and so any one investor's return is worse than the average.
Aha! but you see, by buying only the minimum guaranteed amount (and no more) you (mostly) get rid of the winners curse.
Minimum guaranteed amount is like a few thousand usually.
|
On August 30 2013 07:18 Crushinator wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2013 07:13 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 30 2013 07:10 Crushinator wrote:On August 30 2013 06:56 Chocolate wrote:
So there's nothing like a mutual-VC where everybody pitches in a relatively small amount of money in exchange for equity? I knew that stocks were different from actual capital, but was just wondering if there was a way to ride the developing gravy train, so to speak. I'm also not too interested in China because I think the prospect of a housing bubble there is quite scary. I am not sure if such a thing exists, but I don't think so. On a sidenote, for an amount like 10k, and if you have a bit of time to manage it, I think a very interesting investment strategy would be to buy into any initial public offering you can find for the minimum guaranteed amount (and no more) indiscriminately and then selling it on day one of trade, also indiscriminately. Average day one returns are like 20% or something crazy like that, and you are pretty much 100% guaranteed to not make a loss. Requires no thought at all. IPO's are hard. You suffer the 'winner's curse' and so any one investor's return is worse than the average. Aha! but you see, by buying only the minimum guaranteed amount (and no more) you (mostly) get rid of the winners curse. Minimum guaranteed amount is like a few thousand usually.
What's the minimum guaranteed amount? I don't think I've heard of that. Is this some crazy Europe thing? 
|
On August 30 2013 07:23 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2013 07:18 Crushinator wrote:On August 30 2013 07:13 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 30 2013 07:10 Crushinator wrote:On August 30 2013 06:56 Chocolate wrote:
So there's nothing like a mutual-VC where everybody pitches in a relatively small amount of money in exchange for equity? I knew that stocks were different from actual capital, but was just wondering if there was a way to ride the developing gravy train, so to speak. I'm also not too interested in China because I think the prospect of a housing bubble there is quite scary. I am not sure if such a thing exists, but I don't think so. On a sidenote, for an amount like 10k, and if you have a bit of time to manage it, I think a very interesting investment strategy would be to buy into any initial public offering you can find for the minimum guaranteed amount (and no more) indiscriminately and then selling it on day one of trade, also indiscriminately. Average day one returns are like 20% or something crazy like that, and you are pretty much 100% guaranteed to not make a loss. Requires no thought at all. IPO's are hard. You suffer the 'winner's curse' and so any one investor's return is worse than the average. Aha! but you see, by buying only the minimum guaranteed amount (and no more) you (mostly) get rid of the winners curse. Minimum guaranteed amount is like a few thousand usually. What's the minimum guaranteed amount? I don't think I've heard of that. Is this some crazy Europe thing?
THe minimum amount of shares that you are guaranteed to get. (not auction) There isnt always a minimum but you simply dont buy those then.
|
On August 30 2013 07:28 Crushinator wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2013 07:23 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 30 2013 07:18 Crushinator wrote:On August 30 2013 07:13 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 30 2013 07:10 Crushinator wrote:On August 30 2013 06:56 Chocolate wrote:
So there's nothing like a mutual-VC where everybody pitches in a relatively small amount of money in exchange for equity? I knew that stocks were different from actual capital, but was just wondering if there was a way to ride the developing gravy train, so to speak. I'm also not too interested in China because I think the prospect of a housing bubble there is quite scary. I am not sure if such a thing exists, but I don't think so. On a sidenote, for an amount like 10k, and if you have a bit of time to manage it, I think a very interesting investment strategy would be to buy into any initial public offering you can find for the minimum guaranteed amount (and no more) indiscriminately and then selling it on day one of trade, also indiscriminately. Average day one returns are like 20% or something crazy like that, and you are pretty much 100% guaranteed to not make a loss. Requires no thought at all. IPO's are hard. You suffer the 'winner's curse' and so any one investor's return is worse than the average. Aha! but you see, by buying only the minimum guaranteed amount (and no more) you (mostly) get rid of the winners curse. Minimum guaranteed amount is like a few thousand usually. What's the minimum guaranteed amount? I don't think I've heard of that. Is this some crazy Europe thing? THe minimum amount of shares that you are guaranteed to get. (not auction) There isnt always a minimum but you simply dont buy those then.
But you can't sell them before they trade, so you could still lose when you go to sell, right? Or is it at a predetermined price and there's some arbitrage there? I think I'm going to have to do some googling later 
|
On August 30 2013 07:35 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2013 07:28 Crushinator wrote:On August 30 2013 07:23 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 30 2013 07:18 Crushinator wrote:On August 30 2013 07:13 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 30 2013 07:10 Crushinator wrote:On August 30 2013 06:56 Chocolate wrote:
So there's nothing like a mutual-VC where everybody pitches in a relatively small amount of money in exchange for equity? I knew that stocks were different from actual capital, but was just wondering if there was a way to ride the developing gravy train, so to speak. I'm also not too interested in China because I think the prospect of a housing bubble there is quite scary. I am not sure if such a thing exists, but I don't think so. On a sidenote, for an amount like 10k, and if you have a bit of time to manage it, I think a very interesting investment strategy would be to buy into any initial public offering you can find for the minimum guaranteed amount (and no more) indiscriminately and then selling it on day one of trade, also indiscriminately. Average day one returns are like 20% or something crazy like that, and you are pretty much 100% guaranteed to not make a loss. Requires no thought at all. IPO's are hard. You suffer the 'winner's curse' and so any one investor's return is worse than the average. Aha! but you see, by buying only the minimum guaranteed amount (and no more) you (mostly) get rid of the winners curse. Minimum guaranteed amount is like a few thousand usually. What's the minimum guaranteed amount? I don't think I've heard of that. Is this some crazy Europe thing? THe minimum amount of shares that you are guaranteed to get. (not auction) There isnt always a minimum but you simply dont buy those then. But you can't sell them before they trade, so you could still lose when you go to sell, right? Or is it at a predetermined price and there's some arbitrage there? I think I'm going to have to do some googling later
Yes you could still lose on any individual transaction. (though losses are very rare in IPOs anyway). But the idea is to make the amount you end up buying independent of the interest in the offer. So you will always buy the minimum allotment, meaning that you dont get more of the bad and less of the good, just equal amounts in everything. You dont go for the auctions, just the underwriting stuff.
I'm not a hundred percent sure if this logic is perfectly sound, but it should be close enough. I'm not a hundred percent sure if you can keep 10k occupied for a decent amount of the time either, but if I had that amount saved, it would be interesting to give it a go.
|
anytime anyone gives you an investing strategy that 'requires no thought' you know you got a winner on your hands.
edit: a frontier is more important because it gives you an escape valve for social instability. Go west young man
|
On August 30 2013 07:47 Crushinator wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2013 07:35 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 30 2013 07:28 Crushinator wrote:On August 30 2013 07:23 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 30 2013 07:18 Crushinator wrote:On August 30 2013 07:13 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 30 2013 07:10 Crushinator wrote:On August 30 2013 06:56 Chocolate wrote:
So there's nothing like a mutual-VC where everybody pitches in a relatively small amount of money in exchange for equity? I knew that stocks were different from actual capital, but was just wondering if there was a way to ride the developing gravy train, so to speak. I'm also not too interested in China because I think the prospect of a housing bubble there is quite scary. I am not sure if such a thing exists, but I don't think so. On a sidenote, for an amount like 10k, and if you have a bit of time to manage it, I think a very interesting investment strategy would be to buy into any initial public offering you can find for the minimum guaranteed amount (and no more) indiscriminately and then selling it on day one of trade, also indiscriminately. Average day one returns are like 20% or something crazy like that, and you are pretty much 100% guaranteed to not make a loss. Requires no thought at all. IPO's are hard. You suffer the 'winner's curse' and so any one investor's return is worse than the average. Aha! but you see, by buying only the minimum guaranteed amount (and no more) you (mostly) get rid of the winners curse. Minimum guaranteed amount is like a few thousand usually. What's the minimum guaranteed amount? I don't think I've heard of that. Is this some crazy Europe thing? THe minimum amount of shares that you are guaranteed to get. (not auction) There isnt always a minimum but you simply dont buy those then. But you can't sell them before they trade, so you could still lose when you go to sell, right? Or is it at a predetermined price and there's some arbitrage there? I think I'm going to have to do some googling later Yes you could still lose on any individual transaction. (though losses are very rare in IPOs anyway). But the idea is to make the amount you end up buying independent of the interest in the offer. So you will always buy the minimum allotment, meaning that you dont get more of the bad and less of the good, just equal amounts in everything. You dont go for the auctions, just the underwriting stuff. I'm not a hundred percent sure if this logic is perfectly sound, but it should be close enough. I'm not a hundred percent sure if you can keep 10k occupied for a decent amount of the time either, but if I had that amount saved, it would be interesting to give it a go.
I guess if you had bought Facebook shares and sold the first day, it's possible you would have made a little money.
|
On August 30 2013 07:23 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2013 07:18 Crushinator wrote:On August 30 2013 07:13 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 30 2013 07:10 Crushinator wrote:On August 30 2013 06:56 Chocolate wrote:
So there's nothing like a mutual-VC where everybody pitches in a relatively small amount of money in exchange for equity? I knew that stocks were different from actual capital, but was just wondering if there was a way to ride the developing gravy train, so to speak. I'm also not too interested in China because I think the prospect of a housing bubble there is quite scary. I am not sure if such a thing exists, but I don't think so. On a sidenote, for an amount like 10k, and if you have a bit of time to manage it, I think a very interesting investment strategy would be to buy into any initial public offering you can find for the minimum guaranteed amount (and no more) indiscriminately and then selling it on day one of trade, also indiscriminately. Average day one returns are like 20% or something crazy like that, and you are pretty much 100% guaranteed to not make a loss. Requires no thought at all. IPO's are hard. You suffer the 'winner's curse' and so any one investor's return is worse than the average. Aha! but you see, by buying only the minimum guaranteed amount (and no more) you (mostly) get rid of the winners curse. Minimum guaranteed amount is like a few thousand usually. What's the minimum guaranteed amount? I don't think I've heard of that. Is this some crazy Europe thing?
Minimum amount is indeed the amount of shares you are guaranteed to get if there is to much demand. The minimum amount is often determined at the close of an ipo, so you cant realy "only" subscribe for the minimum amount since it is not known yet at the time of subscribing.
Say a firm emits 1 million shares and people subscribe (not sure if right word) to buy 4 million shares, then in general everyone gets 1/4th of the shares they subscribed for, with a minimum of say 1000 shares per person (so if you subscribed to buy 1000 shares, you will get still 1000 shares)
Europe is also different then the usa in another aspect wich makes buying ipos and extra stock emissions in europe relativly risk free and a good idea. In the usa all big companys are verry well priced. Stocks are not to expensive nor to cheap. In europe this is different because the market is alot less efficient i think specially with smaller companys , manny shares have prices wich are considerably higher (or lower) then their true value (due to market inefficiencys) so in general it is verry risky to buy shares in europe (for average normal people it is near impossible to determine if a stock is to cheap or to expensive). When there is an stock emission or an ipo, so manny shares come to the market at once that the only way to sell them all is by pricing them verry competitivly, you are almost guaranteed to have a good price when buying them.
They can still go down after the emission if for example the prospects for the company are detoriating or when the overall economy makes a downturn but at least you can be reasonably sure that you did not pay to much at the time of buying.
For example: the dutch telecom KPN recently emitted 4 billion shares to pay down debts. The banks guaranteed this emission (they guaranteed to buy the shares if the public would not) for a price of i believe 1.10 euro per share.
You then know that that thoose shares are worth at least 1.10 euro, since that is the price the bank would buy them for in the worst case scenario and the bank has a verry good insight in the true value of a company.
The bank off course always wants a discount so the real true value is probably at least 10-20% higher then the price the bank guarantees as the minimum. Buying these emissions for prices near the minimum price the bank guarantees is verry safe, even though the price will often go shortly below the minimum price the bank guaranteed, it is almost 100% sure the price will go rise at least 50% above the emission price within 2 years.
There are exceptions off course, facebook is an example of such exceptions wich suprised me alot.Maybe because there was a verry high demand from the public for thoose shares and the bank deemed the risk that they would have to buy shares as relativly small and tried to "mark up" the price a bit. but even facebook now has a price higher then the emission.
Peugot is enother example, emitted for ~9 euro/share after wich the price dropped to a low of 4.50 a share,they at 11 now about 1 year after the emission though.
|
On August 30 2013 16:25 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2013 07:47 Crushinator wrote:On August 30 2013 07:35 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 30 2013 07:28 Crushinator wrote:On August 30 2013 07:23 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 30 2013 07:18 Crushinator wrote:On August 30 2013 07:13 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 30 2013 07:10 Crushinator wrote:On August 30 2013 06:56 Chocolate wrote:
So there's nothing like a mutual-VC where everybody pitches in a relatively small amount of money in exchange for equity? I knew that stocks were different from actual capital, but was just wondering if there was a way to ride the developing gravy train, so to speak. I'm also not too interested in China because I think the prospect of a housing bubble there is quite scary. I am not sure if such a thing exists, but I don't think so. On a sidenote, for an amount like 10k, and if you have a bit of time to manage it, I think a very interesting investment strategy would be to buy into any initial public offering you can find for the minimum guaranteed amount (and no more) indiscriminately and then selling it on day one of trade, also indiscriminately. Average day one returns are like 20% or something crazy like that, and you are pretty much 100% guaranteed to not make a loss. Requires no thought at all. IPO's are hard. You suffer the 'winner's curse' and so any one investor's return is worse than the average. Aha! but you see, by buying only the minimum guaranteed amount (and no more) you (mostly) get rid of the winners curse. Minimum guaranteed amount is like a few thousand usually. What's the minimum guaranteed amount? I don't think I've heard of that. Is this some crazy Europe thing? THe minimum amount of shares that you are guaranteed to get. (not auction) There isnt always a minimum but you simply dont buy those then. But you can't sell them before they trade, so you could still lose when you go to sell, right? Or is it at a predetermined price and there's some arbitrage there? I think I'm going to have to do some googling later Yes you could still lose on any individual transaction. (though losses are very rare in IPOs anyway). But the idea is to make the amount you end up buying independent of the interest in the offer. So you will always buy the minimum allotment, meaning that you dont get more of the bad and less of the good, just equal amounts in everything. You dont go for the auctions, just the underwriting stuff. I'm not a hundred percent sure if this logic is perfectly sound, but it should be close enough. I'm not a hundred percent sure if you can keep 10k occupied for a decent amount of the time either, but if I had that amount saved, it would be interesting to give it a go. I guess if you had bought Facebook shares and sold the first day, it's possible you would have made a little money.
What do you mean? IPOs on average have huge day 1 returns, it isnt just Facebook, virtually all IPOs are underpriced. It is a bit of a mystery how that could be, but the numbers dont lie.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
