Wayfair lays off 13% of its workforce weeks after telling employees to work harder::Wayfair is laying off 1,650 employees, amounting to 13% of its global workforce, as the online home goods retailer struggled to rebound following its success amid pandemic lockdowns.
You do know a majority of investments are people’s retirement savings? Pension providers compete with each other to offer the best returns, moving to the shares that offer the best outlook for dividends and growth; we are the snake eating its own tail. If you want to one day save up for retirement, you are are a part of this.
I’d suggest you look into that a bit closer.
Some investments are pensions, but generally they are buying solely on metrics. It’s also worth noting they’re focused on the long term. Pension funds line bonds, indexes and long term stocks.
The money moving quickly and affecting value day to day, week to week, even quarter to quarter is the rich trying to extract a quick buck.
Pension funds are increasingly likely to be holding the bag on a company that the short termists have eviscerated these days.
If you really care about pensions you’d be in favour of massive market reforms to slow trading and promote companies long term health.
I think I understand it well enough already.
I AM in favour of massive market reforms that removes definitely HFT and probably a lot of day trading too. I don’t think it benefits anyone - I know some traders argue it prevents inefficiencies in the market but I am convinced it does more harm than good. Minimum holding periods are fine by me. But you and I both know that some pension funds hold Wayfare - and pension funds will eventually trade, maybe on lower frequency, and make choices based on companies’ performance. Of course Wayfare has to keep their margins in that game.
Wayfair has not been traded significantly by pension funds because it has not been a significant stock for long enough.
There may be some index linked investments which have pulled in Wayfair stock, but those will be treated as a whole and will be designed to be less risky.
It is a bad thing when stock value can be manipulated upwards by layoffs. It’s usually a sign the company is doing worse than they expected, their growth has reached a limit, so logically their long term forecasts should decrease.
But the market recognises their short term balance sheet has just seen an improvement and the short term money moves in. Ready for the ultimate buy out of a company that’s reached the peak of growth, so the main owners are ready to sell to a larger company.
Hopefully at an inflated market rate because short term decisions are being made to make the company look better to an algorithm.
Boy do I have news for you. Most retail investora want flashy charts, and they will pay higher fees to see them. They have no idea what they are charged or how it affects their returns.
What does that have to do with my argument?
And almost all of that private pension wealth is held by the richest 10%, barely any by the poorest 50%.
Stop mugging yourself off.
It’s sad that the poorer part of our population can’t save for retirement. I wish it was different.
But I think you’re implying that because wealthy people can save more, it’s ok if wealthy people lose their savings. If that is truly the case, I don’t think we will gain much from a debate on that topic - and I actually don’t think it changes my point above anyway.
I’m not 100% ok what you mean when you suggest I stop mugging myself off. Are you implying that I’m naive about who holds pensions? I’m not - it’s obviously the more well off that can afford to save more.
But I would caution a little bit against taking an absolutist view on this. Someone on minimum wage saving 10% of their income into a retirement fund will inevitably end up with a smaller position (in absolute terms) than someone on a six figure salary. In relative terms they might be in very similar positions though.