No, firing people is more expensive than rejecting them. And a lot of bias happening in the recruiting process are unconscious. So anonymous recruiting would prevent a lot those unconscious bias in the hiring process.
Why would someone do that if they know the faked degrees or qualifications won't pass the background check eventually? Just to get an onsite interview?
Yes, just to get an onsite interview. I saw this many times and it's very sad.
Also, I relate this to culture. Not to offend anyone, but from my personal experience lying in CV is much more common for some countries, that for others.
Scale maybe terrible, like multiple certifications in some field with no actual basic knowledge or skills. Like Certified Senior (sic!) Software Developer who can't tell you difference between stack and queue, or CCIE certified network engineer who has no idea what is DNS and how it works (real case).
Why not EB-visa though? H1B is completely useless or even dangerous for startup founders. It's easier to live in e.g. Canada and incorporate in Delaware, than work in the US as H1B and be prevented from incorporating anything, effectively ending up as a high-performing slave wasting best years on somebody else's success.
Nope, Green Cards don't have categories, they require you to be currently admitted in an immigrant visa category (EB-1 through -5 qualify, as do a number of others, but not H-1B or other non-immigrant visas.)
> But you need to get H1B first before you can jump through the EB hoops.
This article just refers to some firmware vulnerabilities from Apple back in 2015, which is nothing uncommon, and Apple had taken proper measures to mitigate that. Besides it has nothing to do with China's attack.
This is bold and terrible idea. Affiliate programs encourage members to bring users, no matter through coupons or blog posts or other legit means. They have no idea if a user is coming because of a coupon or other reasons, how can they exclude this type of sites?
Besides, even if like you said a user is ready to buy something, there could be better coupons from rival retailers which bring the user to the site and look for the same product. Isn't this what a lot of retailers want? Using better coupons to bring users from competitors site?
There are many other scenarios, without considering those and just make the decision is really bad.
There is validity to scaling while incurring losses, and requiring funding to do so. But that doesn't mean that all companies are in that boat. Certainly not all companies that are publicly traded. So the statement is a reasonable description of where the company is at, allowing potential investors to judge for themselves whether that meshes well with their own risk profile.
Not a single profitable company in the world has to increase revenue to achieve profitability. By definition, they are already there. The risk faced by all companies is that poor strategic decisions will cause a decrease in revenue, eventually leading to a loss of profitability. But that is a totally different statement.
Eventbrite has gotten close to profitable which I assume made them feel comfortable stepping back up the investment into growth (which achieved 61% 1H17 to 1H18). Probably will be awhile before it makes its way into indexes so I wouldn't worry about that now.
Hyman Minsky argues that "hot messes of unprofitability" tend to be a common phenomenon after long periods of economic success. Stability breeds instability. Tech didn't introduce this behavior.
> In particular, over a protracted period of good times, capitalist economies tend to move from a financial structure dominated by hedge finance units to a structure in which there is large weight to units engaged in speculative and Ponzi finance. Furthermore, if an economy with a sizeable body of speculative
financial units is in an inflationary state, and the authorities attempt to exorcise inflation by monetary constraint, then speculative units will become Ponzi units and the net worth of previously Ponzi units will quickly evaporate. Consequently, units with cash flow shortfalls will be forced to try to make position by selling out position. This is likely to lead to a collapse of asset values.
> For Ponzi units, the cash flows from operations are not sufficient to fulfill either the repayment of principle or the interest due on outstanding debts by their cash flows from operations. Such units can sell assets or borrow. Borrowing to pay interest or selling assets to pay interest (and even dividends) on common stock lowers the equity of a unit, even as it increases liabilities and the prior commitment of future incomes. A unit that Ponzi finances lowers the margin of safety that it offers the holders of its debts.
Hedge units, in contrast:
> Hedge financing units are those which can fulfill all of their contractual payment obligations by their cash flows: the greater the weight of equity financing in the liability structure, the greater the likelihood that the unit is a hedge financing unit. Speculative finance units are units that can meet their payment commitments on "income account" on their liabilities, even as they cannot repay the principle out of income cash flows. Such units need to "roll over" their liabilities: (e.g. issue new debt to meet commitments on maturing debt). Governments with floating debts, corporations with floating issues of commercial paper, and banks are typically hedge units.
I think that really just means that the market has changed and you're no longer for this market, rather than that new companies are not for public market.
Market is literally made up of the companies and people that participate in it.
You really should do both.
A small amount of your funds should go in to high growth.
One of my gambling portfolios is full of high growth semi-conductor stocks like AMD and MU, and SaaS stocks like CRM and HUBS. I have triple digit returns for the past couple years.
Most individual investors, including younger, should have little or no money in individual stocks but instead in something like a Vanguard diversified portfolio of cheap index funds/ETFs. If you want to take 5% or 10% of your worth to the stock casino, sure (after paying off all your credit cards and maxing your 401k/IRA).
I do both. I have about 20% of my net worth in individual stocks, the rest in low cost index funds/ETFs.
The biggest gains and losses, of course, obviously come from individual stocks (and options, if you're feeling brave.) You're not going to see triple digit yearly returns with a mutual fund. You might find it on the next SaaS growth stock.
When you're young, you should absolutely take on some risk. (That includes working at startups!)
> You really should do both. A small amount of your funds should go in to high growth.
Projecting your subjective investing preferences, risk vs return, onto someone else doesn't work. If someone is only comfortable investing in very low risk assets that will always produce a low return, there is absolutely nothing wrong with it. It strictly comes down to what you personally want out of the total equation.
Spot on. Everyone's investing goals and risk tolerance levels are different. It'd be criminal to put my 87 year old grandmother in high growth, unprofitable equities.
FWIW, that would have had your index fund missing AMZN and NFLX runs that have been pretty incredible. Zero interest rate policy has created a new, confusing market environment.
Right, but don't most people use index funds exactly because of their assured stability? Assured in the "5 decades" sense of the word? i.e. the retirees in the above thread?
So I wouldn't want AMZN or NFLX in my index funds. NFLX just dropped dramatically in price, yea? So I bought it outright. I still have the bulk of my investment in index funds, though.
That's a different definition of 'general public'.
Most of the public you're referring to are not pouring their savings into these IPOs.
Even so, the SEC shouldn't require companies to be profitable in order to be publicly traded - could you imagine if we took every non-profitable company private because the public needed to be protected?
>300k income joint, >200k income single, or >1m excl. primary residence in any event.
Paraphrasing an attorney from years ago: The risk of lying to invest in something only open to accredited investors is colossal both to the entity raising funds as well as to the investor, and it can/does get caught during diligence, so it's not so much an honor system as it is something that inevitably gets audited/managed either down the road or especially when something goes wrong.
This may have changed and my recollection may not be accurate. Lastly, this isn't legal advice given that I'm not a lawyer.
