正在加载视频...

视频加载失败

返回首页

Steve Jobs literally gave a masterclass on how "stock options" actually work in 1983: "If somebody came to work for your company, you could let them buy some stock. The problem is they might have to shell out $100,000. If the company went broke, they'd lose all their life...

jaynitx's profile picture

Jaynit

57,693 subscribers

820,367 次观看 • 2 个月前 •via X (Twitter)

教育财经
LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 条评论

暂无评论

原始帖子的评论将显示在这里

相关视频

Some millennials have been working for 20 years and are still confused by corporate 😂 For those who are still in the dark let me fill you in. Your performance doesn't matter. Your performance review doesn't matter. Your compensation has been set by a budget committee a year ago. You are not "overachieving" anything. Management has a fixed pool of money to pay the people they manage so they can give them raises less than inflation. If they give you more money, they have to give someone else less money. It's a zero-sum game. Managers actually have a larger pool of money to hire new employees because corporations recognize that new hires need to be incentivized to come over. They won't just leave their company for the same money. If you've been at the same company for 5 years you are underpaid. If you've been at the same company for 10 years you are paid less than a new hire at a competitor. Loyalty doesn't matter because there is no reason for a company to voluntarily pay you more money. Corporations already know that over 95% of employees will not go anywhere and will take whatever they get. Even if that's nothing. There's no reason to pay everybody more money when only a tiny percentage of workers will leave. Even if you leave... (remember over 95% of employees will not) ... the corporation will distribute the work you were doing among all your coworkers. And they will take on the extra work. And they will stay. For nothing. Because in addition to a salary, what an employee wants is to not have to look for a new job. That's all the want. They don't want to move anywhere. And companies know it, and they will take advantage of that. Now you know! You're welcome.
2:50

Some millennials have been working for 20 years and are still confused by corporate 😂 For those who are still in the dark let me fill you in. Your performance doesn't matter. Your performance review doesn't matter. Your compensation has been set by a budget committee a year ago. You are not "overachieving" anything. Management has a fixed pool of money to pay the people they manage so they can give them raises less than inflation. If they give you more money, they have to give someone else less money. It's a zero-sum game. Managers actually have a larger pool of money to hire new employees because corporations recognize that new hires need to be incentivized to come over. They won't just leave their company for the same money. If you've been at the same company for 5 years you are underpaid. If you've been at the same company for 10 years you are paid less than a new hire at a competitor. Loyalty doesn't matter because there is no reason for a company to voluntarily pay you more money. Corporations already know that over 95% of employees will not go anywhere and will take whatever they get. Even if that's nothing. There's no reason to pay everybody more money when only a tiny percentage of workers will leave. Even if you leave... (remember over 95% of employees will not) ... the corporation will distribute the work you were doing among all your coworkers. And they will take on the extra work. And they will stay. For nothing. Because in addition to a salary, what an employee wants is to not have to look for a new job. That's all the want. They don't want to move anywhere. And companies know it, and they will take advantage of that. Now you know! You're welcome.

Lazy Canadian Investor

66,816 次观看 • 2 年前

"I don't think many tech companies execute M&A well." Palo Alto Networks CEO Nikesh Arora breaks down his strategy for successful M&A: "Purchase price is an irrelevant artifact. If it's going to work, it's going to work phenomenally well, or you're going to screw it up. It's not what you paid, it's what you're able to do with it." "You could say that Instagram was expensive, or YouTube was expensive, or DoubleClick was expensive. They all worked perfectly. AOL Time Warner is a different story. So it boils down to how you execute past the price you pay for it." "In tech, when you buy a company, you buy a team, you buy an existing product, and you buy a roadmap for the future. The question is: can you deliver on that roadmap? Can you accelerate that roadmap? Does it work?" "We sign a term sheet, and we ask the founders to sit with our team and redesign the product roadmap so we like it and they like it. And if they don't agree with our expectations and we don't agree with theirs, we don't buy the company." "We make them in charge. My teams have to work for them, which makes them really unhappy. And not many of them like it. But I'm like, look, these guys went out there, raised money, kicked your ass in your category, and you want them to work for you? That makes no sense to me. You're going to work for them. Learn from them." "So our job is to enable these people. We look at them and say, whatever your business plan was when you were a small private company, find me a business plan that's twice as assertive and bold as the one you had then." "We've built a phenomenal system to take them to market. I have 3,000 people in the field... 3,000 people go out there and see 10,000 customers. So that's where the secret sauce kicks in." "We've bought 34 companies so far. I think our hit rate on things that have worked is over 70%."
3:01

"I don't think many tech companies execute M&A well." Palo Alto Networks CEO Nikesh Arora breaks down his strategy for successful M&A: "Purchase price is an irrelevant artifact. If it's going to work, it's going to work phenomenally well, or you're going to screw it up. It's not what you paid, it's what you're able to do with it." "You could say that Instagram was expensive, or YouTube was expensive, or DoubleClick was expensive. They all worked perfectly. AOL Time Warner is a different story. So it boils down to how you execute past the price you pay for it." "In tech, when you buy a company, you buy a team, you buy an existing product, and you buy a roadmap for the future. The question is: can you deliver on that roadmap? Can you accelerate that roadmap? Does it work?" "We sign a term sheet, and we ask the founders to sit with our team and redesign the product roadmap so we like it and they like it. And if they don't agree with our expectations and we don't agree with theirs, we don't buy the company." "We make them in charge. My teams have to work for them, which makes them really unhappy. And not many of them like it. But I'm like, look, these guys went out there, raised money, kicked your ass in your category, and you want them to work for you? That makes no sense to me. You're going to work for them. Learn from them." "So our job is to enable these people. We look at them and say, whatever your business plan was when you were a small private company, find me a business plan that's twice as assertive and bold as the one you had then." "We've built a phenomenal system to take them to market. I have 3,000 people in the field... 3,000 people go out there and see 10,000 customers. So that's where the secret sauce kicks in." "We've bought 34 companies so far. I think our hit rate on things that have worked is over 70%."

TBPN

39,506 次观看 • 4 个月前

"I don't think many tech companies execute M&A well." Palo Alto Networks CEO Nikesh Arora breaks down his strategy for successful M&A: "Purchase price is an irrelevant artifact. If it's going to work, it's going to work phenomenally well, or you're going to screw it up. It's not what you paid, it's what you're able to do with it." "You could say that Instagram was expensive, or YouTube was expensive, or DoubleClick was expensive. They all worked perfectly. AOL Time Warner is a different story. So it boils down to how you execute past the price you pay for it." "In tech, when you buy a company, you buy a team, you buy an existing product, and you buy a roadmap for the future. The question is: can you deliver on that roadmap? Can you accelerate that roadmap? Does it work?" "We sign a term sheet, and we ask the founders to sit with our team and redesign the product roadmap so we like it and they like it. And if they don't agree with our expectations and we don't agree with theirs, we don't buy the company." "We make them in charge. My teams have to work for them, which makes them really unhappy. And not many of them like it. But I'm like, look, these guys went out there, raised money, kicked your ass in your category, and you want them to work for you? That makes no sense to me. You're going to work for them. Learn from them." "So our job is to enable these people. We look at them and say, whatever your business plan was when you were a small private company, find me a business plan that's twice as assertive and bold as the one you had then." "We've built a phenomenal system to take them to market. I have 3,000 people in the field... 3,000 people go out there and see 10,000 customers. So that's where the secret sauce kicks in." "We've bought 34 companies so far. I think our hit rate on things that have worked is over 70%."
3:01

"I don't think many tech companies execute M&A well." Palo Alto Networks CEO Nikesh Arora breaks down his strategy for successful M&A: "Purchase price is an irrelevant artifact. If it's going to work, it's going to work phenomenally well, or you're going to screw it up. It's not what you paid, it's what you're able to do with it." "You could say that Instagram was expensive, or YouTube was expensive, or DoubleClick was expensive. They all worked perfectly. AOL Time Warner is a different story. So it boils down to how you execute past the price you pay for it." "In tech, when you buy a company, you buy a team, you buy an existing product, and you buy a roadmap for the future. The question is: can you deliver on that roadmap? Can you accelerate that roadmap? Does it work?" "We sign a term sheet, and we ask the founders to sit with our team and redesign the product roadmap so we like it and they like it. And if they don't agree with our expectations and we don't agree with theirs, we don't buy the company." "We make them in charge. My teams have to work for them, which makes them really unhappy. And not many of them like it. But I'm like, look, these guys went out there, raised money, kicked your ass in your category, and you want them to work for you? That makes no sense to me. You're going to work for them. Learn from them." "So our job is to enable these people. We look at them and say, whatever your business plan was when you were a small private company, find me a business plan that's twice as assertive and bold as the one you had then." "We've built a phenomenal system to take them to market. I have 3,000 people in the field... 3,000 people go out there and see 10,000 customers. So that's where the secret sauce kicks in." "We've bought 34 companies so far. I think our hit rate on things that have worked is over 70%."

TBPN

355,885 次观看 • 4 个月前

Adam Foroughi borrowed money to buy back AppLovin stock when it was down 92%. They went in at a $3.8 billion market cap. They peaked at $250 billion. "People like to be conservative when it comes to cash. One to lever up is scary to people but then two to lever up to buy your own shares when everyone's telling you your company's a piece of shit. That's really scary to do. If I believe in the future and we're a really high cash-generative business we should always be buying back our shares."
0:20

Adam Foroughi borrowed money to buy back AppLovin stock when it was down 92%. They went in at a $3.8 billion market cap. They peaked at $250 billion. "People like to be conservative when it comes to cash. One to lever up is scary to people but then two to lever up to buy your own shares when everyone's telling you your company's a piece of shit. That's really scary to do. If I believe in the future and we're a really high cash-generative business we should always be buying back our shares."

David Senra

19,942 次观看 • 2 个月前

Warren Buffett: "90% of people who buy stocks don't think of them the right way. They think about them as something they hope goes up next week." "I think about what the company is going to be worth 10-20 years from now. And I hope it goes down when I buy it b/c I'll buy more."
0:32

Warren Buffett: "90% of people who buy stocks don't think of them the right way. They think about them as something they hope goes up next week." "I think about what the company is going to be worth 10-20 years from now. And I hope it goes down when I buy it b/c I'll buy more."

Kevin Carpenter

548,419 次观看 • 2 个月前

David Friedberg Explains the Hidden Collapse Beneath Record Stock Prices 🔥🪙 “Instead of trading it in US dollars, what if you just look at the US stock market, the total value, in ounces of gold?” “The stock market's up in dollar-denominated terms, but if you look at the stock market relative to gold, it's actually down.” “In a democracy, like we have for the past 250 years, without adequate constitutional constraints, it has always been the case that over time government spending goes up.” “And this is because in a democracy, people ask for their government to do more every year, and as they ask for their government to do more every year, the government agents who are elected say, ‘Okay, here you go,’ and they spend more.” “And eventually, when the borrowing capacity gets unlocked, which is what happened in the United States when we went off the gold standard, you borrow like crazy, you print money to fund those borrowing costs, but eventually the bill comes due.” “And in the United States, the bill is coming due.” “But I just want to tie it back to Minnesota, Donald Trump, and socialism.” “I think it's important for us to just highlight that if you own assets like we do, the four of us, we own stocks, we own real estate, we own other assets.” “As the dollar devalues and everything inflates in value, our asset prices go up and we get wealthier, and wealthier, and wealthier.” “The majority of Americans do not own assets. They are net asset negative.” “As a result, they live off of income and they do not benefit from the de-dollarization like asset holders do.” “And I fundamentally believe that much of the civil unrest and ultimately the divide in this country is driven by the fact that de-dollarization, because of excess government spending, ultimately leads a majority of people in this country to feeling oppressed and left behind because they're seeing a few people in the country accelerate their net worth, like all of us here, and there's no way for them to catch up because they don't actually own assets.”
1:46

David Friedberg Explains the Hidden Collapse Beneath Record Stock Prices 🔥🪙 “Instead of trading it in US dollars, what if you just look at the US stock market, the total value, in ounces of gold?” “The stock market's up in dollar-denominated terms, but if you look at the stock market relative to gold, it's actually down.” “In a democracy, like we have for the past 250 years, without adequate constitutional constraints, it has always been the case that over time government spending goes up.” “And this is because in a democracy, people ask for their government to do more every year, and as they ask for their government to do more every year, the government agents who are elected say, ‘Okay, here you go,’ and they spend more.” “And eventually, when the borrowing capacity gets unlocked, which is what happened in the United States when we went off the gold standard, you borrow like crazy, you print money to fund those borrowing costs, but eventually the bill comes due.” “And in the United States, the bill is coming due.” “But I just want to tie it back to Minnesota, Donald Trump, and socialism.” “I think it's important for us to just highlight that if you own assets like we do, the four of us, we own stocks, we own real estate, we own other assets.” “As the dollar devalues and everything inflates in value, our asset prices go up and we get wealthier, and wealthier, and wealthier.” “The majority of Americans do not own assets. They are net asset negative.” “As a result, they live off of income and they do not benefit from the de-dollarization like asset holders do.” “And I fundamentally believe that much of the civil unrest and ultimately the divide in this country is driven by the fact that de-dollarization, because of excess government spending, ultimately leads a majority of people in this country to feeling oppressed and left behind because they're seeing a few people in the country accelerate their net worth, like all of us here, and there's no way for them to catch up because they don't actually own assets.”

The All-In Podcast

189,084 次观看 • 6 个月前

When Adam’s stock price dropped by 92% he borrowed money to buy back $6 billion in stock. That bet made the company more than $60 billion: “If no one's going to buy our shares why don't we just start buying our own shares? The company at the bottom was worth $3.8 billion. And we were generating over a billion dollars of EBITDA. Well in theory we could buy back 20% of the shares of the company just in the next year if we really believed in the path we were on. So we kicked that off. But we did it a little bit differently than what most companies do. Most companies go out and say I'm going to buy shares from the public markets and just take shares back. But you don't know who's on the other side of that trade. On the other hand we knew that we had a cap table where about 50% of the shares were going to sell at some point over the coming years. We had private equity investors that owned roughly 50% of the shares of the company alongside some other founders that were no longer there. So instead of going to the public we went to the shareholders that we knew were going to sell and got them to agree to sell back to us over time. And so for the following 18 months we ended up deploying around $6 billion of buybacks using our own capital and we leveraged some to buy back shares in the company. And over time that ended up creating somewhere in the neighborhood of $50 to $60 billion of actual proceeds from the buyback. It was one of the most successful buybacks in the history of companies.”
1:58

When Adam’s stock price dropped by 92% he borrowed money to buy back $6 billion in stock. That bet made the company more than $60 billion: “If no one's going to buy our shares why don't we just start buying our own shares? The company at the bottom was worth $3.8 billion. And we were generating over a billion dollars of EBITDA. Well in theory we could buy back 20% of the shares of the company just in the next year if we really believed in the path we were on. So we kicked that off. But we did it a little bit differently than what most companies do. Most companies go out and say I'm going to buy shares from the public markets and just take shares back. But you don't know who's on the other side of that trade. On the other hand we knew that we had a cap table where about 50% of the shares were going to sell at some point over the coming years. We had private equity investors that owned roughly 50% of the shares of the company alongside some other founders that were no longer there. So instead of going to the public we went to the shareholders that we knew were going to sell and got them to agree to sell back to us over time. And so for the following 18 months we ended up deploying around $6 billion of buybacks using our own capital and we leveraged some to buy back shares in the company. And over time that ended up creating somewhere in the neighborhood of $50 to $60 billion of actual proceeds from the buyback. It was one of the most successful buybacks in the history of companies.”

David Senra

127,813 次观看 • 1 个月前

Manish Gunwani about the brutal reality of "Buy & Hold" investing 🔥 In 1990s maybe the markets were inefficient & buy & hold worked in that time but now Over time, it's been almost 30 years, I must admit I actually don't believe in buy-and-hold investing now. Everything is a cycle.' You don't need to own anything forever because returns come fast & when the cycle breaks, it destroys massive wealth. US study revealed that if you buy every stock at IPO & hold it forever, only 4% actually beat a basic bank FD. Every company goes through a life cycle, if you don't exit near the top, you are guaranteed to lose money 🔥
3:16

Manish Gunwani about the brutal reality of "Buy & Hold" investing 🔥 In 1990s maybe the markets were inefficient & buy & hold worked in that time but now Over time, it's been almost 30 years, I must admit I actually don't believe in buy-and-hold investing now. Everything is a cycle.' You don't need to own anything forever because returns come fast & when the cycle breaks, it destroys massive wealth. US study revealed that if you buy every stock at IPO & hold it forever, only 4% actually beat a basic bank FD. Every company goes through a life cycle, if you don't exit near the top, you are guaranteed to lose money 🔥

Satpal Singh

73,354 次观看 • 23 天前

When Adam’s stock price dropped by 92% he borrowed money to buy back $6 billion in stock. That bet made the company more than $60 billion: “If no one's going to buy our shares why don't we just start buying our own shares? The company at the bottom was worth $3.8 billion. And we were generating over a billion dollars of EBITDA. Well in theory we could buy back 20% of the shares of the company just in the next year if we really believed in the path we were on. So we kicked that off. But we did it a little bit differently than what most companies do. Most companies go out and say I'm going to buy shares from the public markets and just take shares back. But you don't know who's on the other side of that trade. On the other hand we knew that we had a cap table where about 50% of the shares were going to sell at some point over the coming years. We had private equity investors that owned roughly 50% of the shares of the company alongside some other founders that were no longer there. So instead of going to the public we went to the shareholders that we knew were going to sell and got them to agree to sell back to us over time. And so for the following 18 months we ended up deploying around $6 billion of buybacks using our own capital and we leveraged some to buy back shares in the company. And over time that ended up creating somewhere in the neighborhood of $50 to $60 billion of actual proceeds from the buyback. It was one of the most successful buybacks in the history of companies.”
1:58

When Adam’s stock price dropped by 92% he borrowed money to buy back $6 billion in stock. That bet made the company more than $60 billion: “If no one's going to buy our shares why don't we just start buying our own shares? The company at the bottom was worth $3.8 billion. And we were generating over a billion dollars of EBITDA. Well in theory we could buy back 20% of the shares of the company just in the next year if we really believed in the path we were on. So we kicked that off. But we did it a little bit differently than what most companies do. Most companies go out and say I'm going to buy shares from the public markets and just take shares back. But you don't know who's on the other side of that trade. On the other hand we knew that we had a cap table where about 50% of the shares were going to sell at some point over the coming years. We had private equity investors that owned roughly 50% of the shares of the company alongside some other founders that were no longer there. So instead of going to the public we went to the shareholders that we knew were going to sell and got them to agree to sell back to us over time. And so for the following 18 months we ended up deploying around $6 billion of buybacks using our own capital and we leveraged some to buy back shares in the company. And over time that ended up creating somewhere in the neighborhood of $50 to $60 billion of actual proceeds from the buyback. It was one of the most successful buybacks in the history of companies.”

David Senra

518,747 次观看 • 3 个月前

Marc Andreessen on how to get people to join your 3-person startup Marc says founders have two tools at their disposal to win new hires: 1) Stock options, and 2) vision. He explains: “The best entrepreneurs are really good at selling people on their company precisely because they can explain how the world is going to look in a way that is so compelling.” Marc points to Steve Jobs’s “reality distortion field” as the epitome of this: “If you get within 10 feet of Steve Jobs, whatever he says in the next 20 minutes, you’re going to walk out of there believing. He can say that the sky is purple, and you’re like yep that makes total sense . . . The best entrepreneurs all tend to have that in common and tend to be really good at that. It’s essentially sales — selling to employees. It’s an incredibly valuable skill to be able to do that. That plus stock options.” The other thing Marc has observed about hiring over the years is that right employees have to self-select into your company, even though that can be incredibly frustrating at times: “If you hired all the people you interviewed, it would turn out that 2/3rds or 3/4ths of them you probably shouldn’t have hired anyway. So what the best companies do is they provide a very stark idea of what the company is and what is it isn’t: ‘We are a company where people are expected to work 18 hour days and if you don’t like that, don’t come here’ or ‘We are a company where people expect to go home at 5pm every day and if you think that’ll be frustrating’ — whatever it is.” Marc gives the humorous example of Asana where it was a requirement that the whole company did yoga together: “If you like yoga, this is the company for you. If you don’t like yoga, don’t go there. You’re going to be asked to put your feet in positions that you’re completely uncomfortable with.” He continues: “I think the very best companies tend to be polarizing. So if in your hiring process, you’re turning people off as much as you’re turning them on because they’re deciding ‘this is clearly not the right fit for me,’ I think that’s a good thing.”
2:43

Marc Andreessen on how to get people to join your 3-person startup Marc says founders have two tools at their disposal to win new hires: 1) Stock options, and 2) vision. He explains: “The best entrepreneurs are really good at selling people on their company precisely because they can explain how the world is going to look in a way that is so compelling.” Marc points to Steve Jobs’s “reality distortion field” as the epitome of this: “If you get within 10 feet of Steve Jobs, whatever he says in the next 20 minutes, you’re going to walk out of there believing. He can say that the sky is purple, and you’re like yep that makes total sense . . . The best entrepreneurs all tend to have that in common and tend to be really good at that. It’s essentially sales — selling to employees. It’s an incredibly valuable skill to be able to do that. That plus stock options.” The other thing Marc has observed about hiring over the years is that right employees have to self-select into your company, even though that can be incredibly frustrating at times: “If you hired all the people you interviewed, it would turn out that 2/3rds or 3/4ths of them you probably shouldn’t have hired anyway. So what the best companies do is they provide a very stark idea of what the company is and what is it isn’t: ‘We are a company where people are expected to work 18 hour days and if you don’t like that, don’t come here’ or ‘We are a company where people expect to go home at 5pm every day and if you think that’ll be frustrating’ — whatever it is.” Marc gives the humorous example of Asana where it was a requirement that the whole company did yoga together: “If you like yoga, this is the company for you. If you don’t like yoga, don’t go there. You’re going to be asked to put your feet in positions that you’re completely uncomfortable with.” He continues: “I think the very best companies tend to be polarizing. So if in your hiring process, you’re turning people off as much as you’re turning them on because they’re deciding ‘this is clearly not the right fit for me,’ I think that’s a good thing.”

Startup Archive

69,518 次观看 • 6 个月前

Steve Wozniak explains why he gave $10 million of his own shares to early Apple employees after the IPO When Apple went public in 1980, Woz’s 4 million shares were worth some $116M, and he gave away $10M of them to early Apple employees. As he explains in today’s clip: “There were five of us that really ran the company for the first three years, and we pretty much had almost all the stock. So when we went public, I didn’t feel right about it. I felt that everybody who’d been around us was a part of helping.” He continues: “I came from Hewlett Packard and they had profit sharing every quarter. A certain amount of the profit was given to the employees of stock because you as an employee should feel like an owner of your company. And I felt that so strongly. So I gave away a lot of my stock to almost everybody in the company in marketing and engineering jobs… Then I gave huge amounts to a few key people—young people that were in high school and helped enthuse me and helped write code with me in the early days. I wouldn’t have gotten to where I got to without them. And I felt they deserved a part of it too.” Video source: PHP Agency, Inc. (2011)
0:49

Steve Wozniak explains why he gave $10 million of his own shares to early Apple employees after the IPO When Apple went public in 1980, Woz’s 4 million shares were worth some $116M, and he gave away $10M of them to early Apple employees. As he explains in today’s clip: “There were five of us that really ran the company for the first three years, and we pretty much had almost all the stock. So when we went public, I didn’t feel right about it. I felt that everybody who’d been around us was a part of helping.” He continues: “I came from Hewlett Packard and they had profit sharing every quarter. A certain amount of the profit was given to the employees of stock because you as an employee should feel like an owner of your company. And I felt that so strongly. So I gave away a lot of my stock to almost everybody in the company in marketing and engineering jobs… Then I gave huge amounts to a few key people—young people that were in high school and helped enthuse me and helped write code with me in the early days. I wouldn’t have gotten to where I got to without them. And I felt they deserved a part of it too.” Video source: PHP Agency, Inc. (2011)

Startup Archive

608,614 次观看 • 7 个月前

"I don't see any scenario where you'd really want to own MSTR stock right now, given how dire the options are" Jeff Dorman ranks the Strategy capital structure from safest to riskiest "In a worst case where MicroStrategy defaults, you'd want to own the debt first. If you have $56 billion of Bitcoin backing $7 billion of debt, you're fully covered. Those would rise to par immediately if you thought default was imminent. That's the safest place" "The next safest is the preferred. There's only $15 billion of preferreds on top of $7 billion of debt, backed by $57 billion of Bitcoin. In a default you'll get your money back. But people buy them for the dividend, and if you cut it they fall 30 or 40 percent" "If you think default is four years out instead of one year and you can get 12 percent per year while you wait, that might be worth it. But the MSTR stock is the hardest one. I don't see any scenario where you'd want to own it right now"
3:24

"I don't see any scenario where you'd really want to own MSTR stock right now, given how dire the options are" Jeff Dorman ranks the Strategy capital structure from safest to riskiest "In a worst case where MicroStrategy defaults, you'd want to own the debt first. If you have $56 billion of Bitcoin backing $7 billion of debt, you're fully covered. Those would rise to par immediately if you thought default was imminent. That's the safest place" "The next safest is the preferred. There's only $15 billion of preferreds on top of $7 billion of debt, backed by $57 billion of Bitcoin. In a default you'll get your money back. But people buy them for the dividend, and if you cut it they fall 30 or 40 percent" "If you think default is four years out instead of one year and you can get 12 percent per year while you wait, that might be worth it. But the MSTR stock is the hardest one. I don't see any scenario where you'd want to own it right now"

Laura Shin

56,607 次观看 • 2 个月前

Nick Saban shares what transformational leadership really looks like and the trap most leaders fall into. "If you're in any kind of managerial position, I think you should define your job the same way: Provide the leadership to develop the relationships to help people create and accomplish the opportunities that they have, and help them establish the discipline they need to do it." Then he broke down what leadership actually is: "Leadership is about helping somebody else, affecting somebody else for their benefit. Not for your benefit - for their benefit." "If you're doing it for your benefit, it's manipulation. And people can see right through that." That's the line right there... Leadership serves others. Manipulation serves yourself. "You gotta develop a relationship, because they gotta know you care. Hard to affect people if they don't think you care about them." Then he called out where most leaders spend their time: "How do you spend all your time? If you're a manager, you spend all your time with the people who don't do the right things. I call them energy vampires." "We got 5 guys on our team - they don't go to class, they don't do the right thing in practice, they loaf all the time. Those are the guys I meet with every day. They're energy vampires." So he made a commitment: "I'm gonna meet with 3 guys who didn't do anything wrong every day to see how they're doing. To make sure they know I care about them, their family, and what's happening in their life." "I wanna have a relationship with those people, so that when I need to affect them, I have a chance to do it." "People gotta know you care. If they think you only care about yourself, they're gonna think you're just a manipulator and you're not really going to affect them in a positive way." "You gotta serve other people." The core of servant leadership is wanting to see others at their best. It's not about control, it's about serving others. (🎥 CBT Automotive)
2:33

Nick Saban shares what transformational leadership really looks like and the trap most leaders fall into. "If you're in any kind of managerial position, I think you should define your job the same way: Provide the leadership to develop the relationships to help people create and accomplish the opportunities that they have, and help them establish the discipline they need to do it." Then he broke down what leadership actually is: "Leadership is about helping somebody else, affecting somebody else for their benefit. Not for your benefit - for their benefit." "If you're doing it for your benefit, it's manipulation. And people can see right through that." That's the line right there... Leadership serves others. Manipulation serves yourself. "You gotta develop a relationship, because they gotta know you care. Hard to affect people if they don't think you care about them." Then he called out where most leaders spend their time: "How do you spend all your time? If you're a manager, you spend all your time with the people who don't do the right things. I call them energy vampires." "We got 5 guys on our team - they don't go to class, they don't do the right thing in practice, they loaf all the time. Those are the guys I meet with every day. They're energy vampires." So he made a commitment: "I'm gonna meet with 3 guys who didn't do anything wrong every day to see how they're doing. To make sure they know I care about them, their family, and what's happening in their life." "I wanna have a relationship with those people, so that when I need to affect them, I have a chance to do it." "People gotta know you care. If they think you only care about yourself, they're gonna think you're just a manipulator and you're not really going to affect them in a positive way." "You gotta serve other people." The core of servant leadership is wanting to see others at their best. It's not about control, it's about serving others. (🎥 CBT Automotive)

Coach AJ 🎯 Mental Fitness

37,867 次观看 • 4 个月前

Billionaire, Tony Robbins explains why most people never build real wealth even when they live in a system full of opportunity. “So IPhone has ran for 18 - 19 years. If you got an iPhone each time, you spend $22,000 and some change at retail price” “But if you bought Apple stock, same amount of money on the stock you’d be up $326,000 instead of being out $22,000” “If you’re going to use an Apple phone then at least own the company” “What are they making a mistake of? They’re consumers not owners. We’re a consuming society and we train our kids to be consumers as well”
1:04

Billionaire, Tony Robbins explains why most people never build real wealth even when they live in a system full of opportunity. “So IPhone has ran for 18 - 19 years. If you got an iPhone each time, you spend $22,000 and some change at retail price” “But if you bought Apple stock, same amount of money on the stock you’d be up $326,000 instead of being out $22,000” “If you’re going to use an Apple phone then at least own the company” “What are they making a mistake of? They’re consumers not owners. We’re a consuming society and we train our kids to be consumers as well”

Percy

1,824,526 次观看 • 1 个月前

Disney released Snow White in 1937. 60 years later, they re-released it on video. 28 million copies sold. $250 million in profit. Steve Jobs watched his young son watch it 30, 40 times. “These stories renew themselves with each generation.” In 1996, one year after Toy Story, he spent 20 minutes explaining why he bought Pixar: On buying the dream: "I met Ed Catmull who was running the computer division of Lucasfilm in 1985." "He shared with me his dream about making the first computer animated feature film." "I bought into that dream both financially and spiritually." "It took us ten years to do that, but we did it." The result: Toy Story. Third most successful animated film ever made. On content vs technology: "You can hardly find an Apple II around anymore." "It's not clear whether you'll be able to boot up a Macintosh five years from now." "All these technology boxes and software, if it has a life of a year or two, you're very lucky. Five years is extraordinary." "Sooner or later, they all become part of the sedimentary layer." But stories? "I think people are going to be watching Toy Story in 60 years. Not because of the computer graphics, but because of the story about friendship." On work-for-hire: Pixar made commercials for years. Won every award in the book. Then Jobs did the math. "If Listerine sold more Listerine because of our commercials, we didn't make any more money for producing the commercials." "The margin in that business has been under pressure. More people coming in. Going down, and down, and down." "You work harder and harder to make the same amount of money." He pulled 25 people out of commercials. "We had 25 incredibly talented people doing work-for-hire when we have all these other opportunities where we own a piece of what we create." "Great people are hard to find. We couldn't afford to have 25 of them making commercials anymore." On blending two cultures: "The very best creative people will only go to work in a few places. Disney, Pixar, possibly DreamWorks." "The very best computer scientists in computer graphics will only go to work in a few places. Pixar is one of those." "Pixar is the only place in the world that can hire the best from both of these areas." "We worked for ten years to figure out a way to have them all work together. The Hollywood culture and the Silicon Valley culture are really different." On the hierarchy of power: "When you've got incredibly talented people that are rare and in-demand, if you don't treat them right, they can go get another job in 10 minutes." "So this strange thing happens. The hierarchy of power inverts." "The CEO is actually at the bottom." "I feel like I work for most of these people because they're the ones doing all the brilliant work." "It's management's job to support them because they're on the front lines doing the work." On contracts vs stock options: "Hollywood uses the stick, which is the contract. Silicon Valley uses the carrot, which is the stock option." "When you sign a contract with somebody, you can say, 'I don't have to worry about that person for five years.'" "If you're sophisticated, you'll have a little database that tickles you six months before their contract is up so you can start paying more attention to them." "They're the most important person in the world for six months. Then after they sign up again, you put them in the drawer." Pixar chose stock options. "Every single day, we worry about how to make Pixar a better company so that nobody will ever want to leave." "We don't take anybody for granted." On what Disney taught them: "When you make a live-action film, a director shoots ten to twenty-five times as much footage as will end up on the screen." "Walt Disney realized many decades ago that animation was so expensive that you couldn't afford to animate ten times more than what you need." "The only conclusion: you have to edit your film before you make it." "Working with Disney gave us access to that wisdom. You can't buy it for love or money." On the constant: "Ten years ago, when we made Luxo Jr., it took about three hours to render each frame." "Toy Story. Computers are hundreds of times faster. It still took three hours to render each frame." "The frames were a hundred times more complex." "Our ambitions, visually, are growing as fast as the technology can feed them." On story vs technology: "The art of storytelling is very old." "No amount of technology can turn a bad story into a good story." "That's our mantra at Pixar. It's the story, stupid." "I don't think storytelling has changed in a long time. And I'm not sure it will. I don't think it's something that technology has anything to do with."
22:37

Disney released Snow White in 1937. 60 years later, they re-released it on video. 28 million copies sold. $250 million in profit. Steve Jobs watched his young son watch it 30, 40 times. “These stories renew themselves with each generation.” In 1996, one year after Toy Story, he spent 20 minutes explaining why he bought Pixar: On buying the dream: "I met Ed Catmull who was running the computer division of Lucasfilm in 1985." "He shared with me his dream about making the first computer animated feature film." "I bought into that dream both financially and spiritually." "It took us ten years to do that, but we did it." The result: Toy Story. Third most successful animated film ever made. On content vs technology: "You can hardly find an Apple II around anymore." "It's not clear whether you'll be able to boot up a Macintosh five years from now." "All these technology boxes and software, if it has a life of a year or two, you're very lucky. Five years is extraordinary." "Sooner or later, they all become part of the sedimentary layer." But stories? "I think people are going to be watching Toy Story in 60 years. Not because of the computer graphics, but because of the story about friendship." On work-for-hire: Pixar made commercials for years. Won every award in the book. Then Jobs did the math. "If Listerine sold more Listerine because of our commercials, we didn't make any more money for producing the commercials." "The margin in that business has been under pressure. More people coming in. Going down, and down, and down." "You work harder and harder to make the same amount of money." He pulled 25 people out of commercials. "We had 25 incredibly talented people doing work-for-hire when we have all these other opportunities where we own a piece of what we create." "Great people are hard to find. We couldn't afford to have 25 of them making commercials anymore." On blending two cultures: "The very best creative people will only go to work in a few places. Disney, Pixar, possibly DreamWorks." "The very best computer scientists in computer graphics will only go to work in a few places. Pixar is one of those." "Pixar is the only place in the world that can hire the best from both of these areas." "We worked for ten years to figure out a way to have them all work together. The Hollywood culture and the Silicon Valley culture are really different." On the hierarchy of power: "When you've got incredibly talented people that are rare and in-demand, if you don't treat them right, they can go get another job in 10 minutes." "So this strange thing happens. The hierarchy of power inverts." "The CEO is actually at the bottom." "I feel like I work for most of these people because they're the ones doing all the brilliant work." "It's management's job to support them because they're on the front lines doing the work." On contracts vs stock options: "Hollywood uses the stick, which is the contract. Silicon Valley uses the carrot, which is the stock option." "When you sign a contract with somebody, you can say, 'I don't have to worry about that person for five years.'" "If you're sophisticated, you'll have a little database that tickles you six months before their contract is up so you can start paying more attention to them." "They're the most important person in the world for six months. Then after they sign up again, you put them in the drawer." Pixar chose stock options. "Every single day, we worry about how to make Pixar a better company so that nobody will ever want to leave." "We don't take anybody for granted." On what Disney taught them: "When you make a live-action film, a director shoots ten to twenty-five times as much footage as will end up on the screen." "Walt Disney realized many decades ago that animation was so expensive that you couldn't afford to animate ten times more than what you need." "The only conclusion: you have to edit your film before you make it." "Working with Disney gave us access to that wisdom. You can't buy it for love or money." On the constant: "Ten years ago, when we made Luxo Jr., it took about three hours to render each frame." "Toy Story. Computers are hundreds of times faster. It still took three hours to render each frame." "The frames were a hundred times more complex." "Our ambitions, visually, are growing as fast as the technology can feed them." On story vs technology: "The art of storytelling is very old." "No amount of technology can turn a bad story into a good story." "That's our mantra at Pixar. It's the story, stupid." "I don't think storytelling has changed in a long time. And I'm not sure it will. I don't think it's something that technology has anything to do with."

Jaynit

95,800 次观看 • 3 个月前

Andrew Kang says Peter Thiel and Chamath might have made more money if they had just held their Facebook stock “If you look at some of the best-known investors, like Peter Thiel or Chamath, they sold all their Facebook stock at the IPO. They’ve made a lot of great investments, but they might have outperformed if they had just held their Facebook stock instead of doing 100 other things.” “Humans have the itch to find the next best thing and to take profit when something goes up a lot. But we underappreciate the fact that the universe is almost infinite, and so is the TAM for some of these really great companies.” “It’s the longer-term stuff that outperforms. Probably 90% of people would tell you they wish they had just held Bitcoin from 2019 or 2020 and done nothing else. Or just held Apple, Google, Nvidia, or Amazon.”
1:25

Andrew Kang says Peter Thiel and Chamath might have made more money if they had just held their Facebook stock “If you look at some of the best-known investors, like Peter Thiel or Chamath, they sold all their Facebook stock at the IPO. They’ve made a lot of great investments, but they might have outperformed if they had just held their Facebook stock instead of doing 100 other things.” “Humans have the itch to find the next best thing and to take profit when something goes up a lot. But we underappreciate the fact that the universe is almost infinite, and so is the TAM for some of these really great companies.” “It’s the longer-term stuff that outperforms. Probably 90% of people would tell you they wish they had just held Bitcoin from 2019 or 2020 and done nothing else. Or just held Apple, Google, Nvidia, or Amazon.”

Mikli

131,643 次观看 • 1 个月前

2025 just stated and Nancy Pelosi has already pocketed $8 million dollars from her Apple stock, she sold RIGHT BEFORE the stock dropped 13% (HOW DOES SHE KNOW?!) - Nancy Pelosi purchased up to a million dollars worth of call options for a company called Vistra Corporation. And of course, their stock is already up 30.5% in the last two weeks - She bought up to a hundred thousand dollars of call options. In this healthcare AI company Tempus. Since purchasing the stock has of course shot up in value “Everyone's favorite stock trader, Nancy Pelosi”
1:21

2025 just stated and Nancy Pelosi has already pocketed $8 million dollars from her Apple stock, she sold RIGHT BEFORE the stock dropped 13% (HOW DOES SHE KNOW?!) - Nancy Pelosi purchased up to a million dollars worth of call options for a company called Vistra Corporation. And of course, their stock is already up 30.5% in the last two weeks - She bought up to a hundred thousand dollars of call options. In this healthcare AI company Tempus. Since purchasing the stock has of course shot up in value “Everyone's favorite stock trader, Nancy Pelosi”

Wall Street Apes

297,610 次观看 • 1 年前

Thoughts on $CPRT valuation and buybacks "Right now, it's at one of its cheapest valuations it's been at in decades. So, they have some four-ish billions of dollars of cash on the balance sheet, so you back that out and the interest expense associated with that, and it's trading around 16 to 17 times earnings. So one of the cheapest valuations they've had. They've also been extremely selective when they've bought back stock. So they do not regularly buy back stock, but when they do, they make it meaningful, and they're very selective on the valuation, and last quarter was the first time they really bought back a meaningful slug of stock. They bought back $1.4 billion. As I mentioned, they still have another four-ish billions of dollars in cash on their balance sheet, so I would expect them to extinguish a good amount of that cash. Even if they do have to invest more in operations and all that, they should still have plenty of ability to do both. And so that's pretty interesting in terms of a signal because, again, this is not a company that regularly buys back stock. In fact, the last time they really were buyers of their stock was in 2019, but they haven't bought back a big amount of stock since 2011. So it's been that long since they've really taken a good slug of their common shares and retired that. So, that to me is a signal, and take that for what it's worth."
1:58

Thoughts on $CPRT valuation and buybacks "Right now, it's at one of its cheapest valuations it's been at in decades. So, they have some four-ish billions of dollars of cash on the balance sheet, so you back that out and the interest expense associated with that, and it's trading around 16 to 17 times earnings. So one of the cheapest valuations they've had. They've also been extremely selective when they've bought back stock. So they do not regularly buy back stock, but when they do, they make it meaningful, and they're very selective on the valuation, and last quarter was the first time they really bought back a meaningful slug of stock. They bought back $1.4 billion. As I mentioned, they still have another four-ish billions of dollars in cash on their balance sheet, so I would expect them to extinguish a good amount of that cash. Even if they do have to invest more in operations and all that, they should still have plenty of ability to do both. And so that's pretty interesting in terms of a signal because, again, this is not a company that regularly buys back stock. In fact, the last time they really were buyers of their stock was in 2019, but they haven't bought back a big amount of stock since 2011. So it's been that long since they've really taken a good slug of their common shares and retired that. So, that to me is a signal, and take that for what it's worth."

Drew Cohen

18,272 次观看 • 25 天前