Twitter | Search | |
Daniel Cincunegui 🧢
While it is essential to design things right, first we must be sure we design the right thing.
8,098
Tweets
94
Following
163
Followers
Tweets
Daniel Cincunegui 🧢 1h
Replying to @KellyCameronLaw
Why? Just let it die. Turning around a culture like that is 100x harder, and costlier, than starting from scratch. Plenty of good renewable energy businesses.
Reply Retweet Like
Daniel Cincunegui 🧢 1h
Replying to @KellyCameronLaw
By definition, a stock sale of an exchange traded company is at market price, so no, they are not selling it for less than what it's worth. That's exactly what it's worth at the time of the sale, so no issues at all.
Reply Retweet Like
Daniel Cincunegui 🧢 2h
Replying to @KellyCameronLaw
Whether it's changed Exxon's behavior, probably not, but it has reduced the scale at which they behave. Capex spending was down about a third before COVID. This is true for the whole industry. Only part of this is divestment though. Part of it is simply low oil prices.
Reply Retweet Like
Daniel Cincunegui 🧢 2h
Replying to @KellyCameronLaw
It's impossible to establish that hedge funds, or any fund, is violating fiduciary responsibility for not investing in a given asset class and even less so if the asset class is losing value. If anything, it would be their fiduciary responsibility to avoid such an asset class.
Reply Retweet Like
Daniel Cincunegui 🧢 2h
Replying to @KellyCameronLaw
The divestment movement started roughly in 2013. The steep drop at the end is just COVID. What matters is the consistent erosion since 2014.
Reply Retweet Like
Daniel Cincunegui 🧢 2h
Replying to @KellyCameronLaw
It also reduces the ability of Exxon to buy other companies using stock.
Reply Retweet Like
Daniel Cincunegui 🧢 2h
Replying to @KellyCameronLaw
It makes the stock cheaper, so the market capitalization of the company is lower. It can thus issue less debt, so its ability to finance projects is lower. It also limits the ability of all fossil fuel companies to do new offerings, having the same effect, lower capital spending.
Reply Retweet Like
Daniel Cincunegui 🧢 21h
Replying to @mark_dow @TheStalwart
This may turn out to be foolish, or not, but IMO it's a big undercurrent.
Reply Retweet Like
Daniel Cincunegui 🧢 21h
Replying to @mark_dow @TheStalwart
In terms of why these stocks, I think there is a lot of uncertainty about the future. Looking from 2020, the perception is that Amazon and others like it will rule the world, while traditional "safe" stocks may just become roadkill for the tech death star.
Reply Retweet Like
Daniel Cincunegui 🧢 21h
Replying to @mark_dow @TheStalwart
Yes. There is only so much of this you should credit to valuation. Low, unattractive rates simply mean more capital is looking for a home. A wall of money swamps discount calculus, but you always need the Monday morning rationalization.
Reply Retweet Like
Daniel Cincunegui 🧢 Sep 20
What makes you think that I haven't? I've read it all, and I've read Yang's book as well.
Reply Retweet Like
Daniel Cincunegui 🧢 Sep 19
Replying to @karaswisher @Oracle
Oracle's first customer was the CIA. I'm pretty sure democracy was never the mission.
Reply Retweet Like
Daniel Cincunegui 🧢 retweeted
Vala Afshar Sep 18
The beauty of popping a water balloon over a rinsing plate
Reply Retweet Like
Daniel Cincunegui 🧢 Sep 19
Replying to @brahnema @seanmcarroll
The appointments have become politicized as a function of the political climate. Nothing would suggest that term limits would change that. Look, it's not the worst idea in the world, but the benefit/cost is zero or negative.
Reply Retweet Like
Daniel Cincunegui 🧢 Sep 19
Replying to @brahnema @seanmcarroll
So, let's go through the years of effort of a constitutional amendment, to achieve the same or slightly worse results?
Reply Retweet Like
Daniel Cincunegui 🧢 Sep 19
Replying to @brahnema @seanmcarroll
It would have been a larger majority, 6-3 several years. And even if it would have been the same, what's the point?
Reply Retweet Like
Daniel Cincunegui 🧢 Sep 19
Replying to @karaswisher
Needs to be Garland. Need to hammer, daily, the point that the GOP stole a seat, and thus deserve stacking the court if they steal another one. I would also rather Obama have free range for his political activities, something he would have to give up on the court.
Reply Retweet Like
Daniel Cincunegui 🧢 Sep 19
So will any other GOP minority leader. They are all the same except for perhaps two, Romney and Murkowski, neither of whom is ever going to be minority leader.
Reply Retweet Like
Daniel Cincunegui 🧢 Sep 19
Replying to @AndrewYang
Um, sure, but please do the MATH on your 18 year term idea. Had that been in place, we'd have had a non-stop conservative majority since the Reagan-Bush years.
Reply Retweet Like
Daniel Cincunegui 🧢 Sep 19
That has nothing to do with reality. Gray area problems aren't minor at all. Most of the Constitution was written over 200 years ago and there are two centuries of precedents. If it was a simple matter, it wouldn't be a whole field of study.
Reply Retweet Like