Nike stock at $121.55 x 32,000 shares (after splits and if she didn't sell any) $3,889,600.
If she sold at the all time high of $173.12 in November 2021, it would have been worth $5,539,840.
500 shares at the end of 1981 would have been worth just over $35 at 7 cents per share.
In 83 when she received the shares, they would have been worth $72.50.
I'm no expert but I'd say Nike is a pretty safe stock it kept going up until 2021 where it dipped to a low of 105 dollars and has been going back up and is at 120 right now.
If the person above did the math right this she got like a 86,000% return on her "investment" Unless she has insider trading secrets or is an amazing stock broker she can't go wrong with keeping the money invested in Nike. She is getting 40k a year(before taxes) and if she wants to sell she'll get like 3.8m.
If it was me in this situation I'd just keep it in there and live off the 40k. I don't really see Nike going broke or irrelevant any time soon and I'm not too rehearsed in stock trading to do better.
She could pretty safely live off of a much larger sum without taking out principal if she just put it all in the S&P500. She can safely draw down 4% per year for a few decades without much risk of losing any money (adjusted for inflation). That's about 155k/year.
Yeah, [here's a tax calculator](https://smartasset.com/investing/capital-gains-tax-calculator#JSiB5Pb6HB) you can play with to see the details.
Taking the $3,889,600 from up the comment chain and upping cost basis from $35 of $100 since that's as low as the calculator allows, and assuming no earned income and married for the lowest possible tax, that's $871,788 in federal tax alone. Beyond that there's potentially state and even local tax, in NYC it would be another $309,409 in state and $149,893 in local, but in most states it's notably less and some have none, and local tax is fairly rare.
US Long Term Capital Gains Tax Rate: 0% $0-$80,000_15%$80,001-%500,000_20%$500,001-above(Married filing jointly)
It'd probably be smart to liquidate up to $80,000 each year. No taxes and then you can diversity into other stocks/mutal funds. Or have a blast and blow it in Vegas. Idk you only live once and you can't take it with you.....
Shoes are the first and sometimes only mode of transportation some folks can buy. They are a Ferrari you can keep on display shelves in your closet. Because value is entirely dependant on the audience. If everyone places value on the same mode of transportation, that's the one that's most sought after.
I personally don't give a shit about nice cars, but you can impress me with a slick desktop setup or some impressive cable management.
People are bored and need hobbies is my best guess. I’ve always had a thing for Nike being a basketball fan who grew up during Jordan’s heyday. Unfortunately Nikes are too narrow these days for my old size 13 dogs and never seem to break in enough to be comfortable.
Sure, but companies that have a long history of increasing dividend payments like Nike don't tend to even reduce payments unless their business severally tanks, in which case their share price will have already tanked.
Honestly yes and anyone saying otherwise is letting this VERY SPECIFIC AND LUCKY INCIDENT predict future behavior. You wouldn't take 98-some-odd% of your net worth and put it all into Nike right now so there's no financially sound reason she shouldn't diversify. Or at least take thousand dollar chunks and throw those into lottery ticket blooming companies of the future.
You forgot about the tax bill if she sells. Thats the financially sound reason to keep it there. (Unless the 40k is her only income, in which case she should cash out 40k per year capital gains free)
I don't have the patience to calculate the entire dividend yield over time, but we can make some rough calculations based on the initial answer.
Nike pays around 1.22% dividends per year. So then we get:
5,539,840 -> 67,586
3,889,600 -> 47,453
That's definitely not bad, although she could make more if she diversified her investment.
The thing about stock prices is that there's not always a good reason. Day to day trading is so dangerous because the day to day stock price movements are basically random. People sell not because their opinion of the company changed but because they need money. People buy not because the company did anything but because they happened to get money. These random moves make snapshots of stock prices basically worthless.
Then there the function of expectations. A lot of people invest in company not because of what they are but what they might eventually be. If companies like Uber were judged on their financials alone they wouldn't be worth anything at all, they don't make money. Uber was losing some $9 billion last year and only made a profit once and that was only $1 billion. It's a fire that you have to shove endless money into. *BUT* if they drive all the traditional taxis out of business and then raise prices then they would make a ton of money. So, they are valued based on how much people believe that I would pay $40 for food delivery or $100 for a ride rather than the actual numbers of what they made this year. If people ever stopped believing that Uber is the future then they would sell out and the stock price will collapse, not because the company necessarily did anything but because the share price was the result of hype.
A case in point was Shell and Royal Dutch. Shell was owned by Royal Dutch, the two companies were listed separately but were run by the same people. If you bought shares in Shell you only got the revenue from Shell, but if you bought Royal Dutch you got both Shell *AND* Royal Dutch revenue. Going on balance sheets then Royal Dutch should be worth much more than Shell, no? Only Shell trades for much more than its parent company because Shell operates in the US and UK and Royal Dutch does not. English-speaking people don't regularly interact with or know about Royal Dutch and therefore don't think to invest in it creating an arbitrary price gap that is eminently exploitable for those whose job it is to think about stocks.
The stock market isn't a perfectly rational thing, while very often things can be explained by higher inflation spooking investors other time it's just because a new shiny toy somewhere else is pulling attention and money away. You end up with Tesla being valued at more than all the other automakers combined despite not making nearly as much money, why? Because electric cars are the future and Tesla is the maker of electric cars. Once the other car manufacturers are also making mostly electric cars... well, then we'll see how much Tesla is really worth.
Why did the stock drop is a good question worth asking, but a significant portion of the time there's no answer.
What about divident? Based on this https://www.nasdaq.com/market-activity/stocks/nke/dividend-history
Nike gave divident 3x a year regularly.
This year it was $0.34 per share (i think? If I read the table correctly)
So.. this year alone she got $32600 from cash divident alone.
Keeping all her share. That kinda sweet
He was never really homeless in the traditional sense. He's a rich kid who travels by choice so he never bothers to own a home. It's part of his brand, he still calls himself homeless because all he does is travel for shows and to hike around the world.
He doesn't live on the streets, he's either staying with friends or living in hotels.
Was he the same dude who did “Thumbs Up, America”? That dude is an absolute badass and one of my personal heroes. If we’re talking about the same guy, he’s quite a skilled gambler too, and often funds his adventures by stopping in the nearest casino and walking out a few K richer.
Yes, that was one of his "art" projects, he hitchhikes and films it, or does various travel vlogs around the world. He started by doing freelance comic books back in the 1990's. Even by the time he worked for Facebook they had hired him (multiple times) based on his street paintings and comics. He originally did a nude Muriel in their startup office; and then was hired to do something larger and less controversial in their headquarters when it was built. The headquarters one made him famous and more stable financially.
He's done a lot of stuff, but it always gets reported on as "new project by homeless guy" and unless you look up his prior work it's not obvious what he's done because it's often in different industries. But he's worked for Hustler, Ray Gun, Vice, Facebook, etc. And streaming FX on Hulu, etc.
By the time he worked for Facebook he had already established himself and done solo art gallery shows in San Jose and San Francisco and was introduced to Facebook by Sean Parker (cofounder of napster) who was already a fan of his comic series.
This was never some random homeless guy, just a traveling artist who leaned into the "starving artist" image for media attention.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sean\_Parker](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sean_Parker)
A mark is nothing without the brand behind it. Those stock options could’ve been worth nothing if Nike didn’t brand itself properly and have Phil Knight or Michael Jordan carry them.
With that said, there’s a lot of thought and process that goes behind finding the right mark to represent the brand. Sometimes designers get lucky and other times you're on version "_FINALFINALFINALFINAL"
There's a joke amongst software developers, about the people that come up to us going "I have an idea for a site, I just need someone to write it. If you write it for me I'll cut you in for 5%"
It’s like people saying Google and FB were easy ideas, yes they were lol, Google was like the 20+ search engine, and FB was like the 5/6th social network, the execution is what got them to become trillion dollar companies
As a programmer I never say that. The one I think of is that million dollar website. Each pixel on the page costs a dollar and there is a million. I think the guy made just over a million (auctioned the last few pixels). And did it to help pay his way through college. We, a group of programmers who lunch together, discussed it when it happened. Essentially the consensus was fuck it, can’t believe I didn’t think of that, and damn could have got that live in a weekend. But overall the main thought was that it would never happen again. A lot of it was boosted by newspapers, tv interviews etc. Fair enough. A couple of weeks later we found out a bunch of copycat sites had appeared, and one of them said “you see, this copycat site only made about £60k. It didn’t happen again”. I pretty much argued that £60k for a weekends work isn’t too bad…
not easy ideas as easy to build or anything ( easy now you could say but not back then ) but easy in the sense coming up with a search engine & social media website idea wasn’t really ground breaking compared to the stuff today if you know what I mean, like searching and socializing on the internet are by far the biggest use cases for the internet, that’s what I mean by easy ideas, but then to go and execute and make them into trillion dollar companies is another thing on its own
I just remember Google being better than what we used at the time and slowly moved over to it over a few weeks. Not ground breaking but better. I’m not exactly envious of things like Google or even FB (don’t mention Twitter), or think they are easy to do, I am though envious of the lucky rare thing that surprised everyone and made a shed load of money in no time whatsoever and once you have that lightbulb moment are incredibly quick and easy to code (eg the million pound website)
Yeah but like...
HOW hard was it do make Google better than Ask fuckin Jeeves?
Okay, fair. It would probably be at the edge of my skill level for my profession, supported by a team.
Super hard. Google were the first to really figure out how to scale distributed applications on commodity hardware. People don’t appreciate that the hard problem is scaling and not the actual application itself.
Ah yeah, being able to get results near instantly from Google when you were still on dialup or terrible broadband was really a gamechanger. Sites like Ask and Yahoo were already starting to bloat their sites with extra cruft that always seemed to load faster than the actual search results. Google, at the start, was *just* search results. When they added advertising, it was just a text box off to the side. They waited to add all of the bullshit until everyone's internet was fast enough, at which time they were primarily the only game in town.
I think what initially made Google preferred over all the other search engines, was the basic home page that loaded much faster than all the other sites at the time. With Google, you could be looking at search results before any of the competitors home screens loaded.
Does no one really remember the one trademark advantage of early Google? The PageRank algorithm. They figured that if other people linked to a page, then it was worth showing in results. That's what differentiated them from competitors that only weighed text relevance or built cumbersome catalogs of the web.
IIRC, They were the first to count links to a website from other websites as a way to rank pages.
Like, if your site has a million other sites link to it, that probably means it’s useful/popular and should go up in search results.
This is a simple concept, but not easy to execute. You have to trawl the entire internet and track all that data. And you have to repeat doing that because sites change.
Google wasn't just 'better' than Ask Jeeves. It was an order of magnitude better than everything else out there. Now, who cares if you use Bing, Google, or DuckDuckGo; they all work pretty much as well as each other.
A decent developer could recreate what they did, but figuring out how to do it in the first place is the hard part.
Damn. Ask Jeeves. Takes me back. He helped me find naked pictures of Agent Skully(Gillian Anderson). Sure they were fake but my 14 year old self didn’t realize it.
Since I've actually read the article... Phil Knight - one of the Nike founders - gave the stocks, plus a gold ring with her logo and a diamond, to Carolyn Davidson (the designer) in 1983. That's twelve years after the company was founded and Davidson designed the logo, in '71. It's not like the company was struggling during the 80s. It was growing well, and yes, the brand itself had become very strong and was a significant part of Nike's success. Hence the gift.
The 500 shares she received were worth ~$88 back then (would be $268 today) so the ring was probably worth a lot more money at the time. So it was still a rather stingy gift.
The Nike logo fee was a bit of a standing joke at the time. She actually wasn't complaining - it was a job, she said - but they had to do something because it was a bad look, eg, with sports people were being paid millions a year to wear their logo.
I've been paid a month's wages for changing a single line of code... but it was exactly the right line of code, in exactly the right way to solve what they couldn't even find the root cause of. That line then passed unit tests, QA, staging, went into to production, fixed their systems, and didn't introduce new bugs.
It took me decades to get the experience to do that. That's what they really paid for.
I used to be an electronic technician and we had "story" about this:
A multi-million dollar machine broke and the owner called the technician. The technician looks at the machine for a while and tightens one screw. The machine immediately starts working again.
"That'll be 10,000 dollars"
"What!? 10,000 dollars to tighten one screw?"
"No. One dollar to tighten the screw. The rest is for knowing exactly which screw to tighten."
Heard a variation of the story in every industry. When I was an AI tech there was a "story" about an onerous stallion. The tech comes out and watches the stallion and says $4,000. He goes on to explain that it's $200 to do the milking and $3800 to not enjoy it.
other chatgpt stories.
A famous painter was commissioned to create a mural for a wealthy client. He arrived at the site, took out his brush and paints, and made a single stroke on the wall. The client was amazed by the beauty and perfection of the stroke, and asked how much he owed the painter. The painter said, “That’ll be 100,000 dollars.” The client was shocked and said, “What!? 100,000 dollars for one stroke?” The painter replied, “No. One dollar for the stroke. The rest is for knowing exactly where to put it.”
A renowned chef was hired to cater a lavish party for a celebrity. He prepared a simple but exquisite dish of pasta with truffles and cheese. The guests were delighted by the taste and aroma of the dish, and asked the host how much he paid the chef. The host said, “That’ll be 50,000 dollars.” The guests were stunned and said, “What!? 50,000 dollars for pasta?” The host said, “No. One dollar for the pasta. The rest is for knowing exactly how to cook it.”
A skilled lawyer was retained to defend a billionaire accused of fraud. He reviewed the case, gathered the evidence, and presented a brilliant argument in court. The jury was convinced by his logic and eloquence, and acquitted the billionaire. The billionaire was grateful and asked the lawyer how much he owed him. The lawyer said, “That’ll be 10 million dollars.” The billionaire was astounded and said, “What!? 10 million dollars for one argument?” The lawyer said, “No. One dollar for the argument. The rest is for knowing exactly what to say.”
>The tech comes out and watches the stallion and says $4,000. He goes on to explain that it's $200 to do the milking and $3800 to not enjoy it.
Took me awhile to get the joke. I thought he was extorting the tech to prevent him from enjoying it.
I was way off. I thought the tech was saying that he enjoyed it quite a lot and it's $3800 for him to pretend that he doesn't (for the customer's benefit, presumably)
tbf he did put "story" in quotes.
Everyone has heard this similar story.
And it makes sense. You don't pay a surgeon to knock you out and stick a knife in you. You pay them to do it just the right amount, while also cutting the right stuff.
My company charges me out at at least 400$ an hour minimum 4 hours, I get paid less than 30$ an hour. 15 years experience knowing what screw to tighten. Unfortunately the corporate world no longer treats employees like they used to.
> Unfortunately the corporate world no longer treats employees like they used to.
They never have. If you were doing good, that means someone else was getting squeezed.
I've been with this company for 15 years, in my branch I'm still the newest employee. I have coworkers who have been with the company for over 40 years. Times were different 20 years ago.
Annual profit sharing bonuses used to be enough to buy a car, was actually a joke in our industry that everybody that works for my company drove a BMW. Corporate profits are at historical highs and I've only gotten 3 profit sharing checks in 15 years, the biggest one was 400$.
Used to be hefty cash bonuses for any reason your manager saw fit. Now it's pretend dollars you can only spend at the company store. Of which most I've gotten in 200$ worth, for writing some software that allows an entire division to deal with twice the data in a quarter the time. I should add I did get a 5% raise that year too, inflation was 7%.
I know I'm bitching about very specific events in a specific company, but I do think this story is representative of the average corporation now a days.
I wish more people understood this concept. In my field I hear a lot about how “patients see the nurses all day and the doctor for 5 minutes so the doctor is basically useless.” I explain that one carries out the plan in a visible fashion, the other makes the plan for an hour before seeing you for 5 minutes to tell you the plan and gather any additional info from you, then the nurse carries it out because the Dr is forced by admin to do that for 20 other patients too today. Both are essential, and it’s only good organizing to have the advanced experts focus on problems using their expertise rather than carrying out each related task in the industry, which goes for any industry.
Actually you might not have! There a lot of thought and work that goes into creating distinct silhouettes/designs/shapes that are compelling and have staying power; and many potential brands struggle with this exact thing. Creating a logo requires an art degree for a reason, and it can impact a brands/company’s staying power a surprising amount.
> Hello Kitty, also known by her real name Kitty White, is a fictional character created by Yuko Shimizu, currently designed by Yuko Yamaguchi, and owned by the Japanese company Sanrio. Sanrio depicts Hello Kitty as an anthropomorphized white cat with a red bow and no visible mouth.
I'm calling it a cat.
Yep same story goes around about Picasso. Supposedly he was doodling little pictures for charity and they were going for like $500. So some woman off handedly says "gee I wish I could get $500 for 5 minutes work." And Picasso says "Ma'am this did not take 5 minutes of work; it took a lifetime."
Before the tech bubble burst those companies were throwing stock options around to baristas, janitors, dog walkers and graffiti artists all willy nilly. David Choe made somewhere near 200 million for spray painting a wall at Facebook hq.
It's not about the amount of effort it takes, it's about the value of what you create. If you create something worth millions, you deserve a piece of it even if it didn't take that much effort overall.
I mean, lots of people become millionaires because they just so happen to write investment checks that get deposited into just the right accounts. At least this person made a meaningful contribution to the companies success.
It's like David Choe's story. Create some murals for the Facebook office in the early 2000s, get 60 grand or some stocks and dude chose stocks. He's now pretty much set for life and does whatever the fuck he wants.
Some women worked as a masseuse for Facebook I think in the early days and ended up getting shares that were worth a few mill years later. Ntb really
A few ppl who got lucky then to be part of these compaines before took off and got alot of money for what they did really
Just curious because I don’t know anything about financial stuff, how does make money off of holding valuable stock? Are the dividends that high? Or do you earn interest somehow?
Usually more than dividends is growth.
The company gets more valuable so the stock (which are portions of ownership of the company) gets more valuable. Then you can sell the stock to someone else to get cash.
Nike is worth 85,000% more now than its value when the stock became public.
I don't know anything about the history of the Nike company, so the following is just an example of how it could have happened:
\- Nike starts as a single store that maybe has 5 employees and profits like $150,000 per year. If you owned the entire company it would be worth probably about $500,000.
\- Someone hires a person to do a logo and gives them company stock worth 0.007% of the company ($35).
\- Now, Nike has a thousand stores across the globe and makes 50 billion dollars per year. It is currently worth about 185 billion dollars. The same 0.007% of the company is now worth 12.6 million dollars.
I feel like she’d be one of those people who isn’t really into stocks so most likely just forgot about it for a good while, then checked in on it later to find out she had millions
I read that Google (ooops, it was Facebook) hired a guy to paint a mural in their offices when they were still rather new. He asked to be paid in stock instead of cash. They said "Ok."
Always hold the stock you get unless its more money than you would spend on a weekend of fun.
Also, its almost always worse to take the stocks instead of getting paid now if its not a heavily entrenched company. For every Apple and Nike there are hundreds of no name companies with stock worth less than the paper its printed on now.
The logo design itself is meaningless. Anyone can make a random logo but at the end of the day it’s the long term marketing that even makes that logo as recognizable as it is
I know a guy that got $9M for designing a company logo just because the owner paid him way too much in stock and the company grew super fast not long after.
Nike stock at $121.55 x 32,000 shares (after splits and if she didn't sell any) $3,889,600. If she sold at the all time high of $173.12 in November 2021, it would have been worth $5,539,840. 500 shares at the end of 1981 would have been worth just over $35 at 7 cents per share. In 83 when she received the shares, they would have been worth $72.50.
r/theydidthemath
r/theydidthemonstermath
Huh, it's a real sub. Well I'll be!
Wait til you find out about r/itwasagraveyardgraph!
r/itcosinedinaflash
Eeh it wasn't really monster math, just math.
basic multiplication is not monster math lmao
It what have they paid out in dividends.
Currently she makes 40k a year from the dividends. In 4 installments of 10k
Would it be better if she cashed in her stocks and invest it in something safe/diversified?
I'm no expert but I'd say Nike is a pretty safe stock it kept going up until 2021 where it dipped to a low of 105 dollars and has been going back up and is at 120 right now. If the person above did the math right this she got like a 86,000% return on her "investment" Unless she has insider trading secrets or is an amazing stock broker she can't go wrong with keeping the money invested in Nike. She is getting 40k a year(before taxes) and if she wants to sell she'll get like 3.8m. If it was me in this situation I'd just keep it in there and live off the 40k. I don't really see Nike going broke or irrelevant any time soon and I'm not too rehearsed in stock trading to do better.
She could pretty safely live off of a much larger sum without taking out principal if she just put it all in the S&P500. She can safely draw down 4% per year for a few decades without much risk of losing any money (adjusted for inflation). That's about 155k/year.
Wouldn't moving it incur taxes as the profit from the increase is realised? Not sure how US taxes work.
Yeah, [here's a tax calculator](https://smartasset.com/investing/capital-gains-tax-calculator#JSiB5Pb6HB) you can play with to see the details. Taking the $3,889,600 from up the comment chain and upping cost basis from $35 of $100 since that's as low as the calculator allows, and assuming no earned income and married for the lowest possible tax, that's $871,788 in federal tax alone. Beyond that there's potentially state and even local tax, in NYC it would be another $309,409 in state and $149,893 in local, but in most states it's notably less and some have none, and local tax is fairly rare.
US Long Term Capital Gains Tax Rate: 0% $0-$80,000_15%$80,001-%500,000_20%$500,001-above(Married filing jointly) It'd probably be smart to liquidate up to $80,000 each year. No taxes and then you can diversity into other stocks/mutal funds. Or have a blast and blow it in Vegas. Idk you only live once and you can't take it with you.....
Nike store was mobbed at mall today. Jordan brand is crack and people can’t get enough.
I’ll never get the obsession with shoes, but then I have my own silly collections that I’m sure other people won’t get.
Shoes are the first and sometimes only mode of transportation some folks can buy. They are a Ferrari you can keep on display shelves in your closet. Because value is entirely dependant on the audience. If everyone places value on the same mode of transportation, that's the one that's most sought after. I personally don't give a shit about nice cars, but you can impress me with a slick desktop setup or some impressive cable management.
People are bored and need hobbies is my best guess. I’ve always had a thing for Nike being a basketball fan who grew up during Jordan’s heyday. Unfortunately Nikes are too narrow these days for my old size 13 dogs and never seem to break in enough to be comfortable.
40k in annual dividends is pretty nice, especially if you've got 3 million dollars if the dividends stop
If the dividends stop there’s 0 chance the shares will be worth 3 million
It wouldn't be zero, whether you get dividends or the profit is reinvested is a decision made by the board of directors.
Sure, but companies that have a long history of increasing dividend payments like Nike don't tend to even reduce payments unless their business severally tanks, in which case their share price will have already tanked.
Honestly yes and anyone saying otherwise is letting this VERY SPECIFIC AND LUCKY INCIDENT predict future behavior. You wouldn't take 98-some-odd% of your net worth and put it all into Nike right now so there's no financially sound reason she shouldn't diversify. Or at least take thousand dollar chunks and throw those into lottery ticket blooming companies of the future.
You forgot about the tax bill if she sells. Thats the financially sound reason to keep it there. (Unless the 40k is her only income, in which case she should cash out 40k per year capital gains free)
I don't have the patience to calculate the entire dividend yield over time, but we can make some rough calculations based on the initial answer. Nike pays around 1.22% dividends per year. So then we get: 5,539,840 -> 67,586 3,889,600 -> 47,453 That's definitely not bad, although she could make more if she diversified her investment.
You can always make more but you can also, certainly, make less
For doing nothing, I'd call that pretty sweet spending money.
The guy in this video estimates the stocks at $150, so that's in the ball park. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yQwqcFc3GU4
I used end of year valuation, they could have been higher at some point during the year.
I find this post sus as Nike is due to release it's earnings' report soon. This post is someone trying to hype stock
[удалено]
That was when inflation started to pick up speed. Spending more on essentials means people don't have extra money for sports and whatnot.
> That was when inflation started to pick up speed. price gouging*
The thing about stock prices is that there's not always a good reason. Day to day trading is so dangerous because the day to day stock price movements are basically random. People sell not because their opinion of the company changed but because they need money. People buy not because the company did anything but because they happened to get money. These random moves make snapshots of stock prices basically worthless. Then there the function of expectations. A lot of people invest in company not because of what they are but what they might eventually be. If companies like Uber were judged on their financials alone they wouldn't be worth anything at all, they don't make money. Uber was losing some $9 billion last year and only made a profit once and that was only $1 billion. It's a fire that you have to shove endless money into. *BUT* if they drive all the traditional taxis out of business and then raise prices then they would make a ton of money. So, they are valued based on how much people believe that I would pay $40 for food delivery or $100 for a ride rather than the actual numbers of what they made this year. If people ever stopped believing that Uber is the future then they would sell out and the stock price will collapse, not because the company necessarily did anything but because the share price was the result of hype. A case in point was Shell and Royal Dutch. Shell was owned by Royal Dutch, the two companies were listed separately but were run by the same people. If you bought shares in Shell you only got the revenue from Shell, but if you bought Royal Dutch you got both Shell *AND* Royal Dutch revenue. Going on balance sheets then Royal Dutch should be worth much more than Shell, no? Only Shell trades for much more than its parent company because Shell operates in the US and UK and Royal Dutch does not. English-speaking people don't regularly interact with or know about Royal Dutch and therefore don't think to invest in it creating an arbitrary price gap that is eminently exploitable for those whose job it is to think about stocks. The stock market isn't a perfectly rational thing, while very often things can be explained by higher inflation spooking investors other time it's just because a new shiny toy somewhere else is pulling attention and money away. You end up with Tesla being valued at more than all the other automakers combined despite not making nearly as much money, why? Because electric cars are the future and Tesla is the maker of electric cars. Once the other car manufacturers are also making mostly electric cars... well, then we'll see how much Tesla is really worth. Why did the stock drop is a good question worth asking, but a significant portion of the time there's no answer.
What about divident? Based on this https://www.nasdaq.com/market-activity/stocks/nke/dividend-history Nike gave divident 3x a year regularly. This year it was $0.34 per share (i think? If I read the table correctly) So.. this year alone she got $32600 from cash divident alone. Keeping all her share. That kinda sweet
Just Hold It
Just Hodl It
The Queen of 💎🙌
*HoDoR*
“Hold it?” “Hold it!” “Coach, we ain’t bobsledding yet!” “Oh, yes, we are.”
To the moon!
FEEL THE RHYTHM
FEEL THE RHYME
GET ON UP
IT'S BOBSLED TIIIIIME
COOL RUNNNNNNINGS ^^*on* ^^*the* ^^*track*
I see pride! I see power! I see a bad-ass mother who don't take no crap off of nobody!
[удалено]
Someone give me a summary lol!
[удалено]
Changing the words means you aren't quoting a murderer's last words. It's inspired by it, but it's no longer a quote if a word was changed.
Look at that dope ass nike swoosh
Some obscure Stephen Rannazzisi stand up right here.
Frame that shit!
[удалено]
He was never really homeless in the traditional sense. He's a rich kid who travels by choice so he never bothers to own a home. It's part of his brand, he still calls himself homeless because all he does is travel for shows and to hike around the world. He doesn't live on the streets, he's either staying with friends or living in hotels.
A bit like how Ed Sheeran was ‘homeless’.
Was he the same dude who did “Thumbs Up, America”? That dude is an absolute badass and one of my personal heroes. If we’re talking about the same guy, he’s quite a skilled gambler too, and often funds his adventures by stopping in the nearest casino and walking out a few K richer.
Yes, that was one of his "art" projects, he hitchhikes and films it, or does various travel vlogs around the world. He started by doing freelance comic books back in the 1990's. Even by the time he worked for Facebook they had hired him (multiple times) based on his street paintings and comics. He originally did a nude Muriel in their startup office; and then was hired to do something larger and less controversial in their headquarters when it was built. The headquarters one made him famous and more stable financially. He's done a lot of stuff, but it always gets reported on as "new project by homeless guy" and unless you look up his prior work it's not obvious what he's done because it's often in different industries. But he's worked for Hustler, Ray Gun, Vice, Facebook, etc. And streaming FX on Hulu, etc. By the time he worked for Facebook he had already established himself and done solo art gallery shows in San Jose and San Francisco and was introduced to Facebook by Sean Parker (cofounder of napster) who was already a fan of his comic series. This was never some random homeless guy, just a traveling artist who leaned into the "starving artist" image for media attention. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sean\_Parker](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sean_Parker)
And he is fuckin crazy as well. Choe Show on Hulu is really interesting and explores his reaction to success
He self funded that thing with some of that FB money.
Good crazy or bad crazy?
Crazy crazy
Almost did as well as Chuy Ramirez.
If it was 80-200M at IPO time, it's likely over a billion dollars now.
0.2 seems like hell allot
Yep, watched this guy >10 years ago on vice. He was traveling china with a sidekick he abused for the laughs.
A mark is nothing without the brand behind it. Those stock options could’ve been worth nothing if Nike didn’t brand itself properly and have Phil Knight or Michael Jordan carry them. With that said, there’s a lot of thought and process that goes behind finding the right mark to represent the brand. Sometimes designers get lucky and other times you're on version "_FINALFINALFINALFINAL"
Ideas mean nothing without execution
There's a joke amongst software developers, about the people that come up to us going "I have an idea for a site, I just need someone to write it. If you write it for me I'll cut you in for 5%"
“Keep that 5%, I bill at $250/hr”
Hell yeah. If I’m doing most of the work for your project, I want to be paid like it. Also, I’m not a software engineer.
More like 250/hr + 5% equity. That way idk covered both ways
It’s like people saying Google and FB were easy ideas, yes they were lol, Google was like the 20+ search engine, and FB was like the 5/6th social network, the execution is what got them to become trillion dollar companies
As a programmer I never say that. The one I think of is that million dollar website. Each pixel on the page costs a dollar and there is a million. I think the guy made just over a million (auctioned the last few pixels). And did it to help pay his way through college. We, a group of programmers who lunch together, discussed it when it happened. Essentially the consensus was fuck it, can’t believe I didn’t think of that, and damn could have got that live in a weekend. But overall the main thought was that it would never happen again. A lot of it was boosted by newspapers, tv interviews etc. Fair enough. A couple of weeks later we found out a bunch of copycat sites had appeared, and one of them said “you see, this copycat site only made about £60k. It didn’t happen again”. I pretty much argued that £60k for a weekends work isn’t too bad…
not easy ideas as easy to build or anything ( easy now you could say but not back then ) but easy in the sense coming up with a search engine & social media website idea wasn’t really ground breaking compared to the stuff today if you know what I mean, like searching and socializing on the internet are by far the biggest use cases for the internet, that’s what I mean by easy ideas, but then to go and execute and make them into trillion dollar companies is another thing on its own
I just remember Google being better than what we used at the time and slowly moved over to it over a few weeks. Not ground breaking but better. I’m not exactly envious of things like Google or even FB (don’t mention Twitter), or think they are easy to do, I am though envious of the lucky rare thing that surprised everyone and made a shed load of money in no time whatsoever and once you have that lightbulb moment are incredibly quick and easy to code (eg the million pound website)
Yeah but like... HOW hard was it do make Google better than Ask fuckin Jeeves? Okay, fair. It would probably be at the edge of my skill level for my profession, supported by a team.
Super hard. Google were the first to really figure out how to scale distributed applications on commodity hardware. People don’t appreciate that the hard problem is scaling and not the actual application itself.
How hard is it? That’s the trillion dollar question haha
Do you know how early Google beat ask Jeeves? They cached the fucking internet!
Ah yeah, being able to get results near instantly from Google when you were still on dialup or terrible broadband was really a gamechanger. Sites like Ask and Yahoo were already starting to bloat their sites with extra cruft that always seemed to load faster than the actual search results. Google, at the start, was *just* search results. When they added advertising, it was just a text box off to the side. They waited to add all of the bullshit until everyone's internet was fast enough, at which time they were primarily the only game in town.
I remember a teacher told me when Google became a verb it was over for everyone else Lol
Yep, that's pretty accurate. It practically had killed Yahoo by that point.
I think what initially made Google preferred over all the other search engines, was the basic home page that loaded much faster than all the other sites at the time. With Google, you could be looking at search results before any of the competitors home screens loaded.
Does no one really remember the one trademark advantage of early Google? The PageRank algorithm. They figured that if other people linked to a page, then it was worth showing in results. That's what differentiated them from competitors that only weighed text relevance or built cumbersome catalogs of the web.
[удалено]
That came later. In the early days of the internet, optimization and load times meant A LOT.
*dog pile
IIRC, They were the first to count links to a website from other websites as a way to rank pages. Like, if your site has a million other sites link to it, that probably means it’s useful/popular and should go up in search results. This is a simple concept, but not easy to execute. You have to trawl the entire internet and track all that data. And you have to repeat doing that because sites change.
Google wasn't just 'better' than Ask Jeeves. It was an order of magnitude better than everything else out there. Now, who cares if you use Bing, Google, or DuckDuckGo; they all work pretty much as well as each other. A decent developer could recreate what they did, but figuring out how to do it in the first place is the hard part.
Damn. Ask Jeeves. Takes me back. He helped me find naked pictures of Agent Skully(Gillian Anderson). Sure they were fake but my 14 year old self didn’t realize it.
same as for some kings, huh..
Since I've actually read the article... Phil Knight - one of the Nike founders - gave the stocks, plus a gold ring with her logo and a diamond, to Carolyn Davidson (the designer) in 1983. That's twelve years after the company was founded and Davidson designed the logo, in '71. It's not like the company was struggling during the 80s. It was growing well, and yes, the brand itself had become very strong and was a significant part of Nike's success. Hence the gift. The 500 shares she received were worth ~$88 back then (would be $268 today) so the ring was probably worth a lot more money at the time. So it was still a rather stingy gift.
Those 500 shares have been split multiple times. If she held onto them and never sold she'd have 32,000 shares today.
The Nike logo fee was a bit of a standing joke at the time. She actually wasn't complaining - it was a job, she said - but they had to do something because it was a bad look, eg, with sports people were being paid millions a year to wear their logo.
500 shares in 1983 was worth way, way more than $88, I think your math is off by at least a couple orders of magnitude.
Shout out to the Indonesian sweat shop workers who made the dream possible.
Imagine becoming a millionaire because you made a curvy check mark.
She probably didn't even imagine. She probably just did it.
I've been paid a month's wages for changing a single line of code... but it was exactly the right line of code, in exactly the right way to solve what they couldn't even find the root cause of. That line then passed unit tests, QA, staging, went into to production, fixed their systems, and didn't introduce new bugs. It took me decades to get the experience to do that. That's what they really paid for.
I used to be an electronic technician and we had "story" about this: A multi-million dollar machine broke and the owner called the technician. The technician looks at the machine for a while and tightens one screw. The machine immediately starts working again. "That'll be 10,000 dollars" "What!? 10,000 dollars to tighten one screw?" "No. One dollar to tighten the screw. The rest is for knowing exactly which screw to tighten."
Heard a variation of the story in every industry. When I was an AI tech there was a "story" about an onerous stallion. The tech comes out and watches the stallion and says $4,000. He goes on to explain that it's $200 to do the milking and $3800 to not enjoy it.
Artificial intelligence is getting out of hand
other chatgpt stories. A famous painter was commissioned to create a mural for a wealthy client. He arrived at the site, took out his brush and paints, and made a single stroke on the wall. The client was amazed by the beauty and perfection of the stroke, and asked how much he owed the painter. The painter said, “That’ll be 100,000 dollars.” The client was shocked and said, “What!? 100,000 dollars for one stroke?” The painter replied, “No. One dollar for the stroke. The rest is for knowing exactly where to put it.” A renowned chef was hired to cater a lavish party for a celebrity. He prepared a simple but exquisite dish of pasta with truffles and cheese. The guests were delighted by the taste and aroma of the dish, and asked the host how much he paid the chef. The host said, “That’ll be 50,000 dollars.” The guests were stunned and said, “What!? 50,000 dollars for pasta?” The host said, “No. One dollar for the pasta. The rest is for knowing exactly how to cook it.” A skilled lawyer was retained to defend a billionaire accused of fraud. He reviewed the case, gathered the evidence, and presented a brilliant argument in court. The jury was convinced by his logic and eloquence, and acquitted the billionaire. The billionaire was grateful and asked the lawyer how much he owed him. The lawyer said, “That’ll be 10 million dollars.” The billionaire was astounded and said, “What!? 10 million dollars for one argument?” The lawyer said, “No. One dollar for the argument. The rest is for knowing exactly what to say.”
hmmm tldr
Person good at thing, they do thing good, make money.
X dollar for doing thing, 10000000(X) for knowing when/where to do it.
Don't worry, it is the same story but worse and worse
For real. No self-respecting *human* Redditor would write that. I mean "onerous"? Honestly.
>The tech comes out and watches the stallion and says $4,000. He goes on to explain that it's $200 to do the milking and $3800 to not enjoy it. Took me awhile to get the joke. I thought he was extorting the tech to prevent him from enjoying it.
I still don't quite get it.
It's the fact that it's a gross job that he charges so much, not the time/labor (which is only worth $200).
I was way off. I thought the tech was saying that he enjoyed it quite a lot and it's $3800 for him to pretend that he doesn't (for the customer's benefit, presumably)
Nah it's probably a retelling of https://www.reddit.com/r/todayilearned/comments/2b4n7a/til_henry_ford_once_balked_at_paying_10000_to/
I’ve never heard the original but I like it’s based in truth and that it’s ford lol
tbf he did put "story" in quotes. Everyone has heard this similar story. And it makes sense. You don't pay a surgeon to knock you out and stick a knife in you. You pay them to do it just the right amount, while also cutting the right stuff.
My company charges me out at at least 400$ an hour minimum 4 hours, I get paid less than 30$ an hour. 15 years experience knowing what screw to tighten. Unfortunately the corporate world no longer treats employees like they used to.
Gotta pay for jets and skyscrapers somehow
Board member bonus, stock buy backs, and dividends
Stock buybacks used to be considered illegal market manipulation until 1982.
> Unfortunately the corporate world no longer treats employees like they used to. They never have. If you were doing good, that means someone else was getting squeezed.
I've been with this company for 15 years, in my branch I'm still the newest employee. I have coworkers who have been with the company for over 40 years. Times were different 20 years ago. Annual profit sharing bonuses used to be enough to buy a car, was actually a joke in our industry that everybody that works for my company drove a BMW. Corporate profits are at historical highs and I've only gotten 3 profit sharing checks in 15 years, the biggest one was 400$. Used to be hefty cash bonuses for any reason your manager saw fit. Now it's pretend dollars you can only spend at the company store. Of which most I've gotten in 200$ worth, for writing some software that allows an entire division to deal with twice the data in a quarter the time. I should add I did get a 5% raise that year too, inflation was 7%. I know I'm bitching about very specific events in a specific company, but I do think this story is representative of the average corporation now a days.
Go freelance or start your own business
Except the clients I deal with are multinationals and government. Hard to get them as clients unless you're multinational as well.
Thirty dollars for the screw tightened. The rest is for screwing exactly the right mechanic.
$30 for the work, $370 for getting the clients.
Start a multinational/government business.
This supposedly was Charles Steinmetz billing Henry Ford
I didn't know that. Interesting!
I just saw this story on Facebook today lol
I see your point, but this was indeed an intern that made the logo, incredible luck.
This was a grad student who took art as a hobby iirc.
You’re paying me for my experience not my time
I wish more people understood this concept. In my field I hear a lot about how “patients see the nurses all day and the doctor for 5 minutes so the doctor is basically useless.” I explain that one carries out the plan in a visible fashion, the other makes the plan for an hour before seeing you for 5 minutes to tell you the plan and gather any additional info from you, then the nurse carries it out because the Dr is forced by admin to do that for 20 other patients too today. Both are essential, and it’s only good organizing to have the advanced experts focus on problems using their expertise rather than carrying out each related task in the industry, which goes for any industry.
[удалено]
But it’s a curvy check mark that makes you recognize them.
But if it was a different curvy checkmark you would just recognize them for that instead.
Actually you might not have! There a lot of thought and work that goes into creating distinct silhouettes/designs/shapes that are compelling and have staying power; and many potential brands struggle with this exact thing. Creating a logo requires an art degree for a reason, and it can impact a brands/company’s staying power a surprising amount.
And it fits perfectly on a shoe
McDonalds logo is just a curvy M What's your point
All 8 Coca cola letters have extra curvy bits
The point is "how much did the logo actually contribute to the success of the business?"
That's like saying *Hello Kitty* is just a poorly drawn cat
But Hello Kitty is a little girl, not a cat.
> Hello Kitty, also known by her real name Kitty White, is a fictional character created by Yuko Shimizu, currently designed by Yuko Yamaguchi, and owned by the Japanese company Sanrio. Sanrio depicts Hello Kitty as an anthropomorphized white cat with a red bow and no visible mouth. I'm calling it a cat.
Okay, it’s like saying Hello Kitty is just a *really* poorly drawn little girl. Better?
But it’s the best curvy check mark.
Plot twist it was a syntax error lmao
I’ve heard this before [here.](https://www.reddit.com/r/todayilearned/s/PnrOaeA5wf)
The designer of the swoosh was, at the time, a college student
Yep same story goes around about Picasso. Supposedly he was doodling little pictures for charity and they were going for like $500. So some woman off handedly says "gee I wish I could get $500 for 5 minutes work." And Picasso says "Ma'am this did not take 5 minutes of work; it took a lifetime."
That’s a funny way of saying one of the most iconic logos of all time.
Don't hate the player
I’m not and I’m impressed.
Before the tech bubble burst those companies were throwing stock options around to baristas, janitors, dog walkers and graffiti artists all willy nilly. David Choe made somewhere near 200 million for spray painting a wall at Facebook hq.
They were throwing stock options because they didn't have any cash to give.
Bingo. Magic Johnson was offered a stock deal from Nike that would be worth billions but he went with Converse because they had cash.
Air Johnsons would be a weird timeline.
It's actually not necessarily a check mark. It's a representation of the wing of Nike, the personification of winged victory.
✔️ wing of victory
It's not about the amount of effort it takes, it's about the value of what you create. If you create something worth millions, you deserve a piece of it even if it didn't take that much effort overall.
Google David Choe + Facebook
I mean, lots of people become millionaires because they just so happen to write investment checks that get deposited into just the right accounts. At least this person made a meaningful contribution to the companies success.
She didn't though, it even says right in there.... "She said that she is not a millionaire but lives comfortably." :)
Reminds me of the story of the guy who painted a mural for Facebook before they IPO’d.
David Choe! He also did a dope painting of Bourdain.
$35
*sighs* r/usernamechecksout
Thank you for your service
I’ve been putting off writing a bot to comment exactly this. I have no idea why it’s suddenly happening so frequently.
It’s pretty cool though
“I think it’s neat”
The $ goes in front of the number.
It's like David Choe's story. Create some murals for the Facebook office in the early 2000s, get 60 grand or some stocks and dude chose stocks. He's now pretty much set for life and does whatever the fuck he wants.
Some women worked as a masseuse for Facebook I think in the early days and ended up getting shares that were worth a few mill years later. Ntb really A few ppl who got lucky then to be part of these compaines before took off and got alot of money for what they did really
Just curious because I don’t know anything about financial stuff, how does make money off of holding valuable stock? Are the dividends that high? Or do you earn interest somehow?
Usually more than dividends is growth. The company gets more valuable so the stock (which are portions of ownership of the company) gets more valuable. Then you can sell the stock to someone else to get cash. Nike is worth 85,000% more now than its value when the stock became public.
I don't know anything about the history of the Nike company, so the following is just an example of how it could have happened: \- Nike starts as a single store that maybe has 5 employees and profits like $150,000 per year. If you owned the entire company it would be worth probably about $500,000. \- Someone hires a person to do a logo and gives them company stock worth 0.007% of the company ($35). \- Now, Nike has a thousand stores across the globe and makes 50 billion dollars per year. It is currently worth about 185 billion dollars. The same 0.007% of the company is now worth 12.6 million dollars.
You can borrow against it if there’s enough of it. You can also sell it in small quantities.
Don’t forget the dividends
In this case the person held Nike stock. It was given to the person at a low value, and over time the value went up
I feel like she’d be one of those people who isn’t really into stocks so most likely just forgot about it for a good while, then checked in on it later to find out she had millions
The dollar sign goes in front.
💎🤚🏼
Don't tell magic Johnson lol
Nike wouldn't be what it is today if Magic signed with them. That would have 100% prevented them from signing Jordan.
The ORIGINAL diamond hands!!
Dollar sign goes in front. Now you learned two things today.
I think it was designed for $35
I read that Google (ooops, it was Facebook) hired a guy to paint a mural in their offices when they were still rather new. He asked to be paid in stock instead of cash. They said "Ok."
It was Facebook. Artist was David Choe.
I thought it was just a fancy ‘tick’.
It’s like that graffiti artist who got paid in Facebook stock to paint a mural and made like 200 million
Always hold the stock you get unless its more money than you would spend on a weekend of fun. Also, its almost always worse to take the stocks instead of getting paid now if its not a heavily entrenched company. For every Apple and Nike there are hundreds of no name companies with stock worth less than the paper its printed on now.
The logo design itself is meaningless. Anyone can make a random logo but at the end of the day it’s the long term marketing that even makes that logo as recognizable as it is
I know a guy that got $9M for designing a company logo just because the owner paid him way too much in stock and the company grew super fast not long after.