Recag/C4_37 · Datasets at Hugging Face

text stringlengths 9 87.3k
There'll also be an 8-foot smoker for weekend projects like a whole hog. Prices will range from $6 to $22.
"We're definitely going to be Frisco- and family-centric," he says. "I just want to make people happy and offer great hospitality."
Statistics Canada recently reported that roughly 600,000 Canadians were employed in the information and communications technology (ICT) sector in 2001. Together, these workers represented 6.2 per cent of all Canadian production and four per cent of all Canadian employment. Average annual growth has been 14.9 per cent, compared to 3.8 per cent for the overall economy (1997 to 2001).
The long term trends are all positive. But that’s little consolation for the recent graduate who can’t find his next job. Nor does it help the seasoned professional who can’t find a position, notwithstanding her solid 25-year track record. Long term, positive trends are cold comfort when faced with short-term, negative reality.
Several things seem to be affecting ICT employment. Obviously, the economy isn’t in great shape. Then there are ICT-specific challenges – many businesses felt like they were being taken to the cleaners by their Y2K contract specialists, and many were. They remember that, and as such they are not inclined to be charitable.
The dot-com extravaganza allowed marginal people with equally marginal ideas to command extraordinary prices, and we gloriously overpaid for them and their companies. Unfortunately, most of them worked in the ICT sector. The bubble has since burst, but many of the opulent expectations they created continue to haunt the economy and the people.
If that weren’t enough, Canadian businesses have also discovered the attraction of ICT outsourcing. The vendor takes over ICT problems that were never really understood, and for them it’s a great relief. The vendor knows how to apply best practices. Project failure will be a thing of the past. And expensive ICT assets change hands, doing nice things to this year’s bottom line.
The outsourcing trend is bringing massive change. The pundits are talking about 25 per cent to 50 per cent of all current ICT employees being outsourced within the next two or three years. Some of that will be a “simple” transfer of employment from a regular company to an outsourcing vendor. However, some of that will also lead to the export of jobs to lower-cost labour markets.
It seems clear that the wonderful employment opportunities we enjoyed in the late 1990s are gone, and are unlikely to return, at least not anytime soon. It will get better, but ICT professionals who want continued employment will have to adjust to a strikingly different reality.
Flying pig: Same chances as a meaningful deal in Montreal?
November 2005: the Kyoto Protocol has been in force for six years, emissions of greenhouse gases are falling fast, and all governments accept the message of urgency coming from mainstream climate science.
With the Kyoto targets already achieved, the Montreal summit will focus on the next round of commitments for developed and developing countries alike.
Richer states are preparing to pledge cuts of 30% by 2020, as a step towards their declared aim of 90% reductions by 2050; while developing nations have agreed an initial target of 5%.
There is consensus across the board that every citizen of the planet should be entitled, in the long term, to the same allowance for emitting greenhouse gases.
The only potential problem Montreal delegates may face is the number of flying pigs migrating north-eastwards from Lake Ontario.
Well, that's how the meeting could be panning out - if we lived on a parallel Planet Earth.
Certainly, the picture painted above is more akin to the visions which climate specialists had in 1997, rather than today's uncomfortable morass.
In reality, of course, the protocol came into force only this year; and while many interested parties continue to insist on firm targets and timetables beyond 2012 - the period covered by Kyoto - there are now powerful forces pulling in the other direction.
What, then, can we expect from the Montreal talks? Will they be meaningful negotiations, or merely talks about talks about talks - cubic kilometres of hot air jumping through hoop after pointless hoop?
HOW ARE THE TALKS CONSTRUCTED?
This is the 11th round since it all began at the Rio de Janeiro Earth Summit in 1992.
But, for the first time, the two-week-long talk-in consists of two meetings in one.
Some of the discussions will concern the Kyoto Protocol; and countries which have put themselves outside the protocol, such as the United States and Australia, are permitted only to observe.
Other discussions pertain to the original UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and will include everyone.
After a fanfare of arrivals, the first week will consist largely of behind-the-scenes negotiations, with ministers arriving only for the final few days.
Since the Kyoto Protocol was signed in 1997, the evidence for human-induced (anthropogenic) climate change has grown apace.
There is hardly a single scientifically qualified climate specialist on the face of the planet who believes the Earth's surface is not warming.
Uncertainties remain as to the likely extent and to the degree of human involvement.
But there is general agreement that whatever happens now politically, there will inevitably be a warming of between one and two degrees Celsius, with potentially serious consequences in some regions, principally in poorer parts of the world.
One of the burning questions of the moment is what constitutes dangerous climate change?
All countries present, even the Kyoto naysayers, have a duty under the Framework Convention to stabilise greenhouse gases at levels which do not cause "dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system".
At the current rate of rise, 400 ppm will be reached in 10-15 years; and, as noted above, concentrations of greenhouse gases may already be high enough to make a temperature rise of one-and-a-half degrees inevitable.
WHAT IS HAPPENING TO EMISSIONS NOW?
The more developed the country, the more reliable the data; the Kyoto Protocol requires Annex 1 nations (those which are required to make cuts) to provide in-depth annual reports.
Thirty-seven Annex 1 countries now remain inside the protocol.
Of these, about half are seeing their emissions rise, while the other half have seen a fall since 1990, the baseline for UN calculations.
Broadly, the ex-Soviet bloc countries are the ones where greenhouse gas production is going down - 39.6% between 1990 and 2003 - while it went up by 9.2% during the same period in the others.
Although the US and Australia have pulled out of the Kyoto process, their emissions have risen less than some nations which remain within the treaty.
The International Energy Agency calculates that rising energy demands will mean a global increase in industry-related emissions alone of 62% between now and 2030.
By contrast, accepting the figures of 400 ppm for CO2 and two degrees Celsius for temperature rise would suggest that emissions need to come down by something in the order of 62% between now and 2030.
WHAT ARE THE BIG PLAYERS BRINGING?
Much of the discussions will involve the minutiae of the Kyoto Protocol, though there are serious issues here.
2005 - Montreal meeting - where now?
One is the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), a system set up to enable richer countries to meet their targets through investing in developing nations.
It does not appear to be working terribly well, and there are likely to be calls for more investment, resources and oversight.
What there should logically be, now that the Kyoto Protocol is in force, is discussion on further targets and timetables, something which is enshrined in the treaty's wording.
But of firm numbers, there has so far been almost no mention.
This may be because countries which are so far off meeting existing targets do not want to discuss new ones; while developing states know that if they push the west for tougher action, they may be pressed to adopt targets themselves.
In a news briefing the week before the Montreal discussions opened, President Bush's chief environmental advisor, James Connaughton, made clear the US would not support binding targets.
"We don't need them," he told reporters, pushing the case that "many of the more consequential initiatives [on cutting emissions] have occurred outside of a treaty process."
United States officials have pledged not to oppose targets if that is what other nations want, but some observers greet that with scepticism.
Climate pact: Good or bad?
In July, the US, together with five other coal-intensive countries, announced the formation of the Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate.
The stated aim is to reduce emissions though voluntary partnerships and technology while safeguarding economic growth.
Although their agreement acknowledges the primacy of the UN process, it provides a rival model of emissions reduction which appears highly seductive.
Though the Bush administration has accepted since 2001 that the climate is changing and humans are partially responsible, Mr Connaughton also denied there was any consensus on what constitutes dangerous climate change.
"We remain committed to stabilisation," he said, though at a level which is "not defined".
The European Union, though, has adopted two degrees Celsius as a threshold which should not be crossed.
Where is Blair on climate?
But precisely what cards Europe will play in Montreal is a different question.
The delegation will be led by Britain, which currently holds the EU Presidency; and as my colleague Roger Harrabin discusses elsewhere on these pages, there have been signs of a recent movement by British leaders towards the US position.
"We are hoping that British ministers will stick formally to an approach based on industrialised countries having greenhouse gas targets based on the most recent science," said Tony Juniper, executive director of Friends of the Earth UK.
"That is something that is non-negotiable as far as the EU core position is concerned."
WHAT WILL DEVELOPING COUNTRIES BE PRESSING FOR?
Traditionally, the loudest developing country voices have been those arguing that their economies should be allowed to develop without restrictions on greenhouse gas emissions - and, by implication, on economic growth.
But there is also growing alarm about the potential impacts of climate change.
Rajendra Pachauri, who chairs the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the body charged with providing scientific evidence to feed into UN negotiations, believes that economic concerns will win out.
"There is a lot of concern about the impact of climate change," he told the BBC News website.
"But developing countries make repeated reference to the clause in the Framework Convention which talks of 'common but differentiated responsibilities'.
"This accepts that developed countries must take the first steps, and the fact remains that in per capita terms, emission levels from countries like India and China are much lower than in the developed world; so I think developing countries will remain against binding targets for now."
On the really big questions - whether there should be a binding treaty post-Kyoto, and whether developing nations should be subject to any targets at all - little progress is likely.
Look for plenty of noise in the corridors and alleyways - lots of vocalising against the US and Australia, and pressure on the EU and Japan to stay firm - but few concrete signs.
Where meaningful progress is likely is on issues like the CDM, on helping developing countries to monitor emissions, perhaps also on expanding avenues for technology transfer.
Chances of the flying pigs materialising? Close to absolute zero.
The trade winds continue to bring passing light showers our way over some of our windward and mauka locations. A batch of moisture remains within our trade wind flow. The area of high pressure that is generating the trade winds is sliding east as a front approaches the islands from the NW. This front will bring us passing showers on Thursday with some heavy pockets a possibility. And then our winds will be shifting out of the north behind the front on Thursday into Friday. Until then, the winds are dropping off.
The National Weather Service has a Small Craft Advisory up for the eastern channels. Surf is trending down the next couple of days. : A small reinforcement out of the north is expected tonight through Wednesday. A larger northwest swell will build Wednesday and Wednesday night, and could approach low end advisory levels Thursday through Friday along north and west facing shores. Surf will remain elevated Friday night through the weekend as reinforcing north-northwest and northwest swells move through the island chain. A downward trend is expected through Wednesday with small surf forecast through the rest of the week. Surf along south facing shores will remain small but several long period south swells will produce background surf throughout the week. A slight bump is expected Wednesday night through Friday, followed by more background south swells over the weekend.
There are at least two reasons why online lender Elevate Credit delayed its IPO.
The first is obvious: No company will risk going public in a tanking stock market.
But for Elevate there's an added challenge. The company provides financial services to "nonprime consumers," a segment of the market seen as particularly vulnerable in an economic downturn.
Elevate, spun out of Think Finance and backed by Sequoia Capital, had filed to raise up to $79 million in an offering slated for this week. With the Nasdaq Composite down 11 percent in January and headed for its worst month since 2008, delaying any IPO in this market is considered a no-brainer.
"Although the response to the marketing of our planned IPO has been very favorable, we recognize that the current market volatility makes it very difficult to price our offering at present," said CEO Ken Rees in a statement.
Data storage vendor Nutanix is on file to go public in what would be a much bigger and more high-profile offering. Venture capitalist Charles Moldow of Foundation Capital said in an interview with CNBC that there's no way Nutanix (or any company) would try to tap the market at this point.
"I think they wait for the market to stabilize," said Moldow, whose firm is not an investor in Elevate or Nutanix. "Right now I don't think anyone would be thinking about going on a roadshow to try and sell stock."
But at least Nutanix is selling products to help companies deal with the deluge of heavy-duty data entering their data centers. Elevate, by contrast, is selling into the teeth of the credit market.
Elevate's core product is an online alternative to a payday loan. By using technology to power underwriting, Elevate is able to perform better due diligence than traditional offline lenders and offer cheaper credit than what's otherwise available to its customer base.
Still, these are consumers who are, for the most part, one missed paycheck away from potential default. Short-term loans in the U.S. range from $500 to $5,000.
Read MoreWhat do rising rates mean for online lenders?
Net charge-offs represent about 50 percent of Elevate's revenue, meaning for every $1 it generates in revenue, almost 50 cents of it goes to cover loans gone bad.
In the first nine months of 2015, revenue jumped 67 percent from the prior year to $300.3 million. Elevate recorded charge-offs of $143.2 million and an additional provision for loan losses of $17.9 million. That all resulted in a net loss of $20.2 million.
"Because of the nonprime nature of our customers, we have historically experienced a high rate of net charge-offs as a percentage of revenues, and our ability to price appropriately in response to this and other factors is essential."
It's been a tough ride for other newly public online lenders.
As of Wednesday's close, LendingClub was trading 47 percent below its IPO price from Dec. 2014, even though it's serving prime borrowers. OnDeck, which provides Web-based business loans, has plunged 61 percent from its debut price the same month.
Furthermore, Elevate faces regulatory risk as the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) seeks to cap interest rates charged to borrowers. Elevate's two U.S. products carry average annualized interest rates of 88 percent and 176 percent, according to the prospectus.
The CFPB is currently considering rules that would restrict the use of loans with rates exceeding 36 percent. State regulators have the authority to actually cap the rates.
"If these laws are widely adapted, they would undercut revenues significantly," according to a recent report from the Website Seeking Alpha.
Clarification: This story has been updated to say that states have the authority to cap rates on consumer loans.
Rush Limbaugh lies, says WIC program "not doing anybody any good"
Limbaugh, apparently, doesn't count close to 9 million women and children nationwide as "anybody"
Rush Limbaugh doesn't see why people are getting so worked up about the government shutdown. He really does not think it is a big deal. At all!
During the Friday broadcast of his radio show, Limbaugh tried to express his annoyance over the public response to the shutdown by being all like, Who cares about the kids being kicked out of Head Start, domestic violence survivors being turned away from shelters and the women and children who can no longer rely on the Women, Infants and Children (WIC) nutrition program for basic necessities like healthy food, breastfeeding support and infant formula?

There'll also be an 8-foot smoker for weekend projects like a whole hog. Prices will range from $6 to $22.

"We're definitely going to be Frisco- and family-centric," he says. "I just want to make people happy and offer great hospitality."

Statistics Canada recently reported that roughly 600,000 Canadians were employed in the information and communications technology (ICT) sector in 2001. Together, these workers represented 6.2 per cent of all Canadian production and four per cent of all Canadian employment. Average annual growth has been 14.9 per cent, compared to 3.8 per cent for the overall economy (1997 to 2001).

The long term trends are all positive. But that’s little consolation for the recent graduate who can’t find his next job. Nor does it help the seasoned professional who can’t find a position, notwithstanding her solid 25-year track record. Long term, positive trends are cold comfort when faced with short-term, negative reality.

Several things seem to be affecting ICT employment. Obviously, the economy isn’t in great shape. Then there are ICT-specific challenges – many businesses felt like they were being taken to the cleaners by their Y2K contract specialists, and many were. They remember that, and as such they are not inclined to be charitable.

The dot-com extravaganza allowed marginal people with equally marginal ideas to command extraordinary prices, and we gloriously overpaid for them and their companies. Unfortunately, most of them worked in the ICT sector. The bubble has since burst, but many of the opulent expectations they created continue to haunt the economy and the people.

If that weren’t enough, Canadian businesses have also discovered the attraction of ICT outsourcing. The vendor takes over ICT problems that were never really understood, and for them it’s a great relief. The vendor knows how to apply best practices. Project failure will be a thing of the past. And expensive ICT assets change hands, doing nice things to this year’s bottom line.

The outsourcing trend is bringing massive change. The pundits are talking about 25 per cent to 50 per cent of all current ICT employees being outsourced within the next two or three years. Some of that will be a “simple” transfer of employment from a regular company to an outsourcing vendor. However, some of that will also lead to the export of jobs to lower-cost labour markets.

It seems clear that the wonderful employment opportunities we enjoyed in the late 1990s are gone, and are unlikely to return, at least not anytime soon. It will get better, but ICT professionals who want continued employment will have to adjust to a strikingly different reality.

Flying pig: Same chances as a meaningful deal in Montreal?

November 2005: the Kyoto Protocol has been in force for six years, emissions of greenhouse gases are falling fast, and all governments accept the message of urgency coming from mainstream climate science.

With the Kyoto targets already achieved, the Montreal summit will focus on the next round of commitments for developed and developing countries alike.

Richer states are preparing to pledge cuts of 30% by 2020, as a step towards their declared aim of 90% reductions by 2050; while developing nations have agreed an initial target of 5%.

There is consensus across the board that every citizen of the planet should be entitled, in the long term, to the same allowance for emitting greenhouse gases.

The only potential problem Montreal delegates may face is the number of flying pigs migrating north-eastwards from Lake Ontario.

Well, that's how the meeting could be panning out - if we lived on a parallel Planet Earth.

Certainly, the picture painted above is more akin to the visions which climate specialists had in 1997, rather than today's uncomfortable morass.

In reality, of course, the protocol came into force only this year; and while many interested parties continue to insist on firm targets and timetables beyond 2012 - the period covered by Kyoto - there are now powerful forces pulling in the other direction.

What, then, can we expect from the Montreal talks? Will they be meaningful negotiations, or merely talks about talks about talks - cubic kilometres of hot air jumping through hoop after pointless hoop?

HOW ARE THE TALKS CONSTRUCTED?

This is the 11th round since it all began at the Rio de Janeiro Earth Summit in 1992.

But, for the first time, the two-week-long talk-in consists of two meetings in one.

Some of the discussions will concern the Kyoto Protocol; and countries which have put themselves outside the protocol, such as the United States and Australia, are permitted only to observe.

Other discussions pertain to the original UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and will include everyone.

After a fanfare of arrivals, the first week will consist largely of behind-the-scenes negotiations, with ministers arriving only for the final few days.

Since the Kyoto Protocol was signed in 1997, the evidence for human-induced (anthropogenic) climate change has grown apace.

There is hardly a single scientifically qualified climate specialist on the face of the planet who believes the Earth's surface is not warming.

Uncertainties remain as to the likely extent and to the degree of human involvement.

But there is general agreement that whatever happens now politically, there will inevitably be a warming of between one and two degrees Celsius, with potentially serious consequences in some regions, principally in poorer parts of the world.

One of the burning questions of the moment is what constitutes dangerous climate change?

All countries present, even the Kyoto naysayers, have a duty under the Framework Convention to stabilise greenhouse gases at levels which do not cause "dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system".

At the current rate of rise, 400 ppm will be reached in 10-15 years; and, as noted above, concentrations of greenhouse gases may already be high enough to make a temperature rise of one-and-a-half degrees inevitable.

WHAT IS HAPPENING TO EMISSIONS NOW?

The more developed the country, the more reliable the data; the Kyoto Protocol requires Annex 1 nations (those which are required to make cuts) to provide in-depth annual reports.

Thirty-seven Annex 1 countries now remain inside the protocol.

Of these, about half are seeing their emissions rise, while the other half have seen a fall since 1990, the baseline for UN calculations.

Broadly, the ex-Soviet bloc countries are the ones where greenhouse gas production is going down - 39.6% between 1990 and 2003 - while it went up by 9.2% during the same period in the others.

Although the US and Australia have pulled out of the Kyoto process, their emissions have risen less than some nations which remain within the treaty.

The International Energy Agency calculates that rising energy demands will mean a global increase in industry-related emissions alone of 62% between now and 2030.

By contrast, accepting the figures of 400 ppm for CO2 and two degrees Celsius for temperature rise would suggest that emissions need to come down by something in the order of 62% between now and 2030.

WHAT ARE THE BIG PLAYERS BRINGING?

Much of the discussions will involve the minutiae of the Kyoto Protocol, though there are serious issues here.

2005 - Montreal meeting - where now?

One is the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), a system set up to enable richer countries to meet their targets through investing in developing nations.

It does not appear to be working terribly well, and there are likely to be calls for more investment, resources and oversight.

What there should logically be, now that the Kyoto Protocol is in force, is discussion on further targets and timetables, something which is enshrined in the treaty's wording.

But of firm numbers, there has so far been almost no mention.

This may be because countries which are so far off meeting existing targets do not want to discuss new ones; while developing states know that if they push the west for tougher action, they may be pressed to adopt targets themselves.

In a news briefing the week before the Montreal discussions opened, President Bush's chief environmental advisor, James Connaughton, made clear the US would not support binding targets.

"We don't need them," he told reporters, pushing the case that "many of the more consequential initiatives [on cutting emissions] have occurred outside of a treaty process."

United States officials have pledged not to oppose targets if that is what other nations want, but some observers greet that with scepticism.

Climate pact: Good or bad?

In July, the US, together with five other coal-intensive countries, announced the formation of the Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate.

The stated aim is to reduce emissions though voluntary partnerships and technology while safeguarding economic growth.

Although their agreement acknowledges the primacy of the UN process, it provides a rival model of emissions reduction which appears highly seductive.

Though the Bush administration has accepted since 2001 that the climate is changing and humans are partially responsible, Mr Connaughton also denied there was any consensus on what constitutes dangerous climate change.

"We remain committed to stabilisation," he said, though at a level which is "not defined".

The European Union, though, has adopted two degrees Celsius as a threshold which should not be crossed.

Where is Blair on climate?

But precisely what cards Europe will play in Montreal is a different question.

The delegation will be led by Britain, which currently holds the EU Presidency; and as my colleague Roger Harrabin discusses elsewhere on these pages, there have been signs of a recent movement by British leaders towards the US position.

"We are hoping that British ministers will stick formally to an approach based on industrialised countries having greenhouse gas targets based on the most recent science," said Tony Juniper, executive director of Friends of the Earth UK.

"That is something that is non-negotiable as far as the EU core position is concerned."

WHAT WILL DEVELOPING COUNTRIES BE PRESSING FOR?

Traditionally, the loudest developing country voices have been those arguing that their economies should be allowed to develop without restrictions on greenhouse gas emissions - and, by implication, on economic growth.

But there is also growing alarm about the potential impacts of climate change.

Rajendra Pachauri, who chairs the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the body charged with providing scientific evidence to feed into UN negotiations, believes that economic concerns will win out.

"There is a lot of concern about the impact of climate change," he told the BBC News website.

"But developing countries make repeated reference to the clause in the Framework Convention which talks of 'common but differentiated responsibilities'.

"This accepts that developed countries must take the first steps, and the fact remains that in per capita terms, emission levels from countries like India and China are much lower than in the developed world; so I think developing countries will remain against binding targets for now."

On the really big questions - whether there should be a binding treaty post-Kyoto, and whether developing nations should be subject to any targets at all - little progress is likely.

Look for plenty of noise in the corridors and alleyways - lots of vocalising against the US and Australia, and pressure on the EU and Japan to stay firm - but few concrete signs.

Where meaningful progress is likely is on issues like the CDM, on helping developing countries to monitor emissions, perhaps also on expanding avenues for technology transfer.

Chances of the flying pigs materialising? Close to absolute zero.

The trade winds continue to bring passing light showers our way over some of our windward and mauka locations. A batch of moisture remains within our trade wind flow. The area of high pressure that is generating the trade winds is sliding east as a front approaches the islands from the NW. This front will bring us passing showers on Thursday with some heavy pockets a possibility. And then our winds will be shifting out of the north behind the front on Thursday into Friday. Until then, the winds are dropping off.

The National Weather Service has a Small Craft Advisory up for the eastern channels. Surf is trending down the next couple of days. : A small reinforcement out of the north is expected tonight through Wednesday. A larger northwest swell will build Wednesday and Wednesday night, and could approach low end advisory levels Thursday through Friday along north and west facing shores. Surf will remain elevated Friday night through the weekend as reinforcing north-northwest and northwest swells move through the island chain. A downward trend is expected through Wednesday with small surf forecast through the rest of the week. Surf along south facing shores will remain small but several long period south swells will produce background surf throughout the week. A slight bump is expected Wednesday night through Friday, followed by more background south swells over the weekend.

There are at least two reasons why online lender Elevate Credit delayed its IPO.

The first is obvious: No company will risk going public in a tanking stock market.

But for Elevate there's an added challenge. The company provides financial services to "nonprime consumers," a segment of the market seen as particularly vulnerable in an economic downturn.

Elevate, spun out of Think Finance and backed by Sequoia Capital, had filed to raise up to $79 million in an offering slated for this week. With the Nasdaq Composite down 11 percent in January and headed for its worst month since 2008, delaying any IPO in this market is considered a no-brainer.

"Although the response to the marketing of our planned IPO has been very favorable, we recognize that the current market volatility makes it very difficult to price our offering at present," said CEO Ken Rees in a statement.

Data storage vendor Nutanix is on file to go public in what would be a much bigger and more high-profile offering. Venture capitalist Charles Moldow of Foundation Capital said in an interview with CNBC that there's no way Nutanix (or any company) would try to tap the market at this point.

"I think they wait for the market to stabilize," said Moldow, whose firm is not an investor in Elevate or Nutanix. "Right now I don't think anyone would be thinking about going on a roadshow to try and sell stock."

But at least Nutanix is selling products to help companies deal with the deluge of heavy-duty data entering their data centers. Elevate, by contrast, is selling into the teeth of the credit market.

Elevate's core product is an online alternative to a payday loan. By using technology to power underwriting, Elevate is able to perform better due diligence than traditional offline lenders and offer cheaper credit than what's otherwise available to its customer base.

Still, these are consumers who are, for the most part, one missed paycheck away from potential default. Short-term loans in the U.S. range from $500 to $5,000.

Read MoreWhat do rising rates mean for online lenders?

Net charge-offs represent about 50 percent of Elevate's revenue, meaning for every $1 it generates in revenue, almost 50 cents of it goes to cover loans gone bad.

In the first nine months of 2015, revenue jumped 67 percent from the prior year to $300.3 million. Elevate recorded charge-offs of $143.2 million and an additional provision for loan losses of $17.9 million. That all resulted in a net loss of $20.2 million.

"Because of the nonprime nature of our customers, we have historically experienced a high rate of net charge-offs as a percentage of revenues, and our ability to price appropriately in response to this and other factors is essential."

It's been a tough ride for other newly public online lenders.

As of Wednesday's close, LendingClub was trading 47 percent below its IPO price from Dec. 2014, even though it's serving prime borrowers. OnDeck, which provides Web-based business loans, has plunged 61 percent from its debut price the same month.

Furthermore, Elevate faces regulatory risk as the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) seeks to cap interest rates charged to borrowers. Elevate's two U.S. products carry average annualized interest rates of 88 percent and 176 percent, according to the prospectus.

The CFPB is currently considering rules that would restrict the use of loans with rates exceeding 36 percent. State regulators have the authority to actually cap the rates.

"If these laws are widely adapted, they would undercut revenues significantly," according to a recent report from the Website Seeking Alpha.

Clarification: This story has been updated to say that states have the authority to cap rates on consumer loans.

Rush Limbaugh lies, says WIC program "not doing anybody any good"

Limbaugh, apparently, doesn't count close to 9 million women and children nationwide as "anybody"

Rush Limbaugh doesn't see why people are getting so worked up about the government shutdown. He really does not think it is a big deal. At all!

During the Friday broadcast of his radio show, Limbaugh tried to express his annoyance over the public response to the shutdown by being all like, Who cares about the kids being kicked out of Head Start, domestic violence survivors being turned away from shelters and the women and children who can no longer rely on the Women, Infants and Children (WIC) nutrition program for basic necessities like healthy food, breastfeeding support and infant formula?