akharris

38 ms·

391.
by akharris 16y ago
People said the same thing about myspace a few years back. It was king of the social internets. Clearly, it wasn't quite as big as Facebook, but it's all a question of giving users what they want. If someone can identify the discontents and
392.
by akharris 16y ago
clarion calls seem to be big this weekend, jon stewart was on it too in his "moment of sincerity" http://bit.ly/axQDnW .
393.
by akharris 16y ago
One of those things you never think about when reading a map or driving in a car, but it's the explanation behind why you fly all the way up past nova scotia when on a plane to europe.
394.
by akharris 16y ago
I think it's largely an issue of who has the imagination, and how they weigh the cost benefit. As you get older, that profile shifts radically, so not only are they less available, they are, rightly, more risk averse. But if they have the r
395.
by akharris 16y ago
Pretty cool, but I'm a fan of the more macro version of the idea, as based on census data: http://www.xoxosoma.com/singles/ (also a really awesome design)
396.
by akharris 16y ago
You might be right if they invest in small enough amounts. But if they try to invest at the size necessary to matter to their own portfolios, that's when you would have issues.
397.
by akharris 16y ago
I think you're misreading it slightly. It's not that SWFs are the ideal investors for startups, it's that they're pushing a ton of money into the ecosystem and distorting it.
398.
by akharris 16y ago
Same definition. Right now markets pay a premium for the convenience of liquid assets as you say. What I'm saying is that the investment profiles of the SWFs may lower that premium/raise the price of illiquid assets such that the two are ef
399.
by akharris 16y ago
Thanks for pointing that out. My point is not that the liquidity premium will go negative, but that there could be just as much (or as little) premium for illiquid assets as for liquid assets when SWFs are driving force in the market.