ypzhang2

You are talking about single trigger RSUs with only time based vesting.

Also a 83b means you pay taxes at the time of issuance rather than vesting. If these folks received their shares post founding, that means that there might be substantial tax burden for them when they received these shares if a 83b was filed. This is why most folks do not opt for a 83b after a substantial FMV has been established for their shares. This is also why double trigger RSUs are popular, so you can actually execute sell-to-cover.

This is what a current official did prior to him becoming the minister while an executive of a rail company.

So the analysis and the discussion below all stem from a faulty premise

It didn't work out because of real world execution is harder than just saying that they are going to do it.

You can absolutely have a public forum to share tips on how to stop this from happening. Just know that said public forum will be mined by money launderers and fraudsters and whatever work around is posted will most likely fail to work within months.

You have to imagine that the banking system exists in an adversarial environment with money-launderers and fraudsters. And instead of code that will always do whats written, the interface is a squishy human for a majority of these interactions.

https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/162-N-Wynstone-Dr-North-B...

FTA:

"Canada is home to some of the world’s most admired and successful public pension organizations" and "The core characteristics of the Canadian pension model, articulated in more detail in the next section, have been demonstrated to improve performance. Strong, independent governance is often cited by experts as a driver of outperformance. Inhouse investment management tends to result in improved returns after taking costs into account."

The pension funds all take a much more broadly diversified AND deeper approach than actively managed mutual funds. They are more akin to a Blackstone or Apollo.

Almost all of the top Canadian pension funds have better performance to benchmark over a 3 decade horizon including during the financial crisis, so arguably the proof is in the pudding so to speak.

Canadian pension funds are run more akin to a private equity firm. They invest directly in growth stage deals and therefore take commensurate risks like any other private equity firm.

That means that they make bets with more asymmetric risks and balance their entire portfolio rather than staying at a specific risk band with all of their investments. They pay for professional staff commensurate with that model. A canadian pension fund's employees earn salary and bonuses comparable to a investment bank or private equity firm.

You can't necessarily look at one off investments and have to look at return over time which is generally healthy and their funding ratio, which is generally much healthier than US pension counterparts.

There is a reason the "Canadian Model" is held up as one of the ideal pension management models.

Canadian Pensions like OTPP are run more like private equity funds and they compensate their employees the same way in order to compete in terms of talent in order to generate deal-flow and deal identification.

Traditionally, this has meant above market returns and is one of the reasons that Canadian pensions are generally well funded.

This highlights the difference:

https://blogs.cfainstitute.org/investor/2016/05/17/lessons-f...

https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/s7p2dk/how_m...

Factions exist in the ccp and having outside concentrations of power can lead to dangerous fragmentation that can also affect the internal politics of the ccp

The administration will all profess a desire not to be so beholden but it’s part of the game so to speak, you have to play.

Source: current board member of a public university college

These credit facilities all have covenants and reporting requirements. When these things get frozen or wound down, almost assuredly some sort of risk covenant or similar was breached, which gives the fund manager the option of freezing or winding down the facility.

So how does an investor manage the risk? They vet the company (Greensill), and trust that its risk department / capital markets team can manage their credit facilities. In this case, it turns out that bet might've been off, but thats what happens in fintech investment sometimes.

This article goes into in-depth detail on one particular person's experience:

https://www.gq.com/story/cia-investigation-and-russian-micro...

https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/porsche-posts-recor...

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/01/13/lamborghinis-2019-sales-jump...

Anecdotally as well, Hermes does VERY brisk business by where I live (midwest), pre-COVID

For consumers:

Ability to order from multiple restaurants through one consistent interface / payment flow. This cannot be undercut by every restaurant with a phone and a teenager with a car.

For restaurants:

A marketing / lead generation avenue that provides, ideally, incremental volume that is profitable. If it was not profitable, then they wouldn't do it, obviously.

Delivery itself, is just a method to deliver these value adds.

The argument can be made whether this value is worth a tech infrastructure and the human labor cost of delivery. It might be worth it in China, where delivery is actually more ubiquitous, but in America, where worker compensation / expectation / norms are higher, its debatable.

Its arguable just as important for the concept of America to let owners of private property not be deprived of their freedom and liberties.

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2020-04-20/there-...

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-04-17/giant-u-s...

Long story short, part of the issue is that big banks have large complex regulatory and compliance schemes as a result of 2008. They are then unable to process SBA apps because of the low amount of government guidance, so smaller banks with smaller compliance teams were able to process more. This would also mean that smaller businesses would probably have a hard time getting all of their paperwork right vs bigger companies with dedicated legal and accounting teams. Also, banks will then prioritize existing customers, especially ones with loans, because most of the KYC and due diligence has been done already.

Part of the answer is that as an unintended consequence of previous compliance corrections, larger banks are just more unwilling to make loans under unclear guide lines, which obviously there will be if the government rolls out a program in a 1-2 weeks.

1. This is untrue. Masks were worn intermittently only on "bad pollution" days in cities like Beijing and Shanghai. Inland cities like Chengdu there is not widespread mask usage.

2. There is a difference between Xinjiang and the rest of China. You definitively do not see this type of security checkpoints in "regular" pre-covid China.

China is not back to "normal", there is fits and starts in the restarts to life, and there is also a psychological drag on consumer demand even though some shopping is reopened.

You can have 0 failed stores if you open 0 stores. A successful operation will inevitably have failed stores. Having a long list of failed stores doesn't mean anything in of itself. You have to look at the rate of failed stores vs successful stores among other metrics.