5 ms·

Let's remember that Mark Cuban didn't receive his fortune by making smart investments. He received it by winning the dotcom lottery. When listening to investm

Let's remember that Mark Cuban didn't receive his fortune by making smart investments. He received it by winning the dotcom lottery. When listening to investment advice, perhaps we should listen to people that made their fortunes through smart investing. Public companies have a responsibility to their (rational) shareholders to minimize expenses that have no possible ROI. Taxes are chief among those.

andyakb 12y ago
Give me a break. Cuban is the first to admit that he got lucky in terms of his valuation, but it wasnt his first exit and his extensive writing on business should show that his success was not the result of luck. Further, if it werent for his intelligent investing, he would have lost nearly all of the proceeds from that sale, like so many others did(1). It was exactly his smart investing that allowed him to _keep_ his "lucky" windfall (1) http://investmentxyz.blogspot.com/2006/05/cubans-collar-anatomy-of-famous-trade.html?m=1 http://investmentxyz.blogspot.com/2006/05/cubans-collar-anat...
- downandout 12y ago
  You're missing my point. He "made" his fortune by selling a company at a spectacular overvaluation. That's fine, but don't pretend that he turned a few million into a few billion through smart investing. With regard to the moves he made after the ridiculous Broadcast.com sale, all he did was lock in his profits. That turned out to be the correct move, but that doesn't necessarily say anything about his investing skills. It just shows that he realized that he had hit the lottery and wanted to insure his win. Warren Buffett made his money through smart investing. Mark Cuban did not, so I'd rather listen to Warren Buffett and others like him than an opinionated guy that got lucky.
ken47 12y ago
Such naked ad hominem. Your argument would be much more compelling if you were capable of addressing Mark Cuban's arguments directly.
- downandout 12y ago
  I did address them. I said: Public companies have a responsibility to their (rational) shareholders to minimize expenses that have no possible ROI. Taxes are chief among those. If you're asking for my opinion, in my opinion what he is saying is absolute nonsense. The populist drivel spewed in those tweets is an attempt to appeal to his Shark Tank audience. If he appears relatable, the show's ratings rise and he gets the accompanying ego boost. He's doing it for the same reason that centimillionaire Hollywood types advocate for socialist candidates & ideals that are in direct conflict with their own financial interests: popularity. Any company that has options available to it that will lower their tax bill without negatively affecting their income and growth prospects should pursue them. In fact, they have a legal responsibility to their shareholders to do so.
  - audunw 12y ago
    Wait, so companies are legally obliged to maximize income, even if it goes against the will of the shareholders?
    - downandout 12y ago
      Wait, so you're saying that most shareholders in public companies want to sacrifice earnings in furtherance of Obamacare subsidies or whatever the expenditure du jour is?
  - ken47 12y ago
    You are countering your preconception of his arguments.

andyakb 12y ago

Give me a break. Cuban is the first to admit that he got lucky in terms of his valuation, but it wasnt his first exit and his extensive writing on business should show that his success was not the result of luck. Further, if it werent for his intelligent investing, he would have lost nearly all of the proceeds from that sale, like so many others did(1). It was exactly his smart investing that allowed him to _keep_ his "lucky" windfall (1) http://investmentxyz.blogspot.com/2006/05/cubans-collar-anatomy-of-famous-trade.html?m=1 http://investmentxyz.blogspot.com/2006/05/cubans-collar-anat...

downandout 12y ago
You're missing my point. He "made" his fortune by selling a company at a spectacular overvaluation. That's fine, but don't pretend that he turned a few million into a few billion through smart investing. With regard to the moves he made after the ridiculous Broadcast.com sale, all he did was lock in his profits. That turned out to be the correct move, but that doesn't necessarily say anything about his investing skills. It just shows that he realized that he had hit the lottery and wanted to insure his win. Warren Buffett made his money through smart investing. Mark Cuban did not, so I'd rather listen to Warren Buffett and others like him than an opinionated guy that got lucky.

ken47 12y ago

Such naked ad hominem. Your argument would be much more compelling if you were capable of addressing Mark Cuban's arguments directly.

downandout 12y ago
I did address them. I said: Public companies have a responsibility to their (rational) shareholders to minimize expenses that have no possible ROI. Taxes are chief among those. If you're asking for my opinion, in my opinion what he is saying is absolute nonsense. The populist drivel spewed in those tweets is an attempt to appeal to his Shark Tank audience. If he appears relatable, the show's ratings rise and he gets the accompanying ego boost. He's doing it for the same reason that centimillionaire Hollywood types advocate for socialist candidates & ideals that are in direct conflict with their own financial interests: popularity. Any company that has options available to it that will lower their tax bill without negatively affecting their income and growth prospects should pursue them. In fact, they have a legal responsibility to their shareholders to do so.
- audunw 12y ago
  Wait, so companies are legally obliged to maximize income, even if it goes against the will of the shareholders?
  - downandout 12y ago
    Wait, so you're saying that most shareholders in public companies want to sacrifice earnings in furtherance of Obamacare subsidies or whatever the expenditure du jour is?
- ken47 12y ago
  You are countering your preconception of his arguments.