[HN Gopher] A very Chicago gamble
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       A very Chicago gamble
        
       Author : gregorymichael
       Score  : 60 points
       Date   : 2025-01-24 19:56 UTC (3 hours ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (www.bitsaboutmoney.com)
 (TXT) w3m dump (www.bitsaboutmoney.com)
        
       | jeffgreco wrote:
       | Some truly hideous AI art on this one.
        
       | nfriedly wrote:
       | Holy fuck that's a terrible deal they offered on the $250 shares!
       | Made up billion-dollar valuation aside, an 11% interest rate on a
       | $24,750 loan means that it's _never_ going to pay for itself and
       | start producing a return for the owner, even at casino-level
       | profits.
        
         | joezydeco wrote:
         | Bally's built a _temporary_ casino in Chicago while the
         | official one is getting funded up and built. Because, you know,
         | you can 't let that gaming license just _sit there_ and do
         | nothing.
         | 
         | Sadly the temporary casino is only taking about 60% of
         | projected revenue so far.
         | 
         | https://www.yogonet.com/international/news/2024/10/16/82112-...
         | 
         | Bally blames the location and lack of parking and yadda yadda
         | yadda, but Illinoisans are just saturated with gambling options
         | right now. The suburban casinos, the Indiana casinos, Wisconsin
         | first-nations Bingo, Illinois Lotto, the multi-state lotteries,
         | home-rule gaming in restaurants and bars, online sports
         | betting...we still have horse racing here for crying out loud.
         | And, oh yeah, weed is legal here.
        
       | tedivm wrote:
       | There's a lot of interesting stuff in here, but there's also a
       | lot of garbage. Talking about the African American community in
       | Chicago, but then using examples from LA to prove a point, is at
       | best a horrible argument and at worst purposefully misleading.
       | 
       | I live in the Chicago South Side, in a neighborhood that is 99%
       | black. I am not black. There are no pogroms happening here
       | against people who aren't black, even if they do happen to own a
       | business. This is just such a weird statement to have to make.
        
         | shigawire wrote:
         | As with most Chicago critics, there are valid points to be made
         | but it often feels too gleeful.
        
         | likeabatterycar wrote:
         | > I live in the Chicago South Side, in a neighborhood that is
         | 99% black. I am not black.
         | 
         | May I ask why? This seems like a deliberate choice. It is, at
         | best, met with suspicion by other residents.
        
           | readthenotes1 wrote:
           | I'm pretty sure hen wasn't given a deliberate choice whether
           | to be Black or not.
        
             | likeabatterycar wrote:
             | > Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation
             | of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to
             | criticize. Assume good faith.
             | 
             | Chicago is an extremely segregated city. In segregated
             | cities, there is a nuanced thought process one must undergo
             | to move into an area where you are considered an outsider.
             | In Seattle for example, the tech community is overall
             | reviled for having gentrified the Central District, where
             | historically black areas were bulldozed to erect overpriced
             | cardboard apartments for tech plebes. This is a legitimate
             | question.
        
               | pc86 wrote:
               | The reason you're being downvoted is because "Why are you
               | living there?" can sound suspiciously like "You shouldn't
               | be living there." It's also a leap to assume the black
               | people living there are going to suspicious of him. You'd
               | be horrified if a group of white people were "suspicious"
               | of a black man living in their neighborhood and this
               | should be no different.
               | 
               | Another question is what will his answer do? How will
               | your opinion of him change or be influence by his answer?
               | Maybe he was born there. Maybe that's all he can afford.
               | Maybe he found an apartment with a particular
               | architectural style unique to that area he wants to live
               | in. Maybe it's close to his friends, or close to his
               | girlfriend, or not _too_ close to his girlfriend, or
               | close to his parents, or easy to get to work, or he often
               | goes into central /southern IL or over to Indiana and
               | doesn't want to drive through the city every time.
               | 
               | There are literally hundreds of possible reasons.
        
               | kasey_junk wrote:
               | Including, it's a nice place to live!
        
               | pc86 wrote:
               | Let's not get crazy now /s
        
             | somanyphotons wrote:
             | I'm pretty sure the question was about choice of location
        
           | recursive wrote:
           | Why not? Everyone has to live somewhere. If it wasn't there,
           | it would be somewhere else.
        
           | kasey_junk wrote:
           | I lived in a south side neighborhood that was >80% black and
           | am white for nearly 20 years.
           | 
           | I lived there for a variety of reasons that weren't
           | suspicious at all like price, location, commute, etc. my
           | neighbors didn't seem particularly suspicious of the
           | decision...
        
           | notinchicago wrote:
           | He's a gentrifier, either in Bronzeville or adjacent Beverly.
           | The "why" is cheap real estate. No random yuppies are living
           | in any other "99% black" part of the south side (that's a
           | blatant lie btw, even Roseland and other Wild 100s
           | neighborhoods are not 99% black).
        
             | kasey_junk wrote:
             | You could check a map if you wanted to make up things to
             | sound knowledgeable about the Southside of Chicago...
        
               | cozzyd wrote:
               | The only halfway charitable plausible explanation I can
               | think of is that they're a Rock Island District commuter
               | (who closes their eyes between stops)
        
             | goat_whisperer wrote:
             | Not only are you making a lot of assumptions here, you have
             | a woeful ignorance of Chicago neighborhoods but throw out
             | names of neighborhoods like you're an expert (perhaps
             | obtained from listening to Drill records or something).
             | 
             | Also, Beverly is one of the most integrated neighborhoods
             | in Chicago, and it isn't even majority Black, so not sure
             | why you even mention it. It also isn't 'adjacent' to
             | Bronzeville unless you ignore all of the neighborhoods
             | between them.
        
               | pc86 wrote:
               | Most people who complain about gentrification have no
               | idea what they're talking about, why should this comment
               | be any different?
        
             | tedivm wrote:
             | 97.4% - https://www.unitedstateszipcodes.org/60619/
        
           | tedivm wrote:
           | All of my neighbors seem to like me. The specific area I'm in
           | has a 14% vacancy rate, so the people around here aren't
           | worried about gentrification. I'm walking distance to the
           | Metra. My wife has family in Indiana, and not having to drive
           | through the entire city to see them was also a factor.
        
         | goat_whisperer wrote:
         | I agree. That part was way off base.
        
       | mplewis wrote:
       | I wish you'd just use stock imagery rather than the AI slop. I
       | know there's great stuff in your blog patio11, and the AI splash
       | image really takes away from that impression.
        
         | yesfitz wrote:
         | I agree. AI images communicate "low effort" at best and
         | "untrustworthy" at worst, neither of which remotely describe
         | Bits about Money.
        
       | adrianparsons wrote:
       | This was an aside at the end of the article, but what an
       | interesting strategy:
       | 
       |  _I bought the stock for the same reason I buy stock in every
       | hotel, airline, bank, and similar I use: in the unlikely event a
       | not-particularly-high-stakes poker player has a routine customer
       | service complaint, Investor Relations is available as an
       | escalation strategy, over e.g. hotel staff who might be long-
       | since inured to listening to complaints from people who lost
       | money in a casino._
        
         | pc86 wrote:
         | I'm sure this works if you're buying a couple thousand shares
         | at a time but I don't think buying 10 shares of Southwest is
         | going to make them listen to you any more or less when you have
         | an issue on your flight.
        
           | wging wrote:
           | I think the idea is to take advantage of certain legal
           | obligations that are triggered by ownership of any size.
        
             | plagiarist wrote:
             | Could you give some examples? I have no idea what legal
             | differences would provide a benefit during customer
             | interactions.
        
           | pie_flavor wrote:
           | It doesn't matter whether they actually value you any more.
           | The point is that investor relations is staffed by competent
           | people, as opposed to customer service which is staffed by
           | incompetent people as an intentional matter of efficient
           | human capital allocation. So you can get much more reliable
           | help if you can present the right class signals, and if you
           | are at least theoretically allowed to call that line.
        
             | icedchai wrote:
             | Do you think they're going to ask for proof and how many
             | shares you own? Anyone can claim to be an "investor."
        
       | Animats wrote:
       | I've seen worse deals offered in prospectuses. But not often.
       | 
       | Having two tiers of stock with the insiders having the control
       | shares used to be prohibited by the New York Stock Exchange. Now
       | it's common. Google and Facebook are set up that way, so they
       | have presidents for life. So are some lesser companies which
       | really need to fire the CEO but can't.
       | 
       | Then, what you're buying into is not the operating entity. It's
       | just a holding company. Not even the parent holding company that
       | owns many casinos; that's BALY. It's a holding company in the
       | middle, one whose returns are totally determined by the other
       | parts of the stack. This is much like film investing, where you
       | can buy an interest in "Silver Screen Partners IV" and get a
       | share of the profits from a specific film. Except that the studio
       | and the film producer control the accounting between related
       | entities. Those deals are generally a lose, although you get to
       | go to the premier and meet the cast.
       | 
       | And then there's the leverage. When you buy in, you're under
       | water, and may stay there. Can't speak to the tax consequences.
       | 
       | This is so awful it makes meme coins look good.
       | 
       | (Favorite worst deals: 1) being pitched on municipal bonds backed
       | only by revenue from future sewer charges for a development not
       | yet built, and which never was. Junk municipal bonds are a thing.
       | 2) a San Francisco strip club that did an IPO in the first dot-
       | com boom and went bust. SEC CIK 931799.)
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2025-01-24 23:00 UTC)