I don’t quite get it

I mean Elizabeth Holmes and her antics.

A first year drop-out from Stanford who is told by her professor that her blood testing idea will simply not work, but carries on to charm investors into piling millions into a Silicon Valley start-up and nab the seat on a Harvard University board on the back of a fat cheque from one of Daddy’s friends, a pretty face, a faked-up oh-so-husky voice and doing everything to mimic a Steve Job persona. Thereby calmly creating a 6 billion dollar business and getting her cute visage on the front cover of Vogue Magazine.

All on the back of a well sold lie! Some achievement all said, no matter what you feel about the red lipstick.

But not the best advertisement for modern capitalism and the efficient market hypothesis what? That one got through the loophole some.

However, I suppose if you are able to get Henry Kissenger and Rupert Murdoch on board, anything is possible. Well maybe not Rupert because it was his paper, the Wall Street Journal, which eventually spilled the beans on the farce. And that must be applauded, if wondered at (I mean that Rupert allowed the article to be published)

And get this one, straight from a broker’s ‘research note’, discussing the major Chinese developer, Kaisa, where 98 buyers were not able to register for title of ownership as their properties had been used as a pledge to one of the company’s lenders:

‘we think this could affect image and future contract sales…’

No shit Sherlock!

But of course I’m a massive sceptic of all this big business financial show, as you know. A lot of it is way too cozy, slap on the back stuff for my liking and there is far too much money flying around for anyone’s good. Crazy money to be honest. Didn’t that Woodford bloke rake in £600k for doing nothing last year? while 300000 of his sorry investors sat worrying about how much of their money they might get back. Patient Capital Trust all right Woody? And don’t some ridiculously poor performing funds (mostly ’boutique’) still rake in 2 per cent of their value each year in fees?

Unfortunately yes. It would be a wonder to calculate, if you could, an index (the kilted caddie index of course) showing the value of all the investment houses as a percentage of all stocks (minus the financial investment ones) and get an idea of how much is being squeezed out in fees? For a lot of these investment houses in fact invest in each other and a lot are using fancy financial instruments, futures and options for example, to hedge etc.

And at the end of the day few of the ‘houses’, boutique or nay, beat the index. But the fees involved are stratospheric? Shocking. Jobs for the boys and fat cheques and fat cats. Adam Smith would be reeling. Well, unless he’d maybe picked up a few non-exec’s!

Cynic moi?

But heho, I’m well out of the stock market now. I’m heading out to (up to?) Silicon Valley as I’ve got a real tip-top idea up my sleeve. I’ve been meditating upon it for 7 hours a day, gone all vegan and minimalistic, invested in several black turtle necks, a Lower Moray Firth accent and plan to knock on the doors of a few top-notch celebs to get things rolling. That Meghan bird seems to have a bit of traction and that’s what I’m after. Traction.

Should be a bit of a breeze really.

Whose up for a wee punt? Or a wee surf maybe? hint hint, say no more (‘meditating upon’!).

Californian dreemin.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.