Mediaboss Marketing

If you want to know who really controls BigCommerce Holdings, Inc. (NASDAQ:BIGC), then you'll have to look at the makeup of its share registry. And the group that holds the biggest piece of the pie are institutions with 57% ownership. That is, the group stands to benefit the most if the stock rises (or lose the most if there is a downturn).

As a result, institutional investors endured the highest losses last week after market cap fell by US$183m. Needless to say, the recent loss which further adds to the one-year loss to shareholders of 66% might not go down well especially with this category of shareholders. Often called market makers, institutions wield significant power in influencing the price dynamics of any stock. As a result, if the decline continues, institutional investors may be pressured to sell BigCommerce Holdings which might hurt individual investors.

Let's take a closer look to see what the different types of shareholders can tell us about BigCommerce Holdings.

See our latest analysis for BigCommerce Holdings

Many institutions measure their performance against an index that approximates the local market. So they usually pay more attention to companies that are included in major indices.

As you can see, institutional investors have a fair amount of stake in BigCommerce Holdings. This suggests some credibility amongst professional investors. But we can't rely on that fact alone since institutions make bad investments sometimes, just like everyone does. It is not uncommon to see a big share price drop if two large institutional investors try to sell out of a stock at the same time. So it is worth checking the past earnings trajectory of BigCommerce Holdings, (below). Of course, keep in mind that there are other factors to consider, too.

Investors should note that institutions actually own more than half the company, so they can collectively wield significant power. It looks like hedge funds own 15% of BigCommerce Holdings shares. That's interesting, because hedge funds can be quite active and activist. Many look for medium term catalysts that will drive the share price higher. Our data shows that Darsana Capital Partners LP is the largest shareholder with 9.5% of shares outstanding. The Vanguard Group, Inc. is the second largest shareholder owning 7.3% of common stock, and Wadih Machaalani holds about 6.8% of the company stock. In addition, we found that Brent Bellm, the CEO has 3.0% of the shares allocated to their name.

We did some more digging and found that 10 of the top shareholders account for roughly 52% of the register, implying that along with larger shareholders, there are a few smaller shareholders, thereby balancing out each others interests somewhat.

While it makes sense to study institutional ownership data for a company, it also makes sense to study analyst sentiments to know which way the wind is blowing. There are a reasonable number of analysts covering the stock, so it might be useful to find out their aggregate view on the future.

While the precise definition of an insider can be subjective, almost everyone considers board members to be insiders. The company management answer to the board and the latter should represent the interests of shareholders. Notably, sometimes top-level managers are on the board themselves.

I generally consider insider ownership to be a good thing. However, on some occasions it makes it more difficult for other shareholders to hold the board accountable for decisions.

Our most recent data indicates that insiders own a reasonable proportion of BigCommerce Holdings, Inc.. It is very interesting to see that insiders have a meaningful US$231m stake in this US$1.3b business. Most would say this shows a good degree of alignment with shareholders, especially in a company of this size. You can click here to see if those insiders have been buying or selling.

With a 10% ownership, the general public, mostly comprising of individual investors, have some degree of sway over BigCommerce Holdings. While this group can't necessarily call the shots, it can certainly have a real influence on how the company is run.

It's always worth thinking about the different groups who own shares in a company. But to understand BigCommerce Holdings better, we need to consider many other factors. Case in point: We've spotted 4 warning signs for BigCommerce Holdings you should be aware of.

Ultimately the future is most important. You can access this free report on analyst forecasts for the company.

NB: Figures in this article are calculated using data from the last twelve months, which refer to the 12-month period ending on the last date of the month the financial statement is dated. This may not be consistent with full year annual report figures.

Have feedback on this article? Concerned about the content? Get in touch with us directly. Alternatively, email editorial-team (at) simplywallst.com.

This article by Simply Wall St is general in nature. We provide commentary based on historical data and analyst forecasts only using an unbiased methodology and our articles are not intended to be financial advice. It does not constitute a recommendation to buy or sell any stock, and does not take account of your objectives, or your financial situation. We aim to bring you long-term focused analysis driven by fundamental data. Note that our analysis may not factor in the latest price-sensitive company announcements or qualitative material. Simply Wall St has no position in any stocks mentioned.

Simply Wall St does a detailed discounted cash flow calculation every 6 hours for every stock on the market, so if you want to find the intrinsic value of any company just search here. Its FREE.

Excerpt from:
In the wake of BigCommerce Holdings, Inc.'s (NASDAQ:BIGC) latest US$183m market cap drop, institutional owners may be forced to take severe actions -...

With help from Derek Robertson

"Mixers" like Tornado Cash were crucial to various crypto hacks. | shapecharge/iStock

Over the past 24 hours, a video of a bearded man crooning lines of computer code with the aid of an auto-tuner has achieved minor virality online.

In addition to being amusing, the video gets to the crux of a momentous legal question hanging over the digital era: How does the First Amendment apply to computer code?

In the song, by musician Jonathan Mann, the lyrics are lines of code from Tornado Cash, a software tool called a mixer used to obscure the provenance of crypto tokens, which the Treasury Department sanctioned last week after it was used by North Korean hackers.

The refrain of Manns song This is illegal argues that the sanctions amount to a constitutionally dubious ban on discussing the Tornado Cash code itself.

Its not clear that the sanctions actually outlaw reciting code, melodically or otherwise. But they do include what appears to be the first-ever ban on interacting with blockchain addresses controlled by self-executing code (sanctions normally ban transactions with accounts controlled by specific people or entities). And as crypto advocates mull legal challenges to the sanctions, theyre homing in on First Amendment objections.

A showdown over the constitutionality of the sanctions would reopen decades-old questions about the legal status of code. In all likelihood, it would be just the first major skirmish in a broader fight over the First Amendments application to blockchain systems, one that crypto advocates have been anticipating for years.

In the early 90s, the Justice Department launched an investigation of a programmer who had released an encrypted messaging system, Pretty Good Privacy, under the logic that the software which had the potential to thwart U.S. spying capabilities counted as a munition, and was therefore subject to an export ban. The government eventually dropped the case, and in 1999, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on First Amendment grounds in favor of another programmer, Daniel Bernstein, who challenged the application of export controls to cryptographic code.

This week, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, which represented Bernstein in the 90s, has expressed reservations about the Tornado Cash sanctions, arguing that the government doesnt have the power to ban the dissemination of computer code.

EFF did not immediately respond to a request to discuss its First Amendment reservations in more depth. But the crypto advocacy group Coin Center, which is considering a lawsuit over the sanctions, fleshed out its First Amendment objections in a lengthy analysis published Monday. The analysis argues that both the intent and the effect of the sanctions is to have a chilling effect on people exploring the very idea of cryptocurrency mixers.

While this affects only a niche class of blockchain applications, the question of how far First Amendment protections extend to transmissions of information within blockchain systems could have more profound implications. Bitcoin advocates have long made the case that both Bitcoins source code and Bitcoin transactions are protected by the First Amendment.

But what if theyre wrong, and the government can ban Bitcoin?

Many legal experts contend that speech protections for computer code are context-dependent, weakening or disappearing when someone executes the code with a computer.

People would argue that is more akin to action than it is to speech, First Amendment lawyer Bob Corn-Revere, a partner at Davis Wright Tremaine, told me.

But Corn-Revere, who served on Bernsteins legal team, said that since that case there has been a dearth of court decisions on the issue. As new software applications have raised new legal dilemmas, he said, new guidance about where and how computer code crosses from the realm of speech into the realm of action has yet to follow.

Thats the unanswered question, he said, in terms of where the courts go.

The Federal Reserve | AP Photo

Another unlikely crypto-world alliance is revealing just how unpredictable the fault lines around the new technology can be.

As POLITICOs Sam Sutton reported today for Pro subscribers, the crypto industry is flexing its burgeoning muscle on the Hill to convince lawmakers to stay out of the stablecoin business. The Federal Reserve has been exploring the concept of a digital dollar for some time now, and Rep. Jim Himes (D-Conn.), who released a Fed digital dollar proposal earlier this year, told Sam that not only do private stablecoin providers view a central bank digital currency, or CBDC, as a potential threat, banks dont like it either, viewing it as as a potential disrupter of their very profitable payment systems.

Its a notable alliance if only because, as you might have heard (frequently), the crypto and banking industries dont exactly agree with each other on much. Neither, presumably, did Sens. Kristen Gillibrand, a progressive standard-bearer, or Cynthia Lummis, from deep-red Wyoming, who sponsored this years biggest piece of crypto legislation. The next unlikely team-up around a crypto policy issue whether it ends up being around regulatory classification, international relations, or maybe even rural revitalization will officially make a trend, by old newsroom rules. Derek Robertson

Crypto may be down, but it looks like the meme coins are making a comeback.

The mostly-worthless joke crypto tokens most notably touted by Elon Musk in the case of Dogecoin, which hes boosted so consistently that its more or less ceased to be a joke have seen a sudden jump in their value as of late even amid the overall crypto slump, with Dogecoin spiking nearly 11 percent over the past week as of this writing, and Shiba Inu nearly 20 percent. (And yes, theyre nearly all still named after dogs, from Akita Inu to Zelda Inu.)

Of course, these are matters of degrees. The current value of Dogecoin hovers around eight-tenths of a cent. Shiba Inus is mere fractions of a penny that stretch to six digits. Trading these coins is, essentially, a game: Theres no promise of technological transformation, financial anonymity, or the creation of fortunes, just playing around with miniscule amounts of money on your phone.

Provided, as always, that one doesnt get too greedy, theyre probably one of the lower-stress, and certainly one of the lower-stakes, means of dipping ones toe into the crypto market but to be clear, as they say on the forums and subreddits that comprise the communities which are essentially these coins raison detre, this is not financial advice. Derek Robertson

Stay in touch with the whole team: Ben Schreckinger ([emailprotected]); Derek Robertson ([emailprotected]); Konstantin Kakaes ([emailprotected]); and Heidi Vogt ([emailprotected]). Follow us @DigitalFuture on Twitter.

Ben Schreckinger covers tech, finance and politics for POLITICO; he is an investor in cryptocurrency.

If youve had this newsletter forwarded to you, you can sign up and read our mission statement at the links provided.

Here is the original post:
Crypto pleads the First- POLITICO - POLITICO

Speaking after Ryan was Leslie Kendrick, the director of the Center for the First Amendment at UVA Law. Kendrick, who chaired the committee that crafted UVAs free speech statement, invited the new UVA students to, among other things, take a broad view on the meaning of free inquiry.

Its debating people you disagree with, but its also finding communities and organizations of like-minded people thats freedom of association, Kendrick said. Its getting involved with your fellow students on issues that seem to have nothing to do with free speech. Sharing a common goal with different people such as volunteering for public service or playing on a team exposes you to new perspectives, helps you appreciate the good in others, and builds trust and respect.

Even something as simple as spending time with your roommates builds trust, which makes having real conversations easier. And the more real conversations we can have, the better off well be.

The search for the truth, Kendrick said, is not an easy process. She challenged students to keep an open mind.

If you went to the gym and didnt break a sweat, you would know you werent getting your moneys worth, she said. And if you go through college without sometimes being uncomfortable with ideas, the same thing is true. We learn, and we progress, by facing challenging ideas, not suppressing them.

Go here to see the original:
President Ryan to the Class of 2026: Be Curious, Not Judgmental - UVA Today

By Vivek Ramaswamy and Jed Rubenfeld

Alex Berenson is back on Twitter after being banned for nearly a year over Covid-19 misinformation. Last week the former New York Times reporter settled his lawsuit against the social-media company, which admitted error and restored his account. The First Amendment does not apply to private companies like Twitter, Mr. Berenson wrote last week on Substack. But because the Biden administration brought pressure to bear on Twitter, he believes he has a case that his constitutional rights were violated. Hes right.

In January 2021 we argued on these pages that tech companies should be treated as state actors under existing legal doctrines when they censor constitutionally protected speech in response to governmental threats and inducements. The Biden administration appears to have taken our warning calls as a how-to guide for effectuating political censorship through the private sector. And its worse than we feared.

More here:
Twitter Becomes a Tool of Government Censorship - The Wall Street Journal

It was for a good cause, Coulter, almost 45, explained when Associated Press Extraterrestrial caught up with her, fully loathed, at her undisclosed location.

Q: Why now?

Ann Coulter: My decision to do Playboy is literally one week in the making. I've always chided others for taking their clothes off and posed as the girl next door. I'm the number one right-wing talking head, and for years I've been known as "The Queen of Slime", all while keeping my clothes on, and that's taken some real discipline. Every couple of years when Hef would call I would graciously decline, because it would kill that whole androgynous legend that I've got going for me, and I thought that I could maintain the mystery by keeping my clothes on.

But this year, when I got the call from Hef, it was almost my 45th birthday. The Republican party had just received a humpin', so I thought, "Wow... at 45, America doesn't want us anymore?" And I thought it's almost an epiphany... like a "F--- 'em all!" moment. I feel empowered that you can criticize other people's morals and yet still be single, with no children, sexy and confident, and then bare all for the world.

Q: So what's the story on the androgynous deal?

Coulter: I feel proud of myself. I work out really hard, and people will just have to decide for themselves. The reason that I wanted to do it the most is because I am posing for a purpose: a portion of the proceeds from each issue sold is going to my charity.

Q: That would be...?

Coulter: I am the celebrity spokesperson for WILT, the national anti-erectile function association. It stands for Whitebread Ideology Less Tumescence. If you think about it, this last midterm election in which the Republican Party received such a humpin' was all because of this vast priapism of the party over the last six years that resulted in all the scandals. My charity is devoted to wresting control of erections from the parties and putting them back in the hands of voters. Celibacy is not just for Paris Hilton anymore.

View post:
December Playboy Cover featuring Nude Ann Coulter - Daily Kos