This is a fair point, but more often than not people living paycheck to paycheck aren't as familiar with dollar cost averaging and are probably just buying in $20 amounts because that's how much cash they have at that time.
The OP also said it was based on 5+ years worth of data which probably means it is less about gas price fluctuations and more about buying habits.
It has a pretty graph at the top and the guy presumably really did crunch real data, so it gets upvoted. Also it's Brazilian, so it gives you a little taste of 21st-century BRIC economics. Hits a lot of buzzers.
One of the things I appreciate about Ryan and the information he shares is that he provides very detailed information and a lot of it. He leaves it to the reader to determine what parts are helpful, which varies by what stage each company is at to your point.
However, I'd rather have too much information and be able to determine what is helpful myself at that point in time than to have someone choose to provide less information.
I don't think it necessarily has to be evenly distributed. If you think about options people probably either A) Made a good amount of money or B) Made none at all. Most companies issuing options are likely venture backed and not going to settle for a marginal gain. Thoughts?
I think it is, based on the fact that (as I mentioned in the GP) wealth follows a powerlaw distribution. I don't see why options wouldn't follow this trend, particularly because market cap of companies in an economy also follows a powerlaw. These are the two factors involved in options.
Maybe there's some old school Microsoft types, etc., because other than that I'm skeptical that only 8 people have made 'tens of millions', but 35 have made 'hundreds of millions or more' (or that 35 have made that at all)...
It is fairly common for non-profits to own for profit subsidiaries which often become the main sources of revenue and sustainability for the non-profit.
Heard at an event last night that for one company, the legal cost to include UPS as a strategic investor actually exceeded the amount they invested but the company chose to do so in order to access UPS data.
There are also a lot fewer banking regulations which allow other companies to try new models with less risk of intervention. (e.g recent crowd funding/SEC issues)
You're correct about the book value and asset quality being an issue. I don't think a run on banks would be an issue if government orchestrated (especially if not during a crisis). More than likely it would be similar to how AT&T was done previously.
I have worked with a number of banks and credit unions. One of the biggest challenges on the regulatory side is that of unintended consequences. Lawmakers create a policy meaning to spare regional banks/credit unions, but ultimately they get carried along because their 3rd party providers have to comply (core processors, Visa, etc.), which pass along those costs/rules inevitably to the smaller organization.
Pros: Capital would be lent more efficiently as region's know their markets/customers better. Generally better service. Possibly fewer loan losses due to knowing the local market better.
Cons: The largest drawback is that of security, as many regional banks/credit unions are amazingly insecure. Cost to the consumer would probably go up slightly in the form of higher loan rates and lower savings rates, but it could easily be argued large banks aren't distributing these savings anyway.
The most amazing piece I've seen was when TARP money was given to the banking industry with the goal of it being lent to consumers and businesses. Instead the capital was used to fuel M&A within the banking industry which ultimately lead to fewer jobs.
In order to regain trust in banking, what is needed is a real change in culture, embedding integrity and eradicating the 'what can I get away with’ attitude. - Iain Coke, Head of Financial Services Faculty, Institute of Chartered Accountants (UK), September 2012. As quoted in http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/libor-scandal/9574676/Lib...
We need to rethink as a society what banks are for, what exchanges are for, and what clearing houses are for. If they are for the profit of the few at the expense of the many now, that is because it is the business model we have permitted. If banks, markets and clearing are protected because they have a social function, we should make certain that social function is adding value. If it isn't, then we need some new models and some new rules. - The London Banker, July 2012. http://londonbanker.blogspot.co.uk/2012/07/lies-damn-lies-an...
How much do you want to bet that someone manually goes through to scrub the personal information on every page...any other reasons the white out boxes would be so inconsistent?
This is correct. Redactions are typically handled manually. In the legal industry, for instance, this task is typically assigned to contract attorneys or paralegal staff.
There are of course auto-redacting solutions available, but due to the nature of the documents (scanned, inconsistent formats), and the potential consequences of either mis-applying a redaction or omitting one, manual verification is required.
The OP also said it was based on 5+ years worth of data which probably means it is less about gas price fluctuations and more about buying habits.