5 ms·

Funny read. Got me thinking that at any given point in recent history, at least I can vouch for the past couple of decades, there's something terribly wrong in

by mojuba 11y ago

Funny read. Got me thinking that at any given point in recent history, at least I can vouch for the past couple of decades, there's something terribly wrong in the money industry. At least one thing at any given time. This industry seems to be just hopping from one terribly wrong thing to another. Is it because there's too much money in the hands of mostly random, clueless people?

hellbanner 11y ago
Yeah. http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0393338827 http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0393338827
tacos 11y ago
Or too much technology in the hands of people who have no idea how to run a business. Cut a deal to process payments for Starbucks and manage to lose nearly $100,000 a day? Every day? For three years?
- detaro 11y ago
  Didn't Starbucks also invest in them as part of this deal, so they got money and then undercharged Starbucks by roughly the same amount, basically trading part of their company for visibility?
  - tacos 11y ago
    Starbucks gave them $25 million. Square lost $71 million on the deal so far and it won't be done for another year. So Starbucks got discounted payments, plus equity in Square, plus a board seat. (Looking at it another way: Square got a loan at nearly a 100% annual interest rate plus loss of equity.) As for "visibility" they tried to promote the Square app to pay at Starbucks, nobody used it, and they killed that in 2014. "This is an epic partnership" - Jack Dorsey, 2012.
lmm 11y ago
I think it's the finance industry's version of the hype cycle. Every time a new financial instrument is invented it gets used, overhyped and oversold, there's a crash, and then it becomes a boring/useful tool in the toolbox. E.g. options and the dutch tulip bubble, derivatives in the '80s, CDS in the '00s.
- mojuba 11y ago
  Alternatively, it's meta-consumerism. We buy things we don't need, while people with big money buy big things they don't need. Except big money movements make waves and backfire on everyone.
marincounty 11y ago
I've never seen anything like this either. The amount of essentially free money the wealthy have access to is staggering. Yes, you need good credit, some assets--and poof--you have money to invest, without the competition you had pre 2008. I look at these low interest rates for only the best clientele, and I wonder, "How can they lose?" In my neighborhood, I see qualified individuals(rich people), and REIT's buying up residential homes at a rate I have never seen before, and why shouldn't they at these rates. While the middle class, and the poor are slowly losing any savings they managed to put away. Rebublicans blame Dodd-Frank--I don't know, but something is not right. There's a part of me that wonders if we, the poor/middle class were better off when financial institutions didn't know our blood type when applying for a loan, or credit? It just seemed like more people were allowed to invest in the past? What do I know? Nothing! Guess I'm feeling the holiday slump? I hope it doesn't last too long?

by mojuba 11y ago

hellbanner 11y ago

Yeah. http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0393338827 http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0393338827

tacos 11y ago

Or too much technology in the hands of people who have no idea how to run a business. Cut a deal to process payments for Starbucks and manage to lose nearly $100,000 a day? Every day? For three years?

detaro 11y ago
Didn't Starbucks also invest in them as part of this deal, so they got money and then undercharged Starbucks by roughly the same amount, basically trading part of their company for visibility?
- tacos 11y ago
  Starbucks gave them $25 million. Square lost $71 million on the deal so far and it won't be done for another year. So Starbucks got discounted payments, plus equity in Square, plus a board seat. (Looking at it another way: Square got a loan at nearly a 100% annual interest rate plus loss of equity.) As for "visibility" they tried to promote the Square app to pay at Starbucks, nobody used it, and they killed that in 2014. "This is an epic partnership" - Jack Dorsey, 2012.

lmm 11y ago

I think it's the finance industry's version of the hype cycle. Every time a new financial instrument is invented it gets used, overhyped and oversold, there's a crash, and then it becomes a boring/useful tool in the toolbox. E.g. options and the dutch tulip bubble, derivatives in the '80s, CDS in the '00s.

mojuba 11y ago
Alternatively, it's meta-consumerism. We buy things we don't need, while people with big money buy big things they don't need. Except big money movements make waves and backfire on everyone.

marincounty 11y ago

I've never seen anything like this either. The amount of essentially free money the wealthy have access to is staggering. Yes, you need good credit, some assets--and poof--you have money to invest, without the competition you had pre 2008. I look at these low interest rates for only the best clientele, and I wonder, "How can they lose?" In my neighborhood, I see qualified individuals(rich people), and REIT's buying up residential homes at a rate I have never seen before, and why shouldn't they at these rates. While the middle class, and the poor are slowly losing any savings they managed to put away. Rebublicans blame Dodd-Frank--I don't know, but something is not right. There's a part of me that wonders if we, the poor/middle class were better off when financial institutions didn't know our blood type when applying for a loan, or credit? It just seemed like more people were allowed to invest in the past? What do I know? Nothing! Guess I'm feeling the holiday slump? I hope it doesn't last too long?