Very hesitant to write code for this, given the risks of handling customer payment info, security issues, etc. Would definitely much prefer some sort of off-the-shelf solution, and focus on the other elements of the product.
The second point is definitely a huge issue - I'm sure it's why we haven't seen much in this market.
It's interesting that they chose to focus on undergrad business students rather than MBAs. I would guess that undergrad biz majors are going to be more flexible about career options than MBA students.
Maybe I read this too quickly, but the vast majority of people you'd want to lend this kind of money to are either (a) not going to want to borrow money at 20% interest, or (b) have access to far lower interest sources of funding, even in the unsecured context. This idea doesn't make much sense to me.
The main reason for this major change is that even in the presence of information-sharing provisions of treaties, Switzerland refused to provide any information on most account holders that were evading US (or other countries') taxes, on the rationale that evading non-Swiss tax was not a criminal offense in Switzerland. Cooperation was virtually nil, especially in the tax arena.
Depending on the scope of the changes, this could be huge news.
...except provide companies with the equity financing they need to survive (especially in a frozen credit environment) for nothing more than a junior level claim on their residual earnings.
1) Qualified dividends are taxed at long-term capital gains rates. At the moment there is no differential.
2) There is no economic difference in retaining the earnings because although undistributed earnings defer shareholder-level tax, the income from those earnings will remain subject to current corporate-level tax and will still eventually be subject to shareholder-level tax. On a net present value basis, the result is the same. I agree it's counterintuitive.
I would also add that one of the worst aspects of this post is that it encourages people to bug/annoy other people to pay you for things in awkward contexts.
blah blah blah. this is barely a step up from the meta-blogging about blogging about blogging that gets posted every day. although very good writers, I'm getting sort of sick of the general platitudes coupled with anecdotes that I read from guys like pavlina, godin, et al.
Thoroughly enjoyed this post, especially since I remember a lot of these events as they happened. I was peripherally involved in the startup also for a good amount of time, and absolutely agree with everything he's said. I would also add that a big reason we had trouble getting off the ground was that Jon was really the only serious coder we had. The rest of us involved in the startup had skills in other areas (marketing, graphic design, etc), which although useful, were really NOT what the project needed at that point.
I would also say we probably fell in love a bit too much with our first idea, and probably held onto it too long.
Oh, and think (1) low cost, (2) sustainable, and (3) ability to monetize. We had #1 and #2 down pretty well, but had absolutely no real concept of how this thing could possibly make money. Most startups are NOT going to get taken over, so unless you are in it for non-$$$ reasons, it is probably a good idea to at least come up with some way you can profit if you manage to attract an audience but not a buyer.