The problem is compounded by the fact that students do not get to choose who their loan servicer is and thus a few servicers like Navient have a government approved monopoly on that business. Can look up many reports on their incompetence and misleading information that funnels students into repayment plans that maximize their own revenue.
Mine ended up getting shuffled around until it became Mohela. Once there it's stayed there.
Wikipedia: "The Higher Education Loan Authority of the State of Missouri, aka the Missouri Higher Education Loan Authority or MOHELA, is one of the largest holders and servicers of student loans nationwide."
Highly doubt it. All the employees who came forward were jr customer service agents. Would anyone actually believe that board members would even know who they were, track them individually down and know why they left the company?
Lululemon, Nike, and Away all sell aspiration, hope, and a lifestyle, which get them to valuations higher than shoe, yoga pants, and luggage companies do. There are of course variations on design and differentiation in technology in each of those, but the value is in the brand.
A lot of people travel and need luggage as well. I’m not suggesting Away would ever be worth anything close to Nike but is it realistic to think it could be worth several billion? Sure.
do you not think the reporter put that in the story to induce you as the reader to have this very reaction?
i think her actions were wrong, but i also think this setup at the beginning of the story has nothing to do with the actual issue at all and was meant to turn readers on the CEO from the get go before you had even read anything about what she had actually done.
The reality is that many successful high profile founders, including Gates/Zuckerberg/Spiegel came from wealthy backgrounds. It speaks more to the power of a strong social safety net when it comes to entrepreneurship than anything else, but shouldn’t by itself make you hate someone.
Given all the other reprehensible stuff in the article, the bit about her background seemed like an unnecessary potshot. The very next sentence is "But for all of her privilege, no one denied the executive’s fanatical work ethic." But, it's split from the paragraph about her upbringing and it looks like some readers didn't make it that far.
I don’t really understand why people say a tax on owned capital is so far fetched when we are all okay with property taxes which is literally a wealth tax on a subset of owned capital. The only difference is that property taxes are regressive and not progressive
Why not? Billions in assets. Automated investment and market prediction projects. Extremely well built Web UI- you can tell they're hiring industry UI/UX people by the interface they are beta-ing- upgrade in functionality but major downgrade in usability.
A middle of the road developer can make all of those things. You don’t need a 10x ninja in SF who demands 500k/year to do that. Highly doubt Schwab has really been competing on salary in SF for tech roles as is.
They're working on a new research UI. So you plugin a symbol like SPY and you get a bunch of information on the stock. There is a banner for a beta redesign
Oh, that. I've used it, and didn't find it very impressive, certainly not what I'd expect from top UI/UX talent. Schwab's site isn't terrible, just very old-fashioned (and a little buggy).
It’s pretty disappointing. Their share price has been completely flat since IPO. I’m surprised shareholders have not revolted against Jack being a part time CEO. Clearly there needs to be some dedicated focus to clean up the app. So much potential to be so much better.
> It’s pretty disappointing. Their share price has been completely flat since IPO. I’m surprised shareholders have not revolted against Jack being a part time CEO.
It's not disappointing, it's amazing that it's worth $24 billion now. A fair value is less than half that, and even at a 50% reduction that'd be at a obscenely generous 30-40 PE.
The premise of the outcome being disappointing supposes that there is anything that could have reasonably been done to meaningfully bolster the share price during that time. As opposed to Twitter in reality being a mature, slow growth, second tier social network (which is what it will always be no matter who is running it).
Dorsey has done a great job fixing the operational disaster that Twitter was previously. The reason the Twitter stock has been flat since the IPO, is because it was comically overvalued at the IPO, not primarily because it has been operated poorly since then. Based on its operating results contrasted with now, Twitter should have been worth a minimum of 3/4 less at its IPO than it was (probably more reasonably it should have been worth ~90% less at IPO, and worth a minimum of 50% less right now).
2015 | revenue $2.2b | op expenses $1.9b | op income -$450m
2018 | revenue $3b | op expenses $1.6b | op income $453m
The disaster that Dorsey inherited, he fixed. Flipping operating income by a positive $900 million in three years. A spectacular outcome for a business doing $3b in sales.
Twitter is still an independent business today solely because of the operational improvements that Dorsey made to push Twitter into sound profitability. If not for that, Twitter would have already been forced into selling itself (which was a common discussion prior to the dramatic improvement in operational results).
Boost sales $800m and drop operating expenses by $300m. That's as good as it is going to get for Twitter as a business conceptually. There is no scenario where it's going to be the next giant social network or a juggernaut like Facebook, there is no high growth scenario waiting to be discovered. The very nature of Twitter guarantees that can never happen, it can't attract enough participants to that style of social broadcast & consumption.
Yeah. Maybe it's a failure of imagination on my part but it feels like Twitter pretty much is what Twitter is. It's a broadcast medium for people for whom that has value, which is very useful for some of us and not at all useful for many others. People understandably get up in arms when Twitter tries to make the timeline too heavily sponsored. There's no reason to believe subscriptions would work without tanking the user numbers.
Twitter has actually already made changes that make it more useful for its core audience. Increased character counts etc., for example, has allowed Twitter to essentially replace microblogging--or even short-form blogging generally.
Twitter, Facebook, and similar might be of interest because of power and knowledge. If you are already super rich then making another billion or two may be less important than say analytics of how some popular uprising goes.
My pet theory is that Imgur is actually what the NSA needs all that diskspace in Utah for. :o)
CEOs aren't that busy. That's what they hire people for. The most successful people aren't running around like maniacs all the time. They are organized, they delegate, and they focus. How much of your day is spent actually working? How much is spent on pointless meetings, status updates, and busywork? CEOs don't have to waste their time on other peoples' priorities. Board members work far, far less. To them, it's the CEOs that look like they're busy all the time.
It’s still possible to delegate a lot of the CEO day to day stuff and be available for all important directional and strategy stuff.
Co-CEOs is also a thing.
Having half a talented persons attention is better than zero. Whether they should still be the show piece CEO vs the background mastermind is up for debate though.
Not sure what you mean by “super placebo”? Doesn’t seem right at all. The reason why these drugs are more effective in combination with therapy is because they, speaking from personal experience, “unlock” your mind in a way that can be conducive to objective self-examination.
LAX international terminal tip: there’s a “secret” security check entrance on the baggage claim level meant for people who are connecting (and therefore needing to pick up bags) but they will let anyone use it. The regular security line can be huge and no TSA pre-check for most int’l flights.
> meant for people who are connecting (and therefore needing to pick up bags)
Why do airports in the US do this? At other airports in other countries your bag moves automatically onto the new flight. In the US I have to manually pick it up, almost leave the airport, and then go back in again to drop it off?!
So I don't know why but for some reason even if you're only changing flights in the US you need a full transit visa(if you're from a country that's not part of the visa waiver programme obvs). Was a big pain when travelling to Costa Rica from Europe, because 90% of flights there change in US, which means having to book a visit at the Embassy, pay $150 and pray the consul actually gives you a visa so you can spend 2 hours on US soil to change flights. In comparison when changing flights in Amsterdam you don't need a Schengen visa, the airport is designed to accommodate people changing flights without leaving the airport.
They mostly do in the USA. Two exceptions: from international to domestic or international transfer must go through customs first, so there is a bag recheck and a checkpoint after customs (but usually not in baggage claim). Otherwise, people might buy a connecting ticket who doesn’t have a baggage transfer agreement with their first airline.
France does it by deferring customs until your final destination (so you might do immigration in Paris but customs in Nice). I’ve never seen that in another country, however.
Not sure why you think this is specific to the US. Plenty of other countries require you to collect your luggage in order to clear customs when making an international to domestic transfer, for example: Japan and New Zealand.
Not every airport in the US has customs, if you arrive at an international airport you need to go through customs and then travel anywhere else.
The US has agreements with specific airports in some countries like Canada to allow them to skip that step by going through US customs in another country.
I know you need to go through customs. But why do I need to pick up my bag, leave the airport, and go back into the airport?
For example international transfers in a major airport like Frankfurt you do customs but you don’t see you bag and you don’t basically leave the airport.
In Newark you go all the way out to where people are being dropped off for departures at the curb!
It’s airport specific. Not every airport in the US operates this way. JFK may require a complete terminal change.
You do not have to do this at most US airports. New York City and Newark in particular is a special case of bullshit.. I avoid that place at almost all costs. There’s a reason those tickets are cheaper.
But it’s complete in other countries? I guess they pull you bag back out of the system if needed in other countries. Optimise for the common case if not needing to look in your bag.
key word being international I assume. Which country doesn't have you fetch your bags and go through customs on entering it? (purely transit between international flights excluded sometimes)
In some countries. It depends on the country. Personally I prefer having custody of my bag through customs.
Even in the US, most airports allow you to redeposit your bags without leaving the customs area.
You’re taking a few examples (try something other than Newark next time) and overgeneralizing.
Happens every time I fly from Europe to Newark, and then on to another US city. You go through customs, pick you bags up off one belt, walk a hundred meters, and put it on another belt. And in doing that you leave security so you have to do it all again!! Why not send bags automatically through?
Right, my point was that I would assume that the standard pre-check program would also work for international flights, even without Global Entry, but that Global Entry was a potential complicating factor in my experiences.
