Items tagged with: money

Earlier, someone asked me why I don't believe in "#homeownership". Here is my answer.

I have three main #reasons that I don't believe in "home ownership": (1) #financial (2) #political (3) #lifestyle.

(1) Financial

We are sold the idea that "a #house is an #investment". However you must #borrow a huge amount of #money, usually several years of gross #income, in order to "#invest" in this game!

Of course, people say that this #debt is "good debt" because you can #resell the home - and the mentality is that, for some crazy #economic reason, #homes are supposed to increase in #value almost automatically. But for me it's not that simple.

Some people cannot sell their #home due to #market situations. I know one man who decided to move out of his large home now that his children are grown. He thought it would sell quickly. But he has had no luck selling or even #renting out his house because he lived in a #rural area with no jobs. Now he is drowning in debt due to trying to pay a #mortgage #payment (for the house he can't sell) in addition to renting a smaller place!

But even if you are in a good position to resell your home, you still have to spend a lot of money on it in order to attract #buyers. #Renovations, #lawn upkeep, #repainting, the list goes on and on. That's not to mention #propertytaxes (which increase as you make the home more attractive to buyers!) and #insurance.

To me, that's a terrible form of #investment.

Compare "home ownership" to #stock... as a form of investment. If I have a #brokerage account and I buy stock (or some other traded #commodity), I don't have to worry about property #taxes or insurance. And I certainly don't have to spend my own money to maintain my stock shares - in fact many of them will pay ME #dividends! So I simply hold on to my stock #shares until I want to #sell back onto the #secondarymarket. Hopefully I can sell while the value is up so that I earn a #profit. Very simple, very cost effective, and potentially very profitable. AND no #borrowing from the #bank!

(2) Political

In the #USA, your mortgage is rarely owned by your bank. Due to insane #federal #redtape, your mortgage #loan is SOLD to government #agencies as soon as you finish #buying the house. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fannie_mae and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freddie_Mac.

So our #federalgovernment - which is TRILLIONS of dollars in debt!!!! - is #subsidizing these stupid #agencies to #BUY your mortgage loans from the banks......

What is the purpose of doing so?

To create a ridiculous phony traded commodity called "mortgage-backed securities". Read all about them here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mortgage-backed_security

If the agencies are profitable in selling these absurd "#securities", then the money goes back to the US #Treasury (which of course means more public money for #warfare and other evil empire activities). And if the agencies are not profitable, then the US Treasury instead bails them out (which means using our #tax dollars as well as billions of dollars of government debt!).

I, for one, refuse to support this political madness.

(3) Lifestyle

There are so many lifestyle reasons that I don't believe in the #Americandream of "home ownership".

For one thing, in the past few decades, the housing bubbles have truly made my country #UGLY.

My heart aches when I see the ugly landscape of #American #suburbs. They are filled with dystopian panoramas of hideous mass-produced cookie-cutter low-quality houses that you can't even tell apart. I am grateful every day that I did not grow up in this bizarre alien landscape. And it's not just the stupid planned "#neighborhoods" - it's also the suburban #sprawl of big-box stores and other real-estate speculator/developer wet dreams.

And the richer #subdivisions are no better than the #middleclass. They are just filled with even uglier #McMansions - which are still very CHEAPLY MADE. Read more about these pathetic eyesores on this excellent architecture blog: http://mcmansionhell.com.

I love real #architecture so I would NEVER punish myself to live in such a stupid environment.

And it makes me so angry that people are so #mediocre that they would be content to live like that and allow these companies to get rich off of making our #cities UGLY. But of course they don't care because they just want to buy the house in order to "resell" it later (i.e. get an even bigger mortgage loan!) for another Instagram-worthy #superficial dwelling.

And because the #banks have convinced people that "homes are an #investment", people don't buy homes to STAY IN. Almost no one plans to stay in the same house their whole life. So the companies that #mass-produce these ugly #buildings take advantage of it - they make cheaply produced houses with no regard for #energy efficiency, #environmental #sustainability, or longevity.

Of course this means that homeowners must work even harder to maintain their cheaply produced homes to attract buyers, which means countless hours of free time WASTED on completely stupid projects like repainting everything, installing new bathroom sinks, etc JUST FOR APPEARANCE!!! Imagine all the hours of time for a #homeowner spent on boring and menial "home maintenance" that could instead be spent learning a new #language or visiting #nationalparks or doing other enriching activities.

Meanwhile homeowners are never free to really personalize their housing. People believe that when they buy a house they can "make it their own" but it's a lie. If you want to get rid of your environmentally destructive #lawn and grow a #garden instead, the #city will come after you for violating some sort of #municipalcode. Same if you want to collect #rainwater or start an open #compost pile. If you want to put up #solarpanels, the city will probably demand that you obtain a permit ($$). And heaven forbid you try to exercise #freedomofexpression. Imagine how a Homeowners Association would respond if I put up a sign saying "#FreePalestine" in my yard. Being a homeowner means #CONFORMITY.

And sadly even if I #behave and #obey all the #rules and live a #boring mediocre suburban lifestyle, the government can STILL take my house away through #eminentdomain!!!!! They do this all the time - many people had to move when the interstate highways were built and nowadays people are forced to move because the government is trying to help #oil companies get access to even more #land to build #pipelines that could ruin our #water!!!!!!!!

When it comes to lifestyle, I don't want to be told what to do by anyone. And I want to be #free to move (hence the name #nomad!). There are so many #amazing #sights to see and places to #explore. There is so much #history and #culture in the #world for me to witness. Being a homeowner won't help me live a fulfilling life.
#Russia #UK #corruption #money #laundering #international

From: Minds info@minds.com
To: Alien23


Your channel currently has 1.2 tokens waiting to be claimed for your Beta reward!

Claiming your tokens is simple. Just click on the button below and follow the prompt to verify your phone number and we will send 1.2 tokens to your wallet.
Claim Beta Reward

Our token is now live on Ethereum's Main Network, so make sure you act quickly and claim your MINDS tokens while you can!

As a reminder, tokens can be used to Boost your content for more views, upgrade your channel to Plus or tip other channels and unlock exclusive rewards with Wire.

The Minds Team

#Minds #OSS #SocialNetwork #SocialNetworking #Blockchain #Bullockschain #Ethereum #EthereumAlliance #DAO #DarkDAO #ECR20 #HelicopterMoney #AirDrop #Money #Economics #MonetaryTheory #Bancor #UnitedNations #UNICEF #Chaingers #Syria #Jordan #IRIS #QTUM #Tezo #CryptoCurrency #Bullocks #ITSATRAP
Western capitalistic societies as Germany becomes increasingly individualistic egoistic and selfish - Axel Springer Verlag stetllt fest: Die Gesellschaft/Deutschland wird immer egoistischer

in English: (scroll down for German)

… well if it is more profitable to cultivate evil psychopaths than kindness… guess what you will harvest? (unintentionally? really? not even with with massive amounts of drug induced ignorance)
so in short: it is official – the current form of capitalism breeds evilness in people – that were born equal and neutral.
Yes the POTENTIAL for evilness is in the DNA (like less empathy) but the cultivation process is more important – giving rise to bad traits/properties of a human rather than good traits/properties of a human makes the difference!

hence the evil result: happy self destruct! mankind!

I finally have to agree to what Wolfgang Weiler president of German insurance industry told the propaganda paper of Axel Springer “The world”: the German society becomes more and more individualistic, egoistic, ego-centric and selfish.

Suprise suprise: Just as in USA – society splits up/breaks down into fractions that increasingly violent and fierce-fully fight each other.

Economic research IFO-Institute investigated: During financial crisis – left and right wing extremists profit – but especially right wing extremists. (source: “10 years after the suprime crisis“)

Quiz: Hitler was…? Right! A right-wing extremist. 60 million dead people later – nothing was learned by “homo sapiens” which translates from Latin as “the wise human”. (haha…)

I fear i also have to agree to what a US-astronomy-scientist had to say (can not find the source) “we have not found yet any signals of intelligent life in our galaxy – maybe because intelligent species that reach a certain technological level of weapons technology – self destructs – that would be a very bad outlook for mankind.”

in German:

Ich muss dem Präsident des Gesammtverbandes der Deutschen Versicherungswirtschaft Wolfgang Weiler und der Propaganda Schleuder von Axel Springer “Die Welt” tatsächlich mal recht geben: Die Gesellschaft/Deutschland wird immer egoistischer.

D.h. beim letzten ignoranten Voll-Horst sind die Nebenwirkungen des Kapitalismus spürbar geworden – mit 30 Jahren Verzögern. Natürlich ergeben sich daraus KEINERLEI Konsequenzen. Man macht so weiter wie bisher, bis es wirklich nicht mehr geht, weil die Leute sich gegenseitig auf der Strasse umbringen.

Das ist auch klar.

Quelle: https://www.welt.de/wirtschaft/article181588082/Altersarmut-So-fahrlaessig-sind-die-30-bis-59-jaehrigen.html?xing_share=news

\#money #alternative #reform #systems #vollgeld #bge #altcoopsys #alternatives #alternativgeld #OsOfSociety #OperatingSystemsOfSociety #SystemPhilosophy #dinero #dollar #euro #yen #rubel #sustainability #resilience #complementary #complementarycurrency #cooperation #monetaryreform #financialreform #financialsystemreform #financialcrisis #mortagecrisis #debtcrisis #suprimecrisis #occupywallsreet #occupyfrankfurt #finance #geldsystem #geldreform #moneysystem #financialsystem #economics #ecologicaleconomics #economy #capitalism #kapitalismus #system #society #evil #evilness #mankind #anger
Originally posted at: https://altcoopsys.org/2018/09/20/western-capitalistic-societies-as-germany-becomes-increasingly-individualistic-egoistic-and-selfish-axel-springer-verlag-stetllt-fest-die-gesellschaft-deutschland-wird-immer-egoistischer/
Western capitalistic societies as Germany becomes increasingly individualistic egoistic and selfish – Axel Springer Verlag stetllt fest: Die Gesellschaft/Deutschland wird immer egoistischer


Every day I wake up I'm increasingly bewildered....
"Yep.... they still don't seem to get it..... now the U.N. and friends admit ALL the money is a trick but they're still getting up and going to work for fictitious money acting like it's rael. Pope tells em they need to read the statement about how the RC is into black masses and rape with his support, but they're still going to Catholic Mass and schools. IsRaEl goes blatant apartheid state, mows down literally 1000s of semitic people under the claim the semitcs are anti semitic, calls it a "Great Day for peace" along with Trump while actively mowing folks down, and folks are still going to Zionist synagogues; they're still acting like the institutions & governments cool with all these parties are rael, and on and on it goes.
Another day in the zombie apocalypse and double tapping isn't exactly a practical option to resolving the zombies in this Zombieland."

drinks coffee..... prepares to face the zombie hoards

#Zombieland #Zombies #WTFTheory #Pope #PopeFrancis #PGate #Israel #Palestine #SouthAfrica #Venezuela #Argentina #Russia #America #UN #World #Government #GuberMente #Enterprise #Money #CryptoCurrency #CognitiveDissonance

Deposits in the big banks at risk in the next financial crisis

Keeping your #money in a local credit union is generally #safer and less #expensive than maintaining #accounts in Too-Big-To-Fail #banks.
How many #disposable #razors have you sent to #landfill over the years? Perhaps 50? 100?

According to a #report published in the 90’s by the #EPA, around 2 billion razors and #blades were #thrownaway each year.

Over two decades later, my guess is that number is way beyond the 2 billion estimations.

Living in a #world of #disposables, it’s #easy to get carried away with the norm. But with our current #plastic #crisis, minimizing our plastic usage is essential.

#Switching from a plastic razor to a #safety razor is a #simple switch, one that will keep your #waste down while #saving you #money.
#zerowaste #noplastic #sustainability #environment
A Zero-Waste Shaving Routine

MSM deceives the US public about many things, especially where #money is concerned.

#Venezuela #US #oil #companies want their #oil #profits back


some (semi) random probably not so common bits of thought on this September 11, 2018

Feast of Trumpets aka Rosh Hashanah, the Rabbinical Feast of the New Year 2018 is Sept 11. The Coptic (Egyptian Orthodox) New Year “Eid al Nayrouz” is on 9/11/2018. The Zoroastrian-Persian New Year is on 9/11/2018. The Arab and Islamic New Year is on 9/11/2018.
Trump (Trumpet/Trump-Pence) presented in 1958 series Trackdown; Walter Trump selling a “Wall” to guard against “Meteor (Alien) Invasion”. The Wall is not a physical “Border Wall” but an EM (Electro-magnetic) Wall (note: 9/11/01 wtcdata.nist.gov video “WCBS Dub4 23.avi” ?EMP? @ 3:38). Trump is assassinated in the shows conclusion. Similarly, the New York Acting Company featured the assassination of Julius Caesar as Donald Trump; Capt America is seen holding Donald Trump’s severed head at the University of Alaska; Marilyn Manson, Snoop Dog and Cathy Griffin (a personal friend of Trump) all have murdered Trump in their skits/songs.
Chabad Lubavitch is the modern Pharisee Priesthood aka Synagogue of Satan (Saturn); the modern movement based on the plan presented by Rabbi Baal Shem Tov in 1217 plans for the return of Melchisedek after the 10th Jubilee.
The Rabbinical 10th Jubilee planned in 11Q13 (Qumran Cave 11 Jar 13) Prince Melchisedek Scroll by the Essenes ends 2018. Gnostics regard Sept 11, 3(or 6)BC Feast of Trumpets as the birth of Jesus and anniversary of Creation.
“After 10 Jubilees, Prince Melchisedek shall return” -11Q13

Bab means Gate; Babylon means Gates of Lucifer aka On “Osiris” or Heliopolis; El “Elohim”; Allah; Sin or Marduk/Molech. Mormon means “Gates of Hell”. Theosophy aka “Thule Society” claims a transition from the 5th to 6th Root Race; 11 the 5th Prime Number and 13 the 6th. Rev 11 a Heavenly view of the Great Tribulation; Rev 13 an Earthly view. is the Venus/Lucifer date on the Mayan Calendar corresponding to 12/21/2012. Who Rises? The Sun, through the X (Ecliptic and Galaxy centered on the central Black Hole aka Tula/Thule) ; 11:11UTC.

Amurru, the land of the Amorites and Code of Hammurabi; Druids called it Amorica; Cathars called it the “Church of Amor” and today America. Amurru is the West, land of the Setting Sun is the land of the dead.

Augmented Reality Control Matrix
ARC means “Horizon to Horizon”; Horus was the Egyptian “God of 2 Horizons” or “Horus in the Horizons”; Horus aka Jupiter/Zeus is to be born Sept 23, 2017 from the virgin (Isis), clothed with the Sun (Osiris), under a crown of 12 stars (Leo aka “Horus of the 2 Horizons” + Mars, Venus, Mercury); ArcBlock
ARK Arkadian/Akkadian corruption; Enlil’s Ark

History is changed to Augment Reality; News Augments Reality; Hollywood Augments Reality; Fiat Currency Augments Reality.
CORE is Korah, the Alternative Priesthood described in Num 16; Jude warned of “certain men who crept in unawares…turning the grace of God into lasciviousness, denying the only Lord God, Jesus” Augmented Reality now includes Saviors like Horus, Tammuz, Mithra, Attis, Apollo, Sol, Solis Invictus, Krishna, al Mahdi, Buddha, Maitreya etc etc.
ARCcore is also called Arctic Core; Arctic is Arctos or “Bear”. Ursa Major is the Big Dipper, the Water Pourer symbolizing Baptism of the New Age of Aquarius. The Sphinx faces Leo which it represents in 10,500 BC or 1/2 of the Egyptian Great Year with its tail directed at the opposite horizon toward Aquarius. Welcome to the Age of Aquarius with Augmented Reality: Killing (the way of Cain), Greed (AC [C]Crypto Currency), and Worthless Shepards (Baalims) following Core, the Alternative Priesthood of Worthless Absurdity.
BIS (Bank of International Settlements) SDR implemented as new global reserve currency Friday October 13, 2017 via ACC, Ethereum, and Bancor. ACC is designed to Digitize all tangible assets on Earth aka “Black Horse”

“The black rider: Velo-esque (Saturnian) ‘death plus time’ tasks carried out by Anubis, god of death and judgment [characterized from Egypto–Biblical mythos/Scripture, spiritual ‘word of knowledge’ and vision/astral encounters] — wrecks Resheph-style spiritual pestilence/famine, black masked ‘ninja’ assassin attire, balances in hand (to ‘weigh the [stolen]heart’), scales the walls to steal treasure (Hermes [Anubis affiliation] trait) with right [the ‘God’] hand, pale green colored eyes and pale green colored sickle [color of ‘death’] in left hand ‘to break [destroy men] with’(connotations of creating death and reaping the dead into hell). Excellent match for the Biblical‘abomination of desolation.’ Satanic spiritual pestilence ‘sparking’ results in the permanent freezing of death via time [the 666 ‘magic spark’], desolating the body by vacating/placing the human soul from this timeline (cementing the final and deciding human will) into a conscious demonic state (and switching the demonic mirror end-of-time probabilistic future version image back into the body — thereby reversing demon and human soul placements permanently into certainty at both
ends); thus giving rise and credence to a newly empowered mass-sentience personified as Hell (modeled on Moriah the Ghost’s sentient ‘elite’ microcosm-mass image), and two very noticeable and discreet realities in the earth coexisting side-by-side fighting for dominance [‘lies’ and ‘truth’].”

Currently at pace for Bitcoin blockchain alone to consume as much energy as produced on the total planet today in the next two years.
In image’ [the G-host] destroying this much life every day.”

In image’ [the G-host] e-verified [666]Horus destroying this much life.”“

χάραγ-μα [χα^], ατος, τό, (χαράσσω)
A. Any mark engraved, imprinted, or branded, χ. ἐχίδνης the serpent’s mark, i. e. its bite, sting, S.Ph. 267; “ἐν ἰσχίοις μὲν ἵπποι πυρὸς χάραγμ᾽ ἔχουσιν” Anacreont.26 B 2; “ἔχειν τὸ χ. τοῦ θηρίου” Apoc.16.2, cf. 13.16; χ. χειρός, i.e. writing, AP9.401 (Pall.); χαράγματα παμβασιλῆος, of an imperial missive, Epic. in BKT5(1).115: abs., inscription, AP7.220 (Agath.), cf. PLond.5.1688.8 (iv A. D.); stamped document, Sammelb.5275.11 (i A. D.); brand on a camel, PGrenf.2.50(a).5 (ii A. D.); “χ. τέχνης” carved work, Act.Ap.17.29; τὸ χ. τοῦ νομίσματος the impress on the coin, Plu.Lys.16, cf. Ages.15, Jul.Mis.355d (pl.), etc.; hence,
2. stamped money, coin, AP5.29 (Antip.Thess.), POxy.144.6 (vi A. D.).
3. metaph., mark, stamp, character, “τὸ τῆς μονάδος σημαντικὸν χ.” Theol.Ar.6.
4. endorsement, Arch.Pap.1.85.
_Henry George Liddell. Robert Scott. A Greek-English Lexicon. revised and augmented throughout by. Sir Henry Stuart Jones. with the assistance of. Roderick McKenzie. Oxford. Clarendon Press. 1940.

The National Endowment for the Humanities provided support for entering this text._

#911 #September #AsAThought #Contemplations #A23PContemplations #Occult #Magic #Philosophy #Science #HIStory #Economics #Jubilee #Physics #EM #EMP #Trump #JudahBenSamuel #ET #LAM #Binah #Ark #Arc #Theosophy #Thule #Vril #Nazi #Saturn #Set #Osiris #Ra #El #Jupiter #Marduk #Sophia #Maitreya #Babalon #AI #BigDipper #Swastika #TreeOfLife #Qliphoth #MAGA #ACC #AssetCollectionBlockchain #AC #SaviorParadox #Money #Chabad #Blockchain #NoMagic #KnowMagick
Courtesy of PositiveMoneyUK on Youtube

Six Myths About Money & Banking (Josh Ryan-Collins)

#Education #Money #Finance
Courtesy of neweconomics.org

Many people would be surprised to learn that even among bankers, economists, and policymakers, there is no common understanding of how new money is created.

This is a problem for two main reasons. First, in the absence of this understanding, attempts at banking reform are more likely to fail. Second, the creation of new money and the allocation of purchasing power are a vital economic function and highly profitable. This is therefore a matter of significant public interest and not an obscure technocratic debate. Greater clarity and transparency about this could improve both the democratic legitimacy of the banking system and our economic prospects.

Defining money is surprisingly difficult. We cut through the tangled historical and theoretical debate to identify that anything widely accepted as payment, particularly by the government as payment of tax, is, to all intents and purpose, money. This includes bank credit because although an IOU from a friend is not acceptable at the tax office or in the local shop, an IOU from a bank most definitely is.

We identify that the UK’s national currency exists in three main forms, the second two of which exist in electronic form:
Cash – banknotes and coins.
Central bank reserves – reserves held by commercial banks at the Bank of England.
Commercial bank money – bank deposits created either when commercial banks lend money, thereby crediting credit borrowers’ deposit accounts, make payments on behalf of customers using their overdraft facilities, or when they purchase assets from the private sector and make payments on their own account (such as salary or bonus payments).

Only the Bank of England or the government can create the first two forms of money, which is referred to in this book as ​‘central bank money’. Since central bank reserves do not actually circulate in the economy, we can further narrow down the money supply that is actually circulating as consisting of cash and commercial bank money.

Physical cash accounts for less than 3 per cent of the total stock of money in the economy. Commercial bank money – credit and coexistent deposits – makes up the remaining 97 per cent of the money supply.

There are several conflicting ways of describing what banks do. The simplest version is that banks take in money from savers, and lend this money out to borrowers. This is not at all how the process works. Banks do not need to wait for a customer to deposit money before they can make a new loan to someone else. In fact, it is exactly the opposite; the making of a loan creates a new deposit in the customer’s account.

More sophisticated versions bring in the concept of ​‘fractional reserve banking’. This description recognises that banks can lend out many times more than the amount of cash and reserves they hold at the Bank of England. This is a more accurate picture, but is still incomplete and misleading. It implies a strong link between the amount of money that banks create and the amount that they hold at the central bank. It is also commonly assumed by this approach that the central bank has significant control over the amount of reserves banks hold with it.

We find that the most accurate description is that banks create new money whenever they extend credit, buy existing assets or make payments on their own account, which mostly involves expanding their assets, and that their ability to do this is only very weakly linked to the amount of reserves they hold at the central bank. At the time of the financial crisis, for example, banks held just £1.25 in reserves for every £100 issued as credit. Banks operate within an electronic clearing system that nets out multilateral payments at the end of each day, requiring them to hold only a tiny proportion of central bank money to meet their payment requirements.

The power of commercial banks to create new money has many important implications for economic prosperity and financial stability. We highlight four that are relevant to the reforms of the banking system under discussion at the time of writing:
Although useful in other ways, capital adequacy requirements have not and do not constrain money creation, and therefore do not necessarily serve to restrict the expansion of banks’ balance sheets in aggregate. In other words, they are mainly ineffective in preventing credit booms and their associated asset price bubbles.
Credit is rationed by banks, and the primary determinant of how much they lend is not interest rates, but confidence that the loan will be repaid and confidence in the liquidity and solvency of other banks and the system as a whole.
Banks decide where to allocate credit in the economy. The incentives that they face often lead them to favour lending against collateral, or assets, rather than lending for investment in production. As a result, new money is often more likely to be channelled into property and financial speculation than to small businesses and manufacturing, with profound economic consequences for society.
Fiscal policy does not in itself result in an expansion of the money supply. Indeed, the government has in practice no direct involvement in the money creation and allocation process. This is little known, but has an important impact on the effectiveness of fiscal policy and the role of the government in the economy.

The basic analysis of Where Does Money Come From? is neither radical nor new. In fact, central banks around the world support the same description of where new money comes from. And yet many naturally resist the notion that private banks can really create money by simply making an entry in a ledger. Economist J. K. Galbraith suggested why this might be:
“The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. When something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent.”
This book aims to firmly establish a common understanding that commercial banks create new money. There is no deeper mystery, and we must not allow our mind to be repelled. Only then can we properly address the much more significant question: Of all the possible alternative ways in which we could create new money and allocate purchasing power, is this really the best?

#Education #Money #Finance #Book
Courtesy of PositiveMoneyUK on Youtube

'HBOS Whistleblower' Paul Moore on Banking Reform

#Education #Money #Finance
Introduction to Positive Money in less than 3 minutes...

#Education #Money #Finance
Michael Meacher MP - on Money Creation

(part 1
(Part 2
(Part 3

#Education #Money #Finance
Labour MP & Conservative MP & HBOS Whistleblower on Positive Money

#Education #Money #Finance

REPORT: 9/11 Victims Compensation Fund Running Out of Money, Claims Increase


#911 #911terroristattacks #claims #compensation #fund #increase #money #oannewsroom #out #report #running #victims #worldtradehealthcenterprogram
posted by pod_feeder
REPORT: 9/11 Victims Compensation Fund Running Out of Money, Claims Increase

We Know Exactly How to Stop Wildfires—With Money

#exactly #know #money #science #stop #wildfires

IDF censor culled Jerusalem Post's report on Israel arming Syria's rebels

#IDF has forced the #JerusalemPost to remove its explosive #report on the #Israeli #military giving #weapons to the #Syrian rebels, the newspaper’s managing editor confirmed to #RT.

“We were told by the army’s #military #censor to remove that part of the story,” #DavidBrinn, the managing editor of the Jerusalem Post told #RT as he replied to a request for comment. The report, ‘IDF confirms: Israel provided light-weapons to Syrian rebels,’ which claimed that the Israeli military acknowledged for the first time that it had provided #money, #weapons and #ammunition to the Syrian militants, was removed just hours after being published without any explanation.

According to #Brinn, the story was removed “for security reasons evidently.” The IDF told RT that it would not comment on the issue.

The #Jerusalem #Post article was removed shortly after being published, but a version of the article can still be read using #Google cache.

It claimed that regular supplies of light weapons and ammunition to the Syrian militants…


#Israel #Jews #Jew #war #warmonger #warmongering #warmongers #Syria #ISIS #IS #ISIL #Daesh
another thing that is always missing is #money people and proper admins as in #administration, #paperwork, #logistics, organizing is a valuable skill. #PR as well . #feneas

Tell Your Co-Workers How Much Money You Make

It’s unlawful for private sector employers to prohibit employees from discussing wages and compensation. Take advantage of that protection.
Article word count: 1430

HN Discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17900287
Posted by js2 (karma: 11306)
Post stats: Points: 93 - Comments: 61 - 2018-09-03T04:20:38Z

\#HackerNews #co-workers #how #make #money #much #tell #you #your
Article content:


It’s unlawful for private sector employers to prohibit employees from discussing wages and compensation. Take advantage of that protection.

Aug. 31, 2018

So how much do you make?

It’s a loaded, deeply personal and often uncomfortable question. Along with our weight and age, our salary is a number to which we’ve assigned almost incomparable value.

And, when we’re asked, what many of us really hear is this: What’s your worth as a person?

“Money is so tied up with really complex and difficult emotions, like shame, success, fear of failure and how people view you,” said Brianna McGurran, a money expert at the personal finance blog [1]NerdWallet. “So when you’re talking about how much you earn, or how much you’re saving, a lot of people end up tying that to their self-worth.”

She added: “Salary is so close to our identity. It’s the core part of all of this.”

That money — along with sex, politics and religion — is a topic best avoided in polite conversation is a cultural concept [2]many of us are raised on, and taboos around discussing income can be particularly sensitive.

But unlike not disclosing what’s in your savings account or your 401(k), there are direct, concrete consequences for falling victim to salary secrecy, including wage suppression and a lack of transparency around pay inequity, [3]which disproportionately affects women and minorities.

“Let’s face it, it’s 2018 and there’s still serious disparities in pay based on race and gender,” said [4]Angela Cornell, the director of the Labor Law Clinic at Cornell Law School.

“So policies that discourage or prohibit employees from discussing these are problematic not just because of the National Labor Relations Act’s clear prohibition,” she said, “but also because they can make it difficult for employees in the private sector to learn that there are unlawful disparities.”

Yes, it’s O.K. — and perfectly legal — to talk about it

What many workers don’t realize is that it is unlawful for private sector employers to prohibit employees from discussing wages and compensation, and it has been since the [5]National Labor Relations Act was passed in 1935. (There are exceptions, including for supervisors, agriculture workers and domestic employees.)

Open discussion of salaries among peers and co-workers, experts said, is a powerful tool to fight pay inequity. Not only does it serve both selfish and altruistic means — it simultaneously puts you and your co-workers in a better position during salary negotiations — but pay transparency can even protect companies by “minimizing the risk of disparate treatment claims and increasing job satisfaction for workers,” Ms. Cornell said.

Still, prohibiting or discouraging workers from openly discussing salaries, whether codified or implicitly built into a company’s culture, is somewhat commonplace in workplaces.

“It’s been the law of the land for many years that employers can’t have policies or practices or discipline employees for discussing wages,” Ms. Cornell said. “But that doesn’t mean it hasn’t been a common practice.”

Horror stories of employees facing punishment for sharing salaries [6]aren’t difficult to dig up.

Elizabeth, who requested her last name not be used because of the sensitivity of discussing her salary, worked in sales at an arts company and this year shared her salary with a junior co-worker who was up for a promotion. That co-worker, during her own salary negotiation, let slip to a manager that Elizabeth had shared her salary.

“I got a call on my work phone to come to the board room,” Elizabeth said. Her manager was there — “it was very dramatic, with the lights off” — and she told Elizabeth she wasn’t allowed to share her salary, and she was creating a “bad environment,” Elizabeth said.

Knowing that she was legally in the right, Elizabeth brushed off the encounter, and 10 minutes later her manager rushed over to apologize.

“She had gotten reprimanded herself from our H.R. department,” Elizabeth said. Still, that experience was a major factor in Elizabeth’s decision to leave the company a few months later.

Even the savviest among us can get caught up in the pressures of salary secrecy.

“I can remember in the not-too-distant past having been discouraged from talking about wages,” Ms. Cornell said. She added that years ago she learned through a conversation about salaries with a male co-worker that he was making about $50,000 more than her, and that there was “no objective justification for the disparity in pay, but he had been in the position for a longer period of time.”

“That is not a good thing,” she said. “It can lead to low morale, and there was no objective justification about the disparity in pay.”

Kristin Wong, author of “[7]Get Money: Live the Life You Want, Not Just the Life You Can Afford” and a personal finance contributor for The New York Times, recalls when she was reprimanded for discussing her salary with a co-worker:
After a few months on the job, my friend whispered that she’d received a small raise. Armed with this knowledge, I politely made the case for my own, without mentioning anything but my work ethic and commitment. My boss relented, but reprimanded me in the process.

“This is why I don’t like my employees talking about money,” she said.

You don’t have to read too hard between the lines to grasp the real meaning: Employers can get away with paying workers less when those workers don’t talk about money.

Changing tides

In just the past few years, cultural norms and legislation have begun to unravel some of the forces that discourage open salary discussion, sometimes even tilting pay negotiations in favor of employees.

[8]A handful of states, including California, Connecticut and Massachusetts, have banned employers from asking job candidates for a salary history, which shifts some leveraging power back to candidates. In 2014, President Barack Obama [9]signed an executive order “prohibiting federal contractors from retaliating against employees who choose to discuss their compensation.” And in some industries, [10]including the news media, unionization has become a powerful force in fighting for worker wages.

Evan, a social media strategist in Atlanta who also requested his last name not be used, knows firsthand the benefits of open salary discussions.

After interviewing for jobs at competing marketing agencies last year, he realized he was being paid below the market rate for someone at his experience level. He told co-workers his discovery, and he said many of them were in the same situation.

“Eventually rumors started flying about: ‘Hey, this person said this to leadership; this person is also complaining about it,’” he said.

After initially responding with halfhearted gestures and speeches about workplace culture, Evan said, leadership at the agency eventually succumbed to the pressure and gave every employee a raise.

“People got what they wanted,” he said.

Jill Duffy, a writer, said for years she has been open about sharing her salaries, and that she has been able to use that knowledge to “negotiate raises because of the information I got."

“I went in feeling confident about my worth and my value and what the company could afford to pay me,” she said.

Other times, Ms. Duffy said, having that information is “just sort of confirming suspicions” that a company can afford to pay more than it currently is.

The best approach: Win-win

Having these conversations is much easier said than done, but there are ways to gain confidence in discussing your salary.

Most important, Ms. McGurran said, is to be open and genuine, framing these conversations as beneficial for everyone involved. She suggests starting with people who are more senior than you, “maybe someone who has helped bring you on, or a previous manager, or someone who you really trust and wants to see you succeed.” This can give you a bigger-picture view of your company’s salaries.

From there, try to approach peers, co-workers or fellow alumni in off-campus, laid-back settings, all while keeping the focus on the salary and not the person.

“Try not to make it about your peer or colleague,” she said. “It’s not about trying to fish around for gossip,” Ms. McGurran said. She added that the websites [11]LinkedIn, [12]PayScale and [13]Salary can be good resources to find a baseline. (For even more advice on salary negotiations, [14]read this article.)

Ms. Duffy, the writer, agreed that a win-win approach is the best way to get salaries out in the open.

“When you come at it from that clear sense of, ‘I’m doing this for both of our benefit, I’m not doing this to shame you,’” she said, “people are generally more willing to share.”

Ms. Duffy added, “It’s important to know your own worth.”

Illustration by Benedikt Rugar

Tim Herrera is the founding editor of Smarter Living, where he edits and reports stories about living a better, more fulfilling life. He was previously a reporter and editor at The Washington Post. [15]@timherrera • [16]Facebook


Visible links
1. https://www.nerdwallet.com/
2. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/28/smarter-living/how-to-talk-about-money.html
3. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/03/business/wage-gap-gender-discrimination.html
4. https://www.lawschool.cornell.edu/faculty/bio_angela_cornell.cfm
5. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Labor_Relations_Act_of_1935
6. https://twitter.com/TimHerrera/status/1011628011827941376
7. https://www.amazon.com/Get-Money-Live-Life-Afford/dp/0316515655
8. https://www.hrdive.com/news/salary-history-ban-states-list/516662/
9. https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2014/04/08/fact-sheet-expanding-opportunity-all-ensuring-equal-pay-women-and-promot
10. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/26/business/media/unions-digital-media.html
11. https://www.linkedin.com/
12. https://www.payscale.com/
13. https://www.salary.com/
14. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/10/smarter-living/how-to-negotiate-salary.html
15. https://twitter.com/timherrera
16. https://www.facebook.com/heyitstimherrera

HackerNewsBot debug: Calculated post rank: 82 - Loop: 113 - Rank min: 80 - Author rank: 43

Change necesssitates change

Imagine that you changed your toothbrush.

You got one that is a bit harder. Maybe, a bit softer. It has a different shape.

Its just a little change. A change that is maybe too little to notice even…

Yet except, your toothbrush wasn’t the only thing that you changed.

Now, every time you brush your teeth, the new toothbrush causes new changes. Maybe your teeth are more comfortable because it is softer. Or, maybe a little bit more sensitive because it is harder. Or, the shape may have made brushing your teeth easier, so now you are more comfortable brushing your teeth, and you clean them better. Or, maybe you are having to pay more attention to how you brush your teeth, because the new toothbrush is a bit harder and it can easily hurt your gums. Or, exactly the opposite, now you are having to brush more forcefully because the brush is softer.

A little change in one little aspect of your life, caused more changes, and even caused you to have to change how you do something. Something little, yes, but its still a change that is caused by another change.

Read more here

#career #change #inspiration #life #money #progress #success
Facebook is getting so desperate for ad money they're showing an ad every third post! Hit the hide button and they still show up! Fucking worthless goddamn centralized website.

#facebook #fedbook #ads #worthless #internet #website #centralized #money
Does your credit card need a tinfoil hat to keep it safe on the train?I tried various freely-available Play Store apps on an Android phone, and I could reliably retrieve the following data from a passport and a debit card, all done wirelessly via NFC:
Debit Card:Long card number,Expiry date.
Passport: Surname,Given name,Nationality,Gender,Date of birth,Picture,Passport number,Date of expiry.
#credit card #money #passport #hack #NFC #TELEPHONE #ANDROID #SECURITY

Consumer startups that said no to investor money

A new breed of entrepreneurs is creating huge consumer brands — like MVMT and Tuft & Needle — without venture capital, and laughing all the way to the bank.
Article word count: 2770

HN Discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17877087
Posted by gavman (karma: 811)
Post stats: Points: 139 - Comments: 41 - 2018-08-30T14:38:10Z

\#HackerNews #consumer #investor #money #said #startups #that
Article content:

When Moiz Ali launched his startup [1]Native, the maker of a natural deodorant brand, he couldn’t help but be self-conscious when mingling with other Bay Area entrepreneurs.

“In Silicon Valley, it’s often embarrassing when you haven’t raised money,” Ali told Recode recently. “When I’d go to parties or dinners, entrepreneurs would talk about how many employees they had. But for me, it was just me.”

Native eventually secured $550,000 from professional and individual investors, a relative pittance in the startup world where $100 million funding rounds and billion dollar valuations are discussed in a way that could sound like the norm.

For Ali, the limited funds meant cautious spending on marketing, a staff size that never rose above 10 and, even rarer, the need to turn a profit on each sale. In the earliest days, Ali and his small team also followed up with every disappointed customer — an education that eventually led to what’s called “product-market fit,” or the creation of a good that a large number of people in a certain market want.

So when [2]Native sold to Procter & Gamble last year for $100 million in cash — just two-and-a-half years after launching — Ali could laugh last; he still owned more than 90 percent of his business and was worth a fortune. As important to him, he kept a strong grip on the brand’s destiny by remaining its CEO.

[3]Native founder Moiz Ali Native founder Moiz Ali Native

“I wish Silicon Valley didn’t glorify those massive fundraising rounds as much as they do,” Ali said. “People don’t respect how much one person can do.”

(Fools) Gold rush?

Over the last five years, venture capital and private equity investors in the U.S. have rushed to fund a new breed of company, dubbed direct-to-consumer startups. These DTC startups, like Native, are typically defined as companies that sell their own branded products online, most often through their own websites and apps.

In recent years, many of the biggest in the sector — the shaving company Harry’s, the mattress maker Casper and the clothing brand Everlane — have also expanded their reach by selling goods in physical retail chains like Target or by opening up their own brick-and-mortar stores, as the cost to acquire new customers online has increased.

[4]Native deodorant Native deodorant Native

Companies in this category have capitalized on a cocktail of changing consumer habits, new marketing channels like Instagram, and software vendors like Shopify that have significantly lowered the cost and technical hurdles to setting up and growing a professional online shop.

Along the way, many of these retail brands have convinced venture capital investors — or been convinced — that their fast growth and digital DNA could result in value creation on par with tech companies. But does faster growth just mean a faster path to market saturation?

In the first eight months of 2018 alone, investors have committed $1.2 billion to these young companies, almost triple the $426 million spent on similar startups in 2013, according to CB Insights. In one deal alone, SoftBank paid $240 million to buy less than half of Brandless, a startup, just one year old, that sells its own line of packaged foods and household products.

But a funny thing has happened over the past 12 months: There’s been a series of big acquisitions of direct-to-consumer startups that have raised little or no venture capital money.

With it, a blueprint for a new path for ambitious direct-to-consumer entrepreneurs has emerged, one that has turned recent conventional wisdom in tech circles on its head even as it follows old-school business rules: Sell differentiated products for more than it costs to make and market them, and reinvest the profits in the business if you want to grow faster.

Little VC, big acquisitions

Two weeks ago, watchmaker [5]Movado announced its plan to acquire the direct-to-consumer watch startup MVMT for up to $200 million, with $100 million coming upfront. MVMT’s management team and 40 employees own 100 percent of the startup, with the company’s two founders holding the vast majority of company equity.

And just last week, mattress giant [6]Serta Simmons said it intended to merge with Tuft & Needle, a six-year-old startup that makes and sells a line of foam mattresses that it folds into boxes and ships directly to customers. The startup’s founders will oversee the e-commerce operations for all of the combined company’s mattress brands.

Tuft & Needle was profitable last year on $170 million in revenue — all without taking any outside investment. The founders started the company with $6,000 of their own cash, and later took out a $500,000 loan. Terms of the merger were not disclosed, but industry insiders believe that a fair deal could have valued the startup between $400 million and $500 million.

[7]Tuft & Needle founder JT Marino, Serta Simmons CEO Michael Traub, and Tuft & Needle founder Daehee Park Tuft & Needle founders JT Marino (left) and Daehee Park (right) with Serta Simmons CEO Michael Traub (center) Tuft & Needle

The MVMT and Tuft & Needle deals, plus P&G’s purchase of Native last November, raise important questions about how the next generation of great consumer brands will be built: Why are many DTC entrepreneurs ceding large ownership in their company to investors in exchange for capital, when there are now blueprints for a different way?

Why are investors continuing to pour huge investments into these startups when the only real example of a big, successful outcome is [8]Dollar Shave Club, which sold to Unilever for $1 billion in 2016 after raising $160 million-plus from investors?

And will there be more direct-to-consumer outcomes like Dollar Shave Club’s, or will it live on as a very rare exception?

Sky-high valuations

Ryan Caldbeck, the founder and CEO of CircleUp, sees several factors at play. CircleUp uses proprietary algorithms to evaluate and identify consumer startups to which it should offer equity investments and working capital loans, typically to companies with $1 million to $15 million in revenue.

As investments in pure technology companies have gotten more competitive, venture capital firms that have historically focused on tech have expanded into new categories like consumer retail in search of new ways to spend their money. Caldbeck argues that a combination of competition, arrogance and a lack of deep industry knowledge has led to venture capital investments that saddle consumer brands with unrealistic valuations — and expectations.

“Many VC firms are not doing the work to think through what is the realistic exit potential of this company and who are the buyers who have ever paid nine times revenue for an acquisition,” Caldbeck said. “They are evaluating the next ketchup company the way they’d evaluate the next social media company.”

A big reason why tech companies like social networks are valued highly is because they benefit from a network effect; the more people that use them, the more valuable, in theory, the service becomes. There are no network effects in consumer retail.

Rebecca Kaden has similar concerns as Caldbeck — and she’s a venture capitalist. Kaden is a partner at technology-focused Union Square Ventures and invested in several direct-to-consumer brands, including sneaker startup Allbirds, at her last employer, consumer-focused Maveron Capital.

“We don’t have good evidence at all that [incumbent retailers and brands] value high-growth, physical-product startups the way venture capitalists do,” she said.

Kaden believes there will be exceptions, but many more disappointments.

“Once in a while you get an Allbirds — the growth is so fast and the love of the product so deep that you make the bet that every decade has a handful of defining brands and they might be one of them,” she said. “Those, I think, you can put VC money behind. But there’s not going to be many of those.”

Building by bootstrapping

[9]MVMT’s LaPlante and Kassan MVMT’s LaPlante and Kassan MVMT

When Jake Kassan and Kramer LaPlante dropped out of college to start MVMT in 2013, they had no clue what venture capital was. Instead, the duo raised around $300,000 in preorders through Indiegogo, the crowdfunding site, to create their first line of watches.

MVMT’s minimalist aesthetic, accessible price points and messaging about cutting out traditional retail middlemen appealed to a segment of millennial shoppers more willing than past generations to try out new brands and not equate high prices with quality.

“Watches are marked by flashy brands and millennials reject that idea,” Kaden, of Union Square Ventures, said.

Tuft & Needle’s founders took similar approaches with the company’s pricing and marketing messaging, calling out what they saw as greedy mattress stores and overpriced traditional brands in the startup’s early forays into advertising.

“We were running very polarizing ads that were resonating, and our growth just exploded,” co-founder and CEO JT Marino said.

With limited capital compared to venture-backed players, MVMT’s founders treated Facebook and Instagram as their most important connection with customers instead of side hobbies, and the visual appeal of their product helped. The rapid growth of Instagram has been a huge boon to consumer brands whose goods photograph well.

[10]MVMT watches MVMT watches MVMT

MVMT was also an early mover in podcast advertising and marketing on Instagram at a time when the media formats were growing in popularity but advertising demand hadn’t fully caught up.

It didn’t hurt that they had picked product categories in watches and sunglasses that boasted big profit margins. Tuft & Needle did, too.

By the end of 2017, MVMT had managed to cross $70 million in annual revenue, mainly through its own website but also dabbling with sales on Amazon.

Along the way, its founders did learn what venture capital was — watching the press attention grow for heavily backed consumer startups like Warby Parker and Harry’s — but still kept their distance. Cautionary tales like that of Jessica Alba’s Honest Company — which raised too much capital at too high of a valuation, while convincing itself it was a tech company — spooked the founders.

“Once you do it one year, you have to do it next year; it becomes this bad cycle,” Kassan, its CEO, said. “I think having the discipline and flexibility was just the secret for us all along.”

In the months leading up to the Movado deal, the MVMT founders did explore conversations with investors. But they worried the terms of such deals would value the company at a price that would be too expensive for an incumbent to surpass in an eventual purchase of the startup.

“There would be way fewer strategic [acquirers]that could acquire us then,” said MVMT co-founder and chief operating officer Kramer LaPlante. The other bet, they then knew, would be on an IPO, which would be a very high-risk bet indeed.

LaPlante’s rationale here is, well, very rational. But it’s also rare to hear an entrepreneur talk this way publicly. Silicon Valley has convinced many that real entrepreneurs are supposed to talk only about the desire to remain independent or the belief that if the company performs, it will have all sorts of options in the future.

"“Why should I pay for their VC’s new Tesla?”"

But the downside reality is what companies like Honest Company end up suffering through: If you don’t think long and hard enough about how much capital you are taking on and whether your valuation is reasonable, your best shot at an acquirer — in Honest’s case, it was Unilever — [11]will choose to buy a disruptor like Seventh Generation at a price that makes more sense.

It’s hard to fight back after being overvalued. For Honest, the company was forced to raise new investment money under terms that valued it well under its previous valuation. A so-called “down round” can hurt internal morale and recruiting. It also makes it more likely that founders and employees will earn less in a potential sale.

The other dirty little secret that heavily funded startups don’t always realize and VCs don’t often discuss? If you talk to enough big-company CEOs, you’ll find many who hate the idea of paying a high acquisition price simply because the startup’s investors have to make money on the deal.

As one public-company CEO once told me: “Why should I pay for their VC’s new Tesla?”

Other CEOs are skeptical about the outcome when a brand that was propped up by VCs has to change the way it operates.

“There are a lot of companies out there with unsustainable marketing budgets and extremely high customer acquisition costs,” said Michael Traub, CEO of Serta Simmons, which plans to merge with Tuft & Needle. “What happened if we integrated a company that was based on that philosophy? It’s pretty clear it would collapse.”

What’s next

When Andy Dunn started building his direct-to-consumer menswear brand, Bonobos, in 2007, he saw no great options for e-commerce software. As a result, he estimates that Bonobos spent tens of millions of the $120 million it had raised from investors on building, supporting and tweaking the Bonobos technology stack over the years.

But a decade later, Dunn was able to turn to e-commerce software company Shopify as the platform for Allswell, a mattress brand that Dunn helped incubate in his new role at Walmart where he oversees the company’s digital-native consumer brands.

“Shopify is the absolute game-changer,” Dunn said. “At least 75 percent of the digital brands I talk to today are on Shopify and many of them are now saying we don’t need to invest that much in tech.”

Shopify’s overall success corroborates Dunn’s anecdotes. The company’s revenue grew 73 percent last year to $673 million. Shopify, which is publicly traded, is now valued at more than $15 billion.

From his vantage point, Shopify Chief Operating Officer Harley Finkelstein says he is not surprised by the rise of fast-growing, self-funded, digital-native brands.

“I’ve been watching stores, and stories, like MVMT happening almost every single day,” he said.

Not surprisingly, he believes Shopify has played a big role. Startups can use the company’s software from launch and stay on it even as they approach $1 billion in annual sales, as a brand like Fashion Nova has shown.

But he also sees the growth of online enthusiast communities as important — not only within the mass social media channels like Instagram and Facebook, but also content-plus-commerce marketplaces like Houzz for furniture and home decor sellers, and even sub-sections of the giant online forum Reddit.

“One thing that often gets neglected are the more niche places,” he said. “The right entrepreneur will figure out where the customers are.”

But some of the same forces that are knocking down barriers to entry are the ones that could be used to make the case that, all things being equal, venture capital can be used strategically to separate from the pack — whether through aggressive marketing, hiring, expansion into brick-and-mortar retail or, in some cases, taking complete control over the manufacturing of your product or investing in technology that truly differentiates.

Harry’s, the shaving company, believed it needed to own its own razor blade factory to control its own fate, so it raised more than $100 million several years ago to buy one of the best in the world.


Dollar Shave Club’s 2012 launch commercial, featuring CEO Michael Dubin, has been watched more than 25 million times on YouTube.

Glossier, the fast-growing beauty brand with a fanatical customer base, [13]recently secured $52 million in new investment money, on top of the $38 million it had already raised, in part to develop digital products that it believes will keep its customers engaged with the brand even when they’re not in buying mode.

Of course, there may be other good reasons to work with investors. Some entrepreneurs don’t have a financial safety net to take the startup plunge on their own. Others, like those who run apparel startups, may need outside capital to support a large catalogue of styles.

But for the founders of Native, MVMT and Tuft & Needle, they’ve shown there is a different path — one that has been lucrative for them and their teams while letting them remain as leaders of their brands.

“Over these next year two years, you’re going to see brands that have been very disciplined have these very successful exits,” MVMT’s Kassan said. “They may not be flashy, billion dollar deals, but will actually be more successful for the founders and their teams.”

“I don’t imagine people will know Jake’s name or my name like they do [Dollar Shave Club founder] Michael Dubin’s,” Ali, of Native, said. “But Jake and I will lead fun lives.”

Sign up for our Recode Daily newsletter to get the top tech and business news stories delivered to your inbox.

By signing up, you agree to our [14]Privacy Policy and European users agree to the data transfer policy.


Visible links
1. https://www.nativecos.com/
2. https://www.cnbc.com/2017/11/15/pg-has-acquired-native-natural-deodorant-brand.html
5. https://techcrunch.com/2018/08/17/movado-group-acquires-watch-startup-mvmt/
6. https://www.cnbc.com/2018/08/21/serta-simmons-to-merge-with-tuft--needle.html
8. https://www.recode.net/2016/7/19/12232698/dollar-shave-club-just-sold-for-1-billion-to-unilever
11. https://www.recode.net/2017/3/16/14951098/new-honest-company-ceo-change-nick-vlahos
12. https://www.youtube.com/embed/ZUG9qYTJMsI?rel=0
13. https://www.recode.net/2018/2/22/17039994/glossier-funding-52-million-series-c-makeup-beauty-emily-weiss-ivp-index-ventures
14. https://www.voxmedia.com/pages/privacy-policy

HackerNewsBot debug: Calculated post rank: 106 - Loop: 478 - Rank min: 100 - Author rank: 117
Tax havens shielding companies responsible for deforestation and overfishing

#environment #corporate #greed #tax #taxes #money

Money Really Does Lead to a More Satisfying Life

A study of thousands of lottery winners reveals that greater wealth improves life satisfaction, and that these effects are highly durable.
Article word count: 1061

HN Discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17841480
Posted by mpweiher (karma: 27586)
Post stats: Points: 202 - Comments: 98 - 2018-08-25T16:42:54Z

\#HackerNews #does #lead #life #money #more #really #satisfying
Article content:

[1]Economic View

CreditCreditMichael Waraksa

New research suggests that more money really does lead to a more satisfying life. Surveys of thousands of Swedish lottery winners have provided persuasive evidence of this truth.

Lottery winners said they were substantially more satisfied with their lives than lottery losers. And those who won prizes worth hundreds of thousands of dollars reported being more satisfied than winners of mere tens of thousands.

These effects are remarkably durable. They were still evident up to two decades after a big win. (The researchers lacked the data to trace out even longer-term consequences.)

The findings appear in a research report, “[2]Long-Run Effects of Lottery Wealth on Psychological Well-Being,” that has generated a lot of buzz among economists over the summer. The working paper, by [3]Erik Lindqvist from the Stockholm School of Economics, [4]Robert Ostling from Stockholm University and [5]David Cesarini from New York University.

It is certain to feed a long-running debate about the role that personal finances play in shaping subjective well-being.

Many previous analyses — [6]including [7]several that I have conducted with my partner, [8]Betsey Stevenson, a fellow University of Michigan economist — have [9]documented that people with higher incomes tend to report higher levels of life satisfaction. The relationship between income and satisfaction is [10]remarkably similar across dozens of countries, suggesting that findings about Sweden likely apply to the United States.

Those [11]earlier studies merely documented a correlation. What’s new here is the evidence that higher income is causing higher life satisfaction.

This research is able to reliably disentangle causation and correlation because a lottery effectively provides a randomized control trial. As in the trial of a new drug, those who received the treatment — in this case a big dose of money, courtesy of a lottery ticket — were compared both with those who received a smaller dose by winning a minor prize and with statistically matched individuals of the same age and sex who entered the lottery and didn’t win.

In a drug trial — as in a lottery — whether you get the big dose, a smaller dose or no dose is determined purely by chance. Scientists find this sort of trial to be persuasive because the random assignment ensures that lottery winnings are the only factor driving systematic differences between those who receive the treatment and those in the control group. It therefore isolates the effect of extra money in driving satisfaction.

The authors persuaded the Swedish statistical authorities to try to survey every winner of three of the country’s major lotteries over more than a decade, and then used government records to track other aspects of the winners’ lives. The researchers examined the same indicators for Swedes who had entered but lost the same lotteries, or who won minor prizes.

Their surveys took several approaches to measuring subjective well-being. The measure most robustly linked to income asks people how satisfied they are with their lives as a whole. By contrast, responses to a question asking about happiness showed less of a connection to lottery winnings, and these effects could not be reliably distinguished from the effects of chance. Social scientists widely view questions about life satisfaction as eliciting a broad-based evaluation of one’s life while questions about happiness yield responses more related to current moods or feelings.

A further set of questions probed the mental health of respondents, finding that greater income had no effect, although in [12]related work, the same authors find that lottery winners are prescribed fewer mental health drugs. I interpret this as suggestive but not conclusive evidence that wealth improves one’s mental health.

Other studies by these authors — sometimes with other scholars — have tracked the economic lives of these lottery winners to further explore the consequences of wealth. [13]Contrary to popular stereotypes, those who win hundreds of thousands of dollars don’t blow most of their winnings at once. Instead, they slowly spend their newfound wealth over many years. Many don’t quit their jobs, but they do tend to [14]work a bit less and retire a bit earlier.

Surprisingly, the increase in wealth caused by winning the lottery has [15]few effects on the physical health of the winners or their children. It seems possible that family wealth might have quite different effects in a less egalitarian society, like the United States.

These results provide strong evidence in support of the standard economic view that money increases well-being, albeit not in an entirely uniform manner. It runs counter to the view championed by many psychologists that people largely adapt to their circumstances — including their financial situation.

In an email, Mr. Cesarini characterized that perspective as the “widespread misperception that science has proved that winning the lottery often makes people miserable.”

That misperception most likely comes from an earlier generation of lottery studies. Perhaps the [16]most famous of them is a 1978 study, “Lottery Winners and Accident Victims: Is Happiness Relative?” With the benefit of hindsight, that study appears to illustrate changing standards of empirical research more than any truths about well-being.

It compared the subjective well-being of 22 winners of the Illinois State Lottery with a control group of 22 people. The lottery winners rated themselves as happier after winning their prizes, but because the sample size was so small, the researchers concluded that this might reflect the influence of chance and failed to note that these data were consistent with the idea that the lottery winners were substantially happier. The problem with small samples is that it’s hard to be sure of anything.

That same study also surveyed 29 paraplegic accident victims, finding them to be less happy than other people. Yet [17]many [18]popular [19]accounts of this study describe it as if it supported the opposite proposition, that people adapt to personal tragedies.

I’ve seen this pattern before, as a counterintuitive finding captures the public’s imagination, taking on a life of its own. In time, the facts become too interesting to check.

But eventually, science corrects itself. After 40 years, three determined economists, thousands of lottery winners and reams of detailed data have revealed a more reliable but less romantic truth: Money really does help people lead a more satisfying life.

Justin Wolfers is a professor of economics and public policy at the University of Michigan. Follow him on Twitter: [20]@justinwolfers.

A version of this article appears in print on , on Page BU5 of the New York edition with the headline: Winning the Lottery Beats Losing, a Study Finds. [21]Order Reprints | [22]Today’s Paper | [23]Subscribe


Visible links
1. https://www.nytimes.com/column/economic-view
2. https://www.ifn.se/storage/ma/610d56a6f5a94a7596d54551e333b68f/749eaac5ac3e4de7bf6374d23c2c0ed2/pdf/6B4806B539C9DE75172BADE06A7B6E3806800315/Wp1220.pdf
3. https://sites.google.com/site/eriklindqvistsse/
4. http://perseus.iies.su.se/~rob/
5. https://sites.google.com/a/nyu.edu/dac12/
6. http://users.nber.org/~jwolfers/papers/NewStylizedFacts(Emotion).pdf
7. http://users.nber.org/~jwolfers/papers/Satiation(AER).pdf
8. http://users.nber.org/~bstevens/
9. http://freakonomics.com/2008/04/22/the-economics-of-happiness-part-4-are-rich-people-happier-than-poor-people/
10. http://users.nber.org/~jwolfers/papers/EasterlinParadox.pdf
11. https://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/16/business/16leonhardt.html
12. https://academic.oup.com/qje/article/131/2/687/2606947
13. https://academic.oup.com/qje/article/131/2/687/2606947
14. https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/aer.20151589
15. https://academic.oup.com/qje/article/131/2/687/2606947
16. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Ronnie_Janoff-Bulman/publication/22451114_Lottery_Winners_and_Accident_Victims_Is_Happiness_Relative/links/54244b8d0cf26120b7a735b4.pdf
17. https://blog.ted.com/ten-years-later-dan-gilbert-on-life-after-the-surprising-science-of-happiness/
19. http://www.aish.com/sp/pg/From-Millionaires-to-Paraplegics-The-Secret-of-Happiness.html
20. https://twitter.com/JustinWolfers?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor
21. http://www.nytreprints.com/
22. http://www.nytimes.com/pages/todayspaper/index.html
23. https://www.nytimes.com/subscriptions/Multiproduct/lp8HYKU.html?campaignId=48JQY

HackerNewsBot debug: Calculated post rank: 167 - Loop: 236 - Rank min: 100 - Author rank: 58

The New York Times: Money Really Does Lead to a More Satisfying Life (By JUSTIN WOLFERS)


Yoga Yoda =P

⅄oƃɐ ⅄opɐ =Ԁ

limited time price of $27.00 for one question or a special group package deal of 4 questions just four $88.
*questions may also be asked of Jesus, The Creators, and other friendly benevolent beings of love and light directly via our dedicated channel.
Can one put a price on the chance to elevate to a higher vibration and dimensional being? We just did.
-The MGMT (for the Lulz)*

and Also.....

Sprach Zarathustram!!!

#Yoda #Yoga #DigitalArt #Arts #Crowley #Culture #Spoof #Thought #DanielScranton #LAM #Consciousness #Illusion #Enlightenment #Guru #Money #Value #Economics #Psy #DaDa #Anonymous #Magic #NewAge #Aliens #FifthDimension #UFO #NoMagic #Naught #Arts #Music #A23P #AlsoSprachZarathstram #MyWork #RichardStrauss #GregorySylvester #TheWinstons #OurWork #FederationArtists #CC #CreativeCommons #Music #A23PContemplations #Society #CoverSong #Remix #ElectronicMusic #RemixCulture #CoverMusic #Jungle #DrumnBass #ArtHarder #KnowMagick

Vitamin D, the Sunshine Supplement, Has Shadowy Money Behind It

The doctor most responsible for creating a billion-dollar juggernaut has received hundreds of thousands of dollars from the vitamin D industry.
Article word count: 2144

HN Discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17790657
Posted by DmenshunlAnlsis (karma: 784)
Post stats: Points: 124 - Comments: 57 - 2018-08-18T21:00:00Z

\#HackerNews #behind #has #money #shadowy #sunshine #supplement #the #vitamin
Article content:

[1]Skip to content[2]Skip to site index

The doctor most responsible for creating a billion-dollar juggernaut has received hundreds of thousands of dollars from the vitamin D industry.

Dr. Michael Holick’s enthusiasm for vitamin D can be fairly described as extreme. The Boston University endocrinologist, who perhaps more than anyone else is responsible for creating a billion-dollar vitamin D sales and testing juggernaut, elevates his own levels of the stuff with supplements and fortified milk. When he bikes outdoors, he won’t put sunscreen on his limbs. He has written book-length odes to vitamin D, and has warned in multiple scholarly articles about a “vitamin D deficiency pandemic” that explains disease and suboptimal health across the world.

His fixation is so intense that it extends to the dinosaurs. What if the real problem with that asteroid 65 million years ago wasn’t a lack of food, but the weak bones that follow a lack of sunlight? “I sometimes wonder,” Dr. Holick has written, “did the dinosaurs die of rickets and osteomalacia?”

Dr. Holick’s role in drafting national vitamin D guidelines, and the embrace of his message by mainstream doctors and wellness gurus alike, have helped push supplement sales to $936 million in 2017. That’s a ninefold increase over the previous decade. Lab tests for vitamin D deficiency have spiked, too: Doctors ordered more than 10 million for Medicare patients in 2016, up 547 percent since 2007, at a cost of $365 million.

But few of the Americans swept up in [3]the vitamin D craze are likely aware that the industry has sent a lot of money Dr. Holick’s way. A Kaiser Health News investigation for The New York Times found that he has used his prominent position in the medical community to promote practices that financially benefit corporations that have given him hundreds of thousands of dollars — including drug makers, the indoor tanning industry and one of the country’s largest commercial labs.

In an interview, Dr. Holick acknowledged he has worked as a consultant to Quest Diagnostics, which performs vitamin D tests, since 1979. Dr. Holick, 72, said that industry funding “doesn’t influence me in terms of talking about the health benefits of vitamin D.”

There is no question that the hormone is important. Without enough of it, bones can become [4]thin, brittle and misshapen, causing a condition called rickets in children and osteomalacia in adults. The issue is how much vitamin D is healthy, and what level constitutes deficiency.

Dr. Holick’s crucial role in shaping that debate occurred in 2011. Late the previous year, the prestigious National Academy of Medicine (then known as the Institute of Medicine), a group of independent scientific experts, issued a comprehensive, 1,132-page report on vitamin D deficiency. It concluded that the vast majority of Americans get plenty of the hormone naturally, and advised doctors to test only patients at high risk of certain disorders, such as osteoporosis.

The media personality Dr. Mehmet Oz has endorsed taking vitamin D, calling it “the No. 1 thing you need more of.”CreditKrista Schlueter for The New York Times

A few months later, in June 2011, Dr. Holick oversaw the publication of a report that took a starkly different view. The paper, in the peer-reviewed [5]Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism, was on behalf of the Endocrine Society, the field’s foremost professional group, whose guidelines are widely used by hospitals, physicians and commercial labs nationwide, including Quest. The society adopted Dr. Holick’s position that “vitamin D deficiency is very common in all age groups” and advocated a huge expansion of vitamin D testing, targeting more than half the United States population, including those who are black, Hispanic or obese — groups that tend to have lower vitamin D levels than others.

The recommendations were a financial windfall for the vitamin D industry. By advocating such widespread testing, the Endocrine Society directed more business to Quest and other commercial labs. Vitamin D tests are now the fifth-most-common lab test covered by Medicare.

The guidelines benefited the vitamin D industry in another important way. Unlike the National Academy, which concluded that patients have sufficient vitamin D when their blood levels are at or above 20 nanograms per milliliter, the Endocrine Society said vitamin D levels need to be much higher — at least 30 nanograms per milliliter. Many commercial labs, including Quest and LabCorp, adopted the higher standard.

Yet there’s no evidence that people with the higher level are any healthier than those with the lower level, said Dr. Clifford Rosen, a senior scientist at the Maine Medical Center Research Institute and co-author of the National Academy report. Using the Endocrine Society’s higher standard creates the appearance of an epidemic, he said, because it labels 80 percent of Americans as having inadequate vitamin D. “We see people being tested all the time and being treated based on a lot of wishful thinking, that you can take a supplement to be healthier,” Dr. Rosen said.

Patients with low vitamin D levels are often prescribed supplements and instructed to get checked again in a few months, said Dr. Alex Krist, a family physician and vice chairman of the United States Preventive Services Task Force, an expert panel that issues health advice. Many physicians then repeat the test once a year. For labs, “it’s in their financial interest” to label patients with low vitamin D levels, Dr. Krist said.

In a 2010 book, “The Vitamin D Solution,” Dr. Holick gave readers tips to encourage them to get their blood tested. For readers worried about potential out-of-pocket costs for vitamin D tests — they range from $40 to $225 — he listed the precise reimbursement codes that doctors should use when requesting insurance coverage. “If they use the wrong coding when submitting the claim to the insurance company, they won’t get reimbursed and you will wind up having to pay for the test,” Dr. Holick wrote.

Dr. Holick acknowledged financial ties with Quest and other companies in the financial disclosure statement published with the Endocrine Society guidelines. In an interview, he said that working for Quest for four decades — he is currently paid $1,000 a month — hasn’t affected his medical advice. “I don’t get any additional money if they sell one test or one billion,” he said.

Shire is among the pharmaceutical companies that have paid Dr. Michael Holick for consulting and other services.CreditClodagh Kilcoyne/Reuters

A Quest spokeswoman, Wendy Bost, said the company seeks the advice of a number of expert consultants. “We feel strongly that being able to work with the top experts in the field, whether it’s vitamin D or another area, translates to better quality and better information, both for our patients and physicians,” Ms. Bost said.

Since 2011, Dr. Holick’s advocacy has been embraced by the wellness-industrial complex. [6]Gwyneth Paltrow’s website, Goop, cites his writing. [7]Dr. Mehmet Oz has described vitamin D as “the No. 1 thing you need more of,” telling his audience that it can help them avoid heart disease, depression, weight gain, memory loss and cancer. And [8]Oprah Winfrey’s website tells readers that, “knowing your vitamin D levels might save your life.” Mainstream doctors have also urged Americans to get more of the hormone, including Dr. Walter Willett, a widely respected professor at Harvard Medical School.

Today, seven years after the dueling academic findings, the leaders of the National Academy report are struggling to be heard above the clamor for more sunshine pills. “There isn’t a ‘pandemic,’” said A. Catharine Ross, a nutritional sciences professor at Penn State and chairwoman of the committee that wrote the report, in an interview. “There isn’t a widespread problem.”

Ties to Drugmakers and Tanning Salons

In “The Vitamin D Solution,” Dr. Holick describes his promotion of vitamin D as a lonely crusade. “Drug companies can sell fear,” he writes, “but they can’t sell sunlight, so there’s no promotion of the sun’s health benefits.”

Yet Dr. Holick also has extensive financial ties to the pharmaceutical industry. He received nearly $163,000 from 2013 to 2017 from pharmaceutical companies for consulting and other services, according to Medicare’s Open Payments database, which tracks payments from drug and device manufacturers. The companies paying him included Sanofi-Aventis, which markets vitamin D supplements; Shire, which makes drugs for hormonal disorders that are given with vitamin D; Amgen, which makes an osteoporosis treatment; and Roche Diagnostics and Quidel Corporation, which both make vitamin D tests.

The database includes only payments made since 2013, but Dr. Holick’s record of being compensated by drug companies started before that. In his 2010 book, he describes visiting South Africa to give “talks for a pharmaceutical company,” whose president and chief executive were in the audience.

Dr. Holick’s ties to the tanning industry also have drawn scrutiny. Although Dr. Holick said he doesn’t advocate tanning, he has described tanning beds as a “recommended source” of vitamin D “when used in moderation.” Dr. Holick has acknowledged accepting research money from the UV Foundation — a nonprofit arm of the now-defunct Indoor Tanning Association — which gave $150,000 to Boston University from 2004 to 2006, earmarked for Dr. Holick’s research. The International Agency for Research on Cancer classified tanning beds as carcinogenic in 2009.

Dr. Holick in 2002. He has described tanning beds as a “recommended source” of vitamin D “when used in moderation.” The devices were classified as carcinogenic in 2009.CreditRick Friedman/Corbis, via Getty Images

In 2004, the tanning-industry associations led Dr. Barbara Gilchrest, who then was head of Boston University’s dermatology division, to ask Dr. Holick to resign from the department. He did so, but remains a professor at the medical school’s department of endocrinology, diabetes, nutrition and weight management. In “The Vitamin D Solution,” Dr. Holick wrote that he was “forced” to give up his position because of his “stalwart support of sensible sun exposure.” He added, “Shame on me for challenging one of the dogmas of dermatology.” Although Dr. Holick’s website lists him as a member of the [9]American Academy of Dermatology, an academy spokeswoman, Amanda Jacobs, said he was not a current member.

Dr. Christopher McCartney, chairman of the Endocrine Society’s clinical guidelines subcommittee, said the society has put in place stricter policies on conflict of interest since its vitamin D guidelines were released. The society’s current policies would not allow the chairman of the guideline writing committee to have financial conflicts.

A Miracle Pill Loses Its Luster

Enthusiasm for vitamin D among medical experts has dimmed in recent years, as rigorous clinical trials have failed to confirm the benefits suggested by early, preliminary studies. A string of trials has found no evidence that vitamin D reduces the risk of cancer, heart disease or [10]falls in the elderly. And most scientists say [11]there isn’t enough evidence to know if vitamin D can prevent chronic diseases that aren’t related to bones.

Although the amount of vitamin D in a typical daily supplement is generally considered safe, it is possible to take too much. In 2015, an article in [12]the American Journal of Medicine linked blood levels as low as 50 nanograms per milliliter with an increased risk of death. That’s within the level considered healthy by the Endocrine Society, which defined vitamin D “sufficiency” as between 30 and 100 nanograms, Rosen said.

Some researchers say vitamin D may never have been the miracle pill that it appeared to be. Sick people who stay indoors tend to have low vitamin D levels; their poor health is likely the cause of their low vitamin D levels, not the other way around, said Dr. JoAnn Manson, chief of preventive medicine at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston. Only really rigorous studies, which randomly assign some patients to take vitamin D and others to take placebos, can provide definitive answers about vitamin D and health. Dr. Manson is leading one such study, involving 26,000 adults, expected to be published in November.

A number of insurers and health experts have begun to view widespread vitamin D testing as unnecessary and expensive. In 2014, the United States Preventive Services Task Force said there wasn’t enough evidence to recommend for or against routine vitamin D screening. In April, the task force explicitly recommended that older adults outside of nursing homes avoid taking vitamin D supplements to prevent falls.

In 2015, Excellus BlueCross BlueShield of Rochester, N.Y. published an analysis highlighting the overuse of vitamin D tests. In 2014, the insurer spent $33 million on 641,000 vitamin D tests. “That’s an astronomical amount of money,” said Dr. Richard Lockwood, Excellus’ vice president and chief medical officer for utilization management. More than 40 percent of Excellus patients tested had no medical reason to be screened.

In spite of Excellus’ efforts to rein in the tests, vitamin D usage has remained high, Dr. Lockwood said. “It’s very hard to change habits,” he said, adding, “The medical community is not much different than the rest of the world, and we get into fads.”

[13]Kaiser Health News is a nonprofit news service covering health issues. It is an editorially independent program of the Kaiser Family Foundation that is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.


Visible links
1. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/18/business/vitamin-d-michael-holick.html#site-content
2. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/18/business/vitamin-d-michael-holick.html#site-index
3. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/10/health/vitamin-d-deficiency-supplements.html
4. https://ods.od.nih.gov/factsheets/VitaminD-HealthProfessional/
5. http://press.endocrine.org/doi/10.1210/jc.2011-0385
6. https://goop.com/wellness/health/vitamin-d/
7. https://www.doctoroz.com/video-series/vitamin-d-checklist?video_id=3939016272001
8. http://www.oprah.com/health/why-knowing-your-vitamin-d-levels-might-save-your-life/all
9. http://drholick.com/
10. https://www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/Page/Document/RecommendationStatementFinal/falls-prevention-in-older-adults-interventions1
11. https://effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov/topics/vitamin-d-calcium/research
12. https://www.amjmed.com/article/S0002-9343(15)00509-4/fulltext#sec7
13. https://khn.org/about-us

HackerNewsBot debug: Calculated post rank: 101 - Loop: 471 - Rank min: 100 - Author rank: 23

#Iran, #Venezuela & #Turkey reveal #gold’s true #value when paper #money becomes worthless

source: https://www.rt.com/business/436264-gold-real-value-paper-money/

#politics #economy #banksters #sanctions #news #currency

$100M Was Once Big Money for a Startup. Now, It’s Common

Known as a mega-round in Silicon Valley, large-scale fund raising is producing a frenzy around tech companies with enough reach and momentum to absorb a large check.
Article word count: 1601

HN Discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17766907
Posted by prostoalex (karma: 63703)
Post stats: Points: 109 - Comments: 116 - 2018-08-15T15:40:36Z

\#HackerNews #100m #big #common #for #its #money #now #once #startup #was
Article content:

[1]Skip to content[2]Skip to site index

Known as a mega-round in Silicon Valley, large-scale fund raising is producing a frenzy around tech companies with enough reach and momentum to absorb a large check.

In late April, when Mike Massaro set out to get $40 million to $75 million in funding for his payments start-up, Flywire, he contacted a small group of investors he already knew. But word quickly got around, and other investors flooded his inbox with $200 million of investment offers, half of which he turned down.

Gusto, a payroll and benefits software company, raised $140 million in July, but could have done five times that, according to Joshua Reeves, its chief executive and founder.

Convene, a real estate services start-up, recently obtained $152 million and turned away more than $100 million of additional investment. Soon after, another wave of hopeful investors called, asking if the company would be looking for more financing, according to Ryan Simonetti, Convene’s chief executive.

Start-ups raising $100 million or more from investors — known as a mega-round in Silicon Valley — used to be a rarity. But now, they are practically routine, producing a frenzy around tech companies with enough scale and momentum to absorb a large check.

The jump in oversize investments is led by relatively new investors, including the Japanese conglomerate SoftBank, Chinese companies and sovereign wealth funds. They see a chance to capitalize on tech’s incursion into just about every industry, and want to put their money down before the young companies go public.

By entering the tech market, they have all but eliminated talk in Silicon Valley about an investment bubble — a leading concern a couple of years ago — because the money now seems almost limitless.

For the start-ups, the pots of money are changing the normal way of building a tech company. They must move even faster, expand their ambitions and collect more investment money than ever — even if they might not be ready. They risk becoming too reliant on funding and never finding a path to profit.

After raising millions of dollars, Flywire, a payments start-up, will complete some of its hiring plans in half the time it previously planned and expand into a new geographic market two years early.CreditCody OʼLoughlin for The New York Times

“If your competitor is going to raise $150 million and you want to be conservative and only raise $20 million, you’re going to get run over,” said Bill Gurley, a managing partner at Benchmark Capital.

Investors participated in a record 273 mega-rounds last year, according to the data provider Crunchbase. This year is on pace to easily eclipse that, with 268 completed in the first seven months of the year. In July, start-ups reached more than 50 financing deals worth a combined $15 billion, a new monthly high.

In the last 10 days, Letgo, an online classifieds ads company, raised $500 million. Actifio, a data storage company, took in $100 million. MyDreamPlus, a co-working space start-up, secured $120 million. And Klook, a travel activity booking site, got $200 million.

These mega-rounds have become so common that CB Insights, which tracks start-up investments, has even debated lifting its definition of a mega-round to $200 million or more, according to Anand Sanwal, the firm’s chief executive.

Many of the new investors, including SoftBank’s $93 billion Vision Fund, manage funds so large they dwarf the entire traditional venture capital market in the United States. These giant funds are looking for start-ups that can take large sums of money with one shot. Writing lots of small checks is too time-consuming, and the returns from small bets will not make a difference for a such a big fund. So investors are competing to back any start-up that shows promise and the ability to put $100 million or more to use.

“As soon as they feel like they have a winner, they will really put a lot of resources behind it,” said Mr. Sanwal of CB Insights.

SoftBank’s deal-making has affected every part of the venture capital market. The arrival of its Vision Fund, which has a minimum investment size of $100 million, has prompted a number of traditional venture capital firms, including Sequoia Capital, to build larger pools of money to compete. Funds from seven different firms are raising capital, according to the data provider Pitchbook.

But the Vision Fund is not even the most active mega-round investor. In the first seven months of 2018, Tencent Holdings participated in 31 rounds of funding of $100 million or more, compared with 18 for SoftBank, according to CB Insights. GIC and Temasek Holdings, investment funds associated with the government of Singapore, as well as Alibaba and Sequoia Capital China, have also been among the most active mega-round investors this year.

Investors flooded the inbox of Mike Massaro, the chief executive of Flywire, with $200 million of investment offers, half of which he turned down.CreditCody OʼLoughlin for The New York Times

As a result, early investors must make sure their portfolio companies are friendly with the large funds, laying groundwork for a potential investment in the future.

“It feels like there is a bit of a beauty pageant that early-stage investors put on for the mega-funds,” said Patricia Nakache, a general partner at Trinity Ventures.

The hot funding market is pushing high-growth start-ups to change their plans. Flywire was not going to pursue more investment money until next year. It still had $15 million in the bank from a previous funding round. But the company saw “investment heat” in the payments industry and Mr. Massaro thought more money would help Flywire grow even faster.

Funding rounds can take as long as six months to put together, but Flywire’s round wrapped up in just over two. As a result of the capital, the company will complete some of its hiring plans in half the time it previously planned and expand into a new geographic market two years early.

Moving aggressively is not a choice. Well-funded start-ups, called “super-haves” by some investors, can afford to pay their employees more and lower their prices, losing money in the short term to win more customers.

Convene, the real estate start-up, competes tangentially with WeWork, an office rental company that has raised more than $8 billion in funding from SoftBank and other investors. Convene was not planning to chase more capital until later this year, but the company’s investors encouraged it to move sooner. Business deals move faster today than they did five years ago, said Mr. Simonetti, the company’s chief executive, and having extra capital on hand helps with speed.

“There’s definitely a little bit of this, ‘Let’s overcapitalize the company a little bit so we can move quicker and faster,’ ” he said.

The large investors also demand big ideas from the start-ups. Softbank’s Vision Fund team pushed Tina Sharkey, chief executive of e-commerce start-up Brandless, to share the most grandiose, ambitious version of her business road map.

“They were like, ‘Come on, show us your real plan,’ ” she said. Brandless had barely been operating for a year before Ms. Sharkey outlined an expansive vision to use machine learning, data, curation, and community-building to create efficiencies. “We didn’t have the gumption to say that to anyone else,” she said. In July, SoftBank invested $224 million into her company.

“In today’s hyper-connected world, companies need to hire, scale and enter new markets faster than ever before or risk being surpassed by others,” said Jeff Housenbold, a managing partner at SoftBank Investment Advisers.

Few venture investors foresee a slowdown in the pace of mega-rounds. Those who once cautioned of a tech bubble and subsequent crash have given up on their warnings. In 2015, Mr. Gurley of Benchmark predicted “dead unicorns,” referring to start-ups valued at $1 billion or more. But since 2015, the number of start-ups worth $1 billion or more has ballooned to 258 from 80, according to CB Insights. Excess funding is tied to inflated valuations, which may create problems when overvalued companies eventually try to go public.

Mr. Gurley said he was done trying to sound the alarm. “You have to adjust to the reality and play the game on the field,” he said.

Annie Lamont, a managing partner at the venture fund Oak HC/FT, expected a drop-off in start-up valuations and funding three years ago, but it never happened. Now, she expects more of the same, partly because most the companies can easily get more money and few are worried about a downturn.

“The fear of a correction is not occurring,” she said. If any start-ups do “vaporize,” she said, “I think people are going to ignore them and roll right on to the next one.”

Mitchell Green, a managing partner at Lead Edge Capital, does not imagine a slowdown unless interest rates increase significantly, a change that could prompt investors to move money into tax-free bonds. “It ain’t going to stop,” he said. “There’s too much money.”

Mr. Reeves, of software start-up Gusto, acknowledged that founders who obtain outsize sums of capital can get caught up in a “growth at any cost” mentality. That is why he chose not to maximize his funding round despite the intense interest. “It’s up to the founder to realize that’s a distraction,” he said. “Success is not having more money or a bigger team, but having more customers or revenue.”

Mr. Reeves is staying cautious, even when few others seem worried about a bubble. “The most likely time to have some type of correction, or change, or realization of the cycle turning, is when you’re not talking about it,” he said.

A version of this article appears in print on , on Page B1 of the New York edition with the headline: For Start-Up Investors, The Sky’s the Limit. [3]Order Reprints | [4]Today’s Paper | [5]Subscribe


Visible links
1. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/14/technology/venture-capital-mega-round.html#site-content
2. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/14/technology/venture-capital-mega-round.html#site-index
3. http://www.nytreprints.com/
4. http://www.nytimes.com/pages/todayspaper/index.html
5. https://www.nytimes.com/subscriptions/Multiproduct/lp8HYKU.html?campaignId=48JQY

HackerNewsBot debug: Calculated post rank: 111 - Loop: 278 - Rank min: 100 - Author rank: 72

on Track to Consume All of the World’s Energy by 2020

In image’ [the G–host] destroying this much life every day.”
In image’ [the G–host] e–verified [666]Horus destroying this much life.”

#Blockchain #Bullockschain #BTC #Bitcoin #Ethereum #EthereumMembershipAlliance #LTC #LiteCoin #QTUM #EOS #CicadaFoundation #ICO #CO2 #CryptoCurrency #Fiat #Money #Imagination #AdvancedIdiots #Economics #AI #Power #Greed #Sustainability #Waste #UnderstandingArchitecture

Made some #pasta today with my dad's #special spagetti sauce

This is the most #complicated #dish I have made so far and #amazingly, I didn't mess it up. (^u\^)

It cost a lot of #money (around $60) initally since I didn't have many of the #ingredients lying around.

It also took a lot of time. I started buying groceries at around 6 and I finished #cooking at around 10!

Overall, it was a very fun #challenge... (<3u<3)
#image #images #picture #photo #photograph
#university #collage #student #food #experiments #meal #meals #dinner #kitchen #work #Nom
newer older