4 ms·

Considering how this would decimate the market and cause large amounts of frivolous lawsuits, I can't imagine this passes even pared down. She's announcing thi

by dahdum 8y ago

Considering how this would decimate the market and cause large amounts of frivolous lawsuits, I can't imagine this passes even pared down. She's announcing this merely to pad her resume before running in 2020. It doesn't have to be feasible, just needs to sound good.

toomuchtodo 8y ago
The US equities market value is already highly inflated. It will be coming down regardless over the next decade.
- chollida1 8y ago
  > The US equities market value is already highly inflated. It will be coming down regardless over the next decade. I'll take the other side of that bet if you are saying that the market will be worth less in 10 years time than it is now. If on the other hand you are saying the market will go down sometime in the next 10 years then, we'll that's not really a statement worth making:) That's like saying I predict that it will be colder than it is today sometime in the next 10 years.
  - toomuchtodo 8y ago
    Based on current P/E ratios, the higher chances of an inverted yield curve, companies going private or not going public, and market analysis from folks like Vanguard about future returns being muted, my opinion is that most equities returns have been pulled forward, risk-adjusted returns will be comparable to bonds, and that there will both be a market pullback in the foreseeable future with total market value moving roughly sideways from today's highs for quite a while.
    - tanderson92 8y ago
      As a point of fact, the yield curve is not inverted (nor has it been for some time). Furthermore, forward PE ratios show returns far in excess of current government bond yields.
- deelowe 8y ago
  You looking to take a short position on a major index 10 years from now? If so, let's talk. I'll take that deal.
  - toomuchtodo 8y ago
    Already do so using LEAPS to balance out my tech and commodity investments (and anything else I feel is going to take a nose dive when the economy slows down). Feel free to take the other side of the trade in the marketplace.
    - zaroth 8y ago
      The people who sold you the LEAP puts were happy to take your money, I’m sure. The time premium on LEAPs makes them, as I understand it, an extremely niche product to use appropriately. Of course anyone is free to speculate, as long as you meet the option trading requirements at your brokerage.
      - deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
- dahdum 8y ago
  I don't doubt there'll be another recession, I just believe this Act will make it deeper and slower to recover from.
maxxxxx 8y ago
"Considering how this would decimate the market and cause large amounts of frivolous lawsuits," Why would it decimate the market? This just sounds like fearmongering.
- dahdum 8y ago
  Stocks are valued primarily on future earnings potential. This Act would significantly dilute the shareholder control by mandating 40% employee elected directors, and mandating they consider the interests of employees, customers, and communities in all decisions. Imagine you have a factory in the Midwest hemorrhaging cash (or even just break even) but other profitable locations. Right now, you'd most likely shut it down and consolidate, move, or outsource that work. Your ability to do so is impeded under this act, by employee elected directors and/or activist investors. The result is less profit potential. Knowing that every company has to make these type of decisions (including benefits), their earning potential is reduced, and their valuations will tumble due to it.
  - maxxxxx 8y ago
    Considering that employees also have an interest in the viability of a company I am not sure about this.
velcrovan 8y ago
It hasn't done so in countries where it has been implemented, so your fears seem groundless.
- frockington 8y ago
  Look at any EU nation vs the US for ht elast decade, it destroys growth
null000 8y ago
> this would decimate the market I realize this is an unpopular opinion, but I don't necessarily view this as a bad thing in aggregate. The market's been doing great lately, and it's largely been on the backs of the working class for the benefit of people who've had the money to capitalize on it. It's been over inflated for ages - if a shitty market is the cost for more equitable distributions of income and more humane workforce treatment, I'm game. I have the sneaking suspicion an arrangement that forces companies to focus on the long term well being of its workers (who, it's worth pointing out, don't want to deal with a job search, and such both want higher retention and for the company to not-fail) rather than short term stock price fluctuations will probably be for the better in the long run. > cause large amounts of frivolous lawsuits We already have that. > She's announcing this merely to pad her resume before running in 2020. It doesn't have to be feasible, just needs to sound good. I actually agree with this - It's definitely to grab headlines (which it did) and there's no way it's passing in the next 3 years. That said, this is pretty much straight from the Tea Party playbook, see: ACA repeals in 2012-2016. Oh well. And anyway, I'd be happy to finally have one president in the white house whose main goal isn't to cater to corporations - it's been literal generations, and looking at the current state of the general US economy and the world, not for the better.

by dahdum 8y ago

toomuchtodo 8y ago

The US equities market value is already highly inflated. It will be coming down regardless over the next decade.

chollida1 8y ago
> The US equities market value is already highly inflated. It will be coming down regardless over the next decade. I'll take the other side of that bet if you are saying that the market will be worth less in 10 years time than it is now. If on the other hand you are saying the market will go down sometime in the next 10 years then, we'll that's not really a statement worth making:) That's like saying I predict that it will be colder than it is today sometime in the next 10 years.
- toomuchtodo 8y ago
  Based on current P/E ratios, the higher chances of an inverted yield curve, companies going private or not going public, and market analysis from folks like Vanguard about future returns being muted, my opinion is that most equities returns have been pulled forward, risk-adjusted returns will be comparable to bonds, and that there will both be a market pullback in the foreseeable future with total market value moving roughly sideways from today's highs for quite a while.
  - tanderson92 8y ago
    As a point of fact, the yield curve is not inverted (nor has it been for some time). Furthermore, forward PE ratios show returns far in excess of current government bond yields.
deelowe 8y ago
You looking to take a short position on a major index 10 years from now? If so, let's talk. I'll take that deal.
- toomuchtodo 8y ago
  Already do so using LEAPS to balance out my tech and commodity investments (and anything else I feel is going to take a nose dive when the economy slows down). Feel free to take the other side of the trade in the marketplace.
  - zaroth 8y ago
    The people who sold you the LEAP puts were happy to take your money, I’m sure. The time premium on LEAPs makes them, as I understand it, an extremely niche product to use appropriately. Of course anyone is free to speculate, as long as you meet the option trading requirements at your brokerage.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
dahdum 8y ago
I don't doubt there'll be another recession, I just believe this Act will make it deeper and slower to recover from.

maxxxxx 8y ago

"Considering how this would decimate the market and cause large amounts of frivolous lawsuits," Why would it decimate the market? This just sounds like fearmongering.

dahdum 8y ago
Stocks are valued primarily on future earnings potential. This Act would significantly dilute the shareholder control by mandating 40% employee elected directors, and mandating they consider the interests of employees, customers, and communities in all decisions. Imagine you have a factory in the Midwest hemorrhaging cash (or even just break even) but other profitable locations. Right now, you'd most likely shut it down and consolidate, move, or outsource that work. Your ability to do so is impeded under this act, by employee elected directors and/or activist investors. The result is less profit potential. Knowing that every company has to make these type of decisions (including benefits), their earning potential is reduced, and their valuations will tumble due to it.
- maxxxxx 8y ago
  Considering that employees also have an interest in the viability of a company I am not sure about this.

velcrovan 8y ago

It hasn't done so in countries where it has been implemented, so your fears seem groundless.

frockington 8y ago
Look at any EU nation vs the US for ht elast decade, it destroys growth

null000 8y ago

> this would decimate the market I realize this is an unpopular opinion, but I don't necessarily view this as a bad thing in aggregate. The market's been doing great lately, and it's largely been on the backs of the working class for the benefit of people who've had the money to capitalize on it. It's been over inflated for ages - if a shitty market is the cost for more equitable distributions of income and more humane workforce treatment, I'm game. I have the sneaking suspicion an arrangement that forces companies to focus on the long term well being of its workers (who, it's worth pointing out, don't want to deal with a job search, and such both want higher retention and for the company to not-fail) rather than short term stock price fluctuations will probably be for the better in the long run. > cause large amounts of frivolous lawsuits We already have that. > She's announcing this merely to pad her resume before running in 2020. It doesn't have to be feasible, just needs to sound good. I actually agree with this - It's definitely to grab headlines (which it did) and there's no way it's passing in the next 3 years. That said, this is pretty much straight from the Tea Party playbook, see: ACA repeals in 2012-2016. Oh well. And anyway, I'd be happy to finally have one president in the white house whose main goal isn't to cater to corporations - it's been literal generations, and looking at the current state of the general US economy and the world, not for the better.