3 ms·

> Very clear the market has now negatively reacted to high operating expenses that largely stem from excessive headcount. Are you saying that because stock pri

by xracy 4y ago

> Very clear the market has now negatively reacted to high operating expenses that largely stem from excessive headcount. Are you saying that because stock prices are dropping that the market has reacted to excessive headcount? Cause I think a better explanation for that, is that in the past 2 years we've had inflation, and that was reflected in the profits of the companies for 2020-21, and now that the fed is lowering interest rates, we're expecting that inflation to stop, and so that's affecting the stock market. This seems to have very little to do with these companies business models, and everything to do with them failing to recognize that their profit changes are readily explained by inflation/deflation. Which seems to be a better explanation of what the markets are reacting to.

water-your-self 4y ago
Yeah but overfitting is still a better strategy, for a number of reasons. Match your competition. Equity grants on the uphill, reduce them on the downhill. What if the market goes up and stays up? Fed does or doesnt hike rates? Do you really want to play hiring catch up when everyone else has a 2 year head start? Also, your board of directors doesn't give a shit about the reason, they only care what is being done in response.
- xracy 4y ago
  I disagree that overfitting is a better strategy. Because if you recognize why things are happening are unrelated to profit/work at the moment you can accept that you're going to have losses regardless, and try and plan past that in the long term. Which should lead to better profits when you're not entirely dependent on the federal reserve. In particular, hiring benefits don't take effect immediately, it's going to be a while before productivity is realized from the new hires. So it is very short-sighted to freeze that before an economic downturn, when you want new forms of revenue and innovation to allow you to outlast the competition and grow a business into something that will become the "next big thing". Also, as a commentary, it makes it more clear that your stock is actually stable, because the only thing that's really changed is inflation and catch up to reality from the fed turning off the money hose.

by xracy 4y ago

water-your-self 4y ago

Yeah but overfitting is still a better strategy, for a number of reasons. Match your competition. Equity grants on the uphill, reduce them on the downhill. What if the market goes up and stays up? Fed does or doesnt hike rates? Do you really want to play hiring catch up when everyone else has a 2 year head start? Also, your board of directors doesn't give a shit about the reason, they only care what is being done in response.

xracy 4y ago
I disagree that overfitting is a better strategy. Because if you recognize why things are happening are unrelated to profit/work at the moment you can accept that you're going to have losses regardless, and try and plan past that in the long term. Which should lead to better profits when you're not entirely dependent on the federal reserve. In particular, hiring benefits don't take effect immediately, it's going to be a while before productivity is realized from the new hires. So it is very short-sighted to freeze that before an economic downturn, when you want new forms of revenue and innovation to allow you to outlast the competition and grow a business into something that will become the "next big thing". Also, as a commentary, it makes it more clear that your stock is actually stable, because the only thing that's really changed is inflation and catch up to reality from the fed turning off the money hose.