Up north in Canada instead of having a single SEC each province has its own securities regulation.
Which let's the Texas of Canada, Alberta, run it's own stock exchange with much looser listing requirements and security requirements. This Texas exchange will not have that advantage.
The important aspect for Alberta within the context of Canada. Is how the local regulation allows the Alberta exchange to list and provide capital to junior drillers. Small companies which raise capital using ipos to use in speculative drilling. Alberta sees this as important for their economy. To the extent it prevents Canada from having a nation SEC like singular security regulator.
With that in mind, I question how a Texas based exchange will be more than a market for lemons. Companies too sketchy for the big exchanges might be interested in listing, but no one worth investing. This contrasts with Alberta where the difference in regulation allows a unique group of companies to list.
Instead we'd expect an exchange who's selling point is less regulation, to be filled with companies who cannot pass the higher bar. A self selection of the worst companies.
> Which let's the Texas of Canada, Alberta, run it's own stock exchange with much looser listing requirements and security requirements. This Texas exchange will not have that advantage.
One point of note, there hasn't been an Alberta stock exchange since 1999. The Toronto stock exchange bought the Vancouver, Alberta and small cap option market form Montreal and merged them into one stock exchange called the Toronto Venture stock exchange.
Its head quarters are in Calgary but its computer are located in Ontario and its under IIROC supervision and rules. And the BC and Alberta government co regulate it but their securities commission rules aren't what's followed, its the IIROC rules that apply.
The Canadian Venture Exchange was absolute anarchy, and that was compared to the already lax Toronto exchange that had been chock full of sketchy mining stocks, the poster child of which was Bre-X.
Elon has demonstrated that you can get high, make a stupid multi-billion dollar company acquisition, and just sack another public company that you control to make yourself whole.
When the “overbearing regulatory regime” represents said company shareholders interests, you move to Texas where the MAGA vision of freedom reigns.
This is a pretty absurd idea. The Tesla Model S, the Nissan Leaf, and the Renault Z-E platform (initially with a pretty unsuccessful car built on it; the successful Renault Zoe came the year after) all came out within a year of each other. The VW e-Golf came out the year after. You can thank progress in lithium ion batteries hitting a tipping point, not Musk, coupled with government incentives (California, the EU, and China were all pretty much saying to manufacturers "make this, and we will subsidise it").
I can see why people might think this, particularly Americans, because the Tesla Model 3 was arguably the first mainstream/affordable electric car _in America_ (the Leaf and similar vehicles never really caught on there; they're too far outside market preferences), but the idea that Tesla in some way made electric cars possible is simply nonsense.
> Without Musk EVs would be nowhere and NASA and ESA would still be the laggard they are with reusable launchers absolutely nowhere to be found.
There is no way to prove this without having the ability to observe all the other universes that have Musk and that don't have Musk. It's very likely if he didn't build these companies, someone else, or multiple someones, would have built similar companies.
1) He’s an individual yet his wealth surpasses the GDP of entire nations.
2) The market caps of his companies that informs that wealth are wildly and recklessly speculative. The company that innovated in its space is worth 1/3 of the company that has consistently oversold or completely failed to make good on promises(which frankly they all do regardless of their innovative effect).
3) And still, he’s currently holding one of his companies for ransom for even more.
> He built companies that provide breakthrough goods and services.
I must have misunderstood why his companies hired all of those employees.
Were they all just there cheering him on as he built it all himself?
Absent Musk, someone else would have worked out how to arbitrage government subsidies on efficient cars, household solar and space flight. That's how capitalism works: if there's free money floating about, someone will figure out how to take it.
There were - and are - a lot of companies vying for those sweet subsidies. And most of them can't make it work even with subsidies. Maybe Toyota with their prius is getting anywhere, the rest are mostly a footnote. And yet, Musk comes and makes a successful business there. I think there's something more than subsidies in play. Sure, subsidies help, but a lot of people failed where Musk succeeded.
I respected the guy on his merits until he fabricated the Saudi investor nonsense to take Tesla private at $420 a share. When that happened, I sold my last few Tesla shares that came from the SolarCity acquisition. It's been a word vomit rollercoaster since then.
He feeds off negative attention and actively seeks it out.
You are implying that the company that seeks less regulation necessarily does it because it's of lesser quality and this is the reason they can not abide by stricter regulations. I don't think this assumption is true.
> With that in mind, I question how a Texas based exchange will be more than a market for lemons. Companies too sketchy for the big exchanges might be interested in listing, but no one worth investing.
This is exactly how it will end up being used for. Companies that are listed as OTC (over the counter) or “pink sheets” are most certainly dog shit; and often subjected to pump and dump schemes. The TXSE will be no different especially with reported “fewer regulations” than NASDAQ or NYSE.
This is great news for grifters. The average retail investor will likely end up getting shafted.
Yep. Let's say you're a reputable business with solid earnings and market cap, and a track record of following the rules and being able to meet listing standards. Which exchange(s) are you going to consider? The well-known, venerable NYSE or NASDAQ, or the Texas Freewheelin' Discount Bargain Barbecue Exchange?
Now, if you're a less than reputable business, with questionable earnings and a disregard for following the rules, and you are ineligible to be listed on the NYSE or NASDAQ, which exchange are you going to consider?
BSE, CHX, MS4X, NSX, PHLX and more? NYSE & NASDAQ aren't the only players in the US equities exchange market. NYSE & NASDAQ are merely the 2 largest players in a very large field. And that's _just_ equities. Get into commodities or options and other derivatives and there's even more.
Also, not being listed on NYSE or NASDAQ doesn't mean you're any less of a reputable company. There's some real shit listed on both.
Texas has the headquarters of many companies, but how many are actually incorporated in Texas? What would the advantages be to a Texas exchange over NYSE or NASDAQ?
I understand the desire for a different marketplace. But no matter where it is, they’ll still have to follow Federal securities laws, which will require some level of red tape.
Many of those companies are national or multi-national companies. For example, Exxon has its headquarters outside of Houston, but is actually incorporated in New Jersey (According to Wikipedia). So, for them, what would the benefit be?
This is probably just a preemptive move in case of a New York state financial transaction tax and has less to do with any other political issues. This isn't "Texas" setting up their exchange, it's Blackrock and Citadel. The CME had this issue with Chicago/Illinois politicians demanding a financial transaction tax so they are did things to be set up to leave immediately if it passed.
==The CME had this issue with Chicago/Illinois politicians demanding a financial transaction tax so they are did things to be set up to leave immediately if it passed.==
Has a bill ever even existed to pass in Illinois? This idea seems to be brought up more as a scare tactic from the trading and business community than as a revenue generator from actual politicians.
Chicago has always been fought over between speculative interests who want parts of the city to remain poor for cheap development, and more “citizen focused” groups that want the resource to be taxed for the betterment of all.
Most of Ken Griffin’s work has been buying his family name on things and repeating anxieties about crime and (lack of) policing without actually providing solutions or even calling out root causes. But again, he’s not really a citizen of Chicago, nor the US. People at his level of control (his admitted price fixing, or moving trades to dark pools) have inherited and expanded on wealth to the point where they don’t need friends or social programs or infrastructure to live out 90 years on the planet.
That was my assumption too, but it's not across the board. For example, AT&T, Inc (HQ in Dallas) is a Delaware Corp. But, I expect that any of these companies that have many years of history will have complex organizational structures. As such, I'm not sure what benefit a brand new exchange would have for them.
If I were TXSE, what I'd be arguing is that the new market would have a benefit for new companies. Can you list faster with fewer requirements? Will there be capital available on the market? Can an IPO on their market be a replacement for later stage VC?
"Diverse board" is a euphemism for discriminating against those that are not defined as "diverse".
It puts people in positions of authority based on their ethnicity, biological sex, and sexual orientation and therefore discriminates against others based on their ethnicity, biological sex, and sexual orientation.
But regardless of which state has the most at any given moment, even if 100% of Texas F500 companies decided to abandon their existing exchange and investor base for a more relaxed regulatory environment, that's...49 companies.
edit: another commenter points out that California reclaimed the throne in the 2024 list, released just yesterday.
As far as I can tell, there's some amount of movement to Texas for lower corporate taxes (especially companies led by executives like Musk or Ellison who prefer Texas's politics).
I would be surprised if any major companies delist from NYSE / NASDAQ in order to go all-in on a new exchange, although I could see, say, Tesla considering it if it was a condition for an attractive ticker symbol like T (NYSE symbol for AT&T, which is also headquartered in Texas).
That's not how things work. Shares can be freely traded on any of these exchanges at any time.
its where you list that we are discussing here.
Listing on an exchange is all about what reporting requirements you are required to make inorder to be a publicly listed company and what share requirement you are required to maintain to list.
ie
- share price above a certain threshold,
- report your financials quarterly, etc.
- often a minimum trading volume
- certain requirements about the viability of the company, ie not bankrupt, etc.
Foreign companies will often dual list in the US to get access to US liquidity as well as list on their own home exchanges.
But once you are listed in the US there is no benefit to list on multiple exchanges as all you do is make your reporting requirements go up. Your shares can be traded on any US exchange once you are listed on any of htem.
What if a company wants a new class of stock - would they always list on the same exchange? I'm not sure what the rules are around this, but I know it is sometimes done.
Notably, the 2024 list was released just yesterday, so I wouldn't fault anyone for not having seen that yet. Texas was in the lead for a couple of years, but honestly it's so close that I don't think it's interesting to assert that "X state has the most big companies according to some magazine's list!". CA, NY, and TX are all huge states with long-standing business investment. That's not changing any time soon.
I get it, but the fact is…California is currently #1.
As an aside, I do find it still impressive given the number of high profile companies that relocated, and the fact that there’s a constant news doom agenda against California.
All this to say, it’s a healthy reminder of just how much California matters to the US and global economy
This doesn't really matter on which world-wide stock exchange companies end up listing. There are many companies which list on the NASDAQ rather than in their home exchanges, or on a more theme appropriate exchange rather than one closer to their actual area of operations (I'm thinking mineral exploration companies on the ASX).
Daikin has a range which pulls air from the outside. I'm using it in the room I am in now. Here in Sendai the nights are cold enough that my house is coasting still. Thus the mini split is acting only as a fan and pulling in fresh air. This house is old, 30+ years, so it's nice as a retrofit to improve air quality.
Opening a window would be an obvious alternative but then sound would mix.
The true benefit of mini splits is the hyper competitive market. There is a mini split for all desires and the prices to install are reasonable here in Japan.
Unreal's highlevel of packaing and managing assets for years meant modding was locked off. Unity games often shipped on PC with loose files and hacking C# broke after each update but at least was an option.
Over time the modding community has leverage this high level by building unreal native tools. The net result has been the same sort of cross tool use we saw with Gamebryo. Back with Gamebryo the Civilization modding shared tools with sid meier's railroads and even early skyrim and fallout modding.
Now the Unreal tools mean mods can be done in blueprint and should not break after every update like C# based mods. Likewise the common pak format used by unreal games (common because consoles prefer the pak for faster loading), means mods can replace files without overwriting files. Aka, mod conflicts become a reference overwrite issue and not a file overwrite issue.
As a developer of an unreal based game its pretty nice to know modding is no longer locked out. You still need/should provide the community with a modkit, but even those the community can generate on their own if they care.
Much of the world by population and gdp is a ship ride away from their major energy suppliers. Japan imports about half their LNG from Australia. Next largest is Qatar.
There are no power lines between Australia and Japan.
Right, but why rely on LNG when Nuclear sources could provide so much more energy and geo-political stability, and promising investment in other avenues (eg Thorium based) could make it even moreso?
A quick google suggests both possibilities that solar and nuclear are each cheaper depending on how big of a picture you're looking. (Capital, construction, storage for solar cause nuclear can run at night, storage for 25000 years for the waste etc).
Still, if moving a lot of (potential) heat energy from point to point is the goal, Uranium still seems to be the move compared to so many tankers of LNG -- just to burn it. Nuclear plants put off a ton of waste heat energy, and it can be at a very high temperature too (if designed and desired).
You're confused, negative prices are not driven by techincal limitations. Solar, and especially hydro, and even nuclear can shut down just fine.
Solar and Wind instead drive prices negative because they have subsidized contracts. Each country is slightly different in implementation, between Feed-in-Tarif vs Feed-in-Premium. In either method there will exist prices which are negative to the market but positive to the producer.
Thus if you cannot plan long term to rely on negative prices. Those FIT schemes around the world are transforming into FIP, and the FIP premiums are getting lower and lower. Negative pricing in electricity markets will go away in a decade or two. This isn't magic or even special, solar is succeeding which means the subsidies are getting weakened.
Curtailing solar production is not a big deal. How many existing plants have grid operator directed shutoffs depends on your market. In Japan as of 2024 all new non-rooftop solar has it. Prior to 2020ish only Kyushu and Kansai regions required it. Now Tepco, Hokkaido, and Touhoku require it for new contracts. There are still a couple old contracted plants getting developed this year, but those are rarities.
And that's only Japan, which itself does not have a super strong duck curve yet: http://jepx.org/ Regions like California have had extreme duck curves for ages. While duck curves are a big worry for internet commentors, they've been points of discussion for grid operators are a lot longer. Hence the move to Feed in Premiums which will slowly make the duck curve a solar operator's problem and not a tragedy of the commons situation.
> In either method there will exist prices which are negative to the market but positive to the producer.
I'm talking about running air conditioners extra hard during low market prices (which includes free and/or negative priced periods of energy), and then storing that cooling power in single-digit cubic meters of water.
Negative market prices of electricity absolutely applies to this case.
That is super true, and not super common knowledge in Japan. The gasoline subsidy was aging out late last year and news started covering the mysterious persistent increase in gasoline prices.
You'd think kishida-san would want more credit for his vote buying haha.
Did you move here three years ago? 2020-2021 was the heart of COVID deflation. I remember paying 110yen per litre for gasoline at Costco. Nic Hotels were 1万 a night for our family of three.
Any anchoring off late 2020 is super misleading. Milk at 130yen is not a reasonable price before COVID. Wheat to consumers at gyomu super or Costco has not moved in price, which is reasonable consider it has always cost several multiples over wholesale.
Worst has perhaps been sushi. The selection of 110yen sushi had gotten slightly smaller.
Overall, Japan has a lot less inflation than you'd expect considering the exchange rate.
Indeed, it also normalized walking out of a store bagless while holding your purchase. I like it. I don't like when I ask for no bag, and the combini charges for one anyway.
With that said, Japan never had a litter problem. Likewise our garbage system is highly developed with waste to energy using high temp incinerators. The ban-charge-requirement never could have had an environmental aspect. But if it can reduce oil imports, that's worth doing.
I've personally got more attached to receipts here in Japan since I refuse to pay for any plastic bags (I carry an eco bag in my backpack for big stuff). I just put my purchase in my backpack with a receipt just in case.
I don't know if it helps much because everything in Japan is wrapped in plastic it seems.
As of this year, and limited to three models exclusive to Japan: yes this happens.
The new 2023 model year Serena from Nissan uses a generator optimized engine in a series hybrid setup. The engine runs at a fixed rpm (except in extreme situations like accelerating a bunch on the highway going from 110 to 140) then it switches to a second higher rpm mode. I bought one, it's a lot of fun to manage the engines heat and battery room. My record is 38km per liter using local driving up and down our hilly community. Pretty incredible when you consider hills are the natural enemy to none hybrid millage.
The car accelerates like an EV. And with Japan's expensive electricity I'm paying only about double the millage cost of an EV. Despite the full size minivan costing us about 20k USD new.
Most hybrids, and all Toyota ones, are not using a special fixed rpm engines. They use a regular motor with different timings. The Nissan fixed rpm engine is actually less powerful than the electric motor powering the wheels. Thus at max acceleration you can deplete the battery faster than it is charged.
If we are just using it as a generator, a turbine engine makes more sense. Very efficient at fixed rpm. Many trains use that sort of hybrid setup. But if you put in enough battery to warm up a small proane fuel cell to warm up a larger propane fuel cell you could just fill up at the propane pump and still get battery efficiencies but with a lightening tank. And they think they have propane generation from environmental co2 over 90% efficient now too.
Turbine in a car is completely impractical. Some tanks, like M1 Abrams use a turbine and they are painfully loud and the exhaust is so hot it can literally set on fire anything too close to it. Imagine sitting in a traffic jam and lighting up a car behind you :)
Which let's the Texas of Canada, Alberta, run it's own stock exchange with much looser listing requirements and security requirements. This Texas exchange will not have that advantage.
The important aspect for Alberta within the context of Canada. Is how the local regulation allows the Alberta exchange to list and provide capital to junior drillers. Small companies which raise capital using ipos to use in speculative drilling. Alberta sees this as important for their economy. To the extent it prevents Canada from having a nation SEC like singular security regulator.
With that in mind, I question how a Texas based exchange will be more than a market for lemons. Companies too sketchy for the big exchanges might be interested in listing, but no one worth investing. This contrasts with Alberta where the difference in regulation allows a unique group of companies to list.
Instead we'd expect an exchange who's selling point is less regulation, to be filled with companies who cannot pass the higher bar. A self selection of the worst companies.