Exactly. Worst article ever. The writer is either very silly or completely disingenuous.
If a writer had to caveat every statement to be 100% accurate, they'd never get finished or if they did it would be so boring no one would read it. I want to caveat this with - some articles would get finished and some tiny percentage of them would actually get read. If you are still reading at this point, I guess I'm thankful for the caveat because it's now proven to be true. Let me caveat - "proven" is used in a non-scientific manner here because the above isn't strictly a proof. It's just a common sense usage of the word. Let me caveat "common": I'm speculating that it's common sense because it seems sensible to me and I feel like a common person.
Even further - Lehman had a giant book of derivatives. The counterparts to all those trades woke up to a nightmare - you don't even know what your own book looks like if you don't know what % of your positions with a given counterparty are still valid. Imagine the panic.
Going back to 05-07 people were bidding up houses in anticipation of them going up in value + there was high supply. People right now are bidding up houses to live in, because there aren't many and interest rates are very low, and they have money in the bank because they weren't spending much the past couple of years.
Sorry to single you out, but the stock market usually trades in anticipation of recessions. It's not a proxy for the current GDP, it's an expectations market. The stock market could start a slow rise tomorrow and go until the end of the year and the entire year could be in a recession.
Prices is the answer. That's why you are failing to grasp the situation. If you can buy a house for 100 in boom times but 50 in panic times, it's often better to get it for 50.
Same asset, lower price = less risk. The only thing which is up for debate during a panic is "is it the same asset now? How similar?"
You are doing it wrong. Read the docs. They are good docs. Sheesh. Going on a public forum and suggesting Stripe is at fault is extremely bad form. You should be ashamed.
He didn't publish a science paper. It's a specific claim and you can easily call Adyen customers and find out if it's true. It's not an outrageous claim and he goes on to acknowledge said competitors strength in another area. FWIW, if you've spent time in payments you will know his claim isn't bogus. It might be pretty close these days, but it's far from a bogus claim.
This is wrong. Just spend some time in finance, then spend some time in a field which is closer to a hard science and you'll realize it. As an example, most theories in physics are pretty darn good - ie you can use them to predict the outcome of something. Most theories in finance and economics are pretty darn bad - ie you can't use them to do anything useful.
Employees are paid stock. It's hard for prospective/current employees to take the valuation seriously without some external validation. This is a problem for both employees and employer. The investors (SL and AH) are seen to be savvy. This round solves a specific problem for the company.
It's difficult to know for sure where to store data in a GDPR world. People move. People have multiple citizenships. People open accounts in countries where they aren't citizens. People give up citizenships. People share documents with other people. People ingest data from one product to another. People comment on documents. It's really, really hard to get all of this down. It's not even clear legally what to do in various scenarios and it's impossible to enumerate them all. It's difficult.
Yes, I'm saying they are doing it accidentally, and that the specifics of the scenario will undoubtably be more complex than it seems on the surface.Every company is breaking some law somewhere. The legal environment is extremely complex. Google products are extremely complex. It's not some awful thing when they make an understandable, minor mistake.
If a writer had to caveat every statement to be 100% accurate, they'd never get finished or if they did it would be so boring no one would read it. I want to caveat this with - some articles would get finished and some tiny percentage of them would actually get read. If you are still reading at this point, I guess I'm thankful for the caveat because it's now proven to be true. Let me caveat - "proven" is used in a non-scientific manner here because the above isn't strictly a proof. It's just a common sense usage of the word. Let me caveat "common": I'm speculating that it's common sense because it seems sensible to me and I feel like a common person.