Discussion in 'Business & Economics' started by davidelkins, May 8, 2016.
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
LOL...oh no, insults are always objective. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
As has been repeatedly brought to your attention, your assertions are nonsense and the reasons why have been repeatedly explained to you. The problem with your "plausible concept" is it lacks a value proposition. You need some value (i.e. reason) to split a company, and enfranchisement doesn't involve the arbitrary splitting of a company. It really is that simple. And after all of you posts, you have yet to describe how the model outlined in the the OP would add value to a franchising business - probably because it doesn't make any kind of sense.
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
No more confused because i still have no fucking clue what your insane fucking ramblings about people pretending are about. you still sound like a drug addict to me.
still doesn't change you thought a series 7 made you a business expert
Oh, well then you should be able to prove it. So let's see it. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
This is what you predicted months ago, "earning are a result of the institutions income--usually under USA income, even though there are lines on the balance sheet of over seas income-- but that is international--usually separate in general.
i do not see how earnings tells anyone that china is fine-- if anything earning only tells you that companies from the usa have received their manufactured products from china--nothing more."
There are no income lines on a balance sheet...oops.
The discussion then was about the panic which characterized the first few weeks of trading. I said it was irrational and said why that was so. Since then the market has regained everything it lost and then some. Unfortunately for you and contrary to your previous assertions earnings do matter, and contrary to your assertions they are not reported on "balance sheets". As was pointed out to you there is whole other document called the "income statement" in which earnings are reported. And the issue wasn't just earnings, but earning season which if you were who you represent yourself to be should know about. But you didn't, and that should be a problem for anyone who might want to take you seriously. As previously explained to you, earnings season is when companies report revenues, earnings, and other relevant information about a companies operating results for the most recent quarter. Publicly traded companies are required to file financial disclosures with the SEC and those documents do reveal a lot about the company and regions (i.e. countries) in which it operates. Contrary to your assertion earnings do matter and earning seasons matters.
Isn't that what I said? My post #11, "Businesses split all the time, but they have a good business reason to do so". I suggest you read the OP. Perhaps if you read it more slowly it might help.
Companies routinely miss revenue and earnings too, nothing new there. As demonstrated by your posts, you have no expertise, at least not in finance. You didn't know the difference between an income statement and a balance sheet. You cannot read financials. Most telling, you didn't even know the value of earning season. You are indeed a fraud.
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! comical--more elementary minded ranting and raving, how typical.
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! (shrugs)
and also, yes, you are correct--you were not part of the actual conversation, you were just joe's cheerleader--as you obviously still are.
my god, you still cannot comprehend that post??
all in all the whole conversation is in the china halts something or another for 2 days or something, of that, anyone can go read it for themselves. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! (shrugs)
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! carry on.
LOL...yeah OMG. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! And yes, unfortunately for you it is there for anyone to read.
Carry On Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
opiolite, this is exactly what it is about for joe and pj. the minute i mentioned that i hold a series 7,(which by the way, both does not have a clue what it is actually about) was the minute i had a problem with them, as you can see.
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! (shrugs)
When was the last time you were banned from Sciforums for trolling? It wasn't that long ago....a few weeks? It appears you have not learned the lesson.
ahh yes, your usual pathetic nonsense, is this all?
" a few weeks? "
i think it was about a week ago, and it was for 3 days if i remember correctly-- but what is your point?
joe, the mods ban me for stating the truth in an uncivil manner and nothing more-- even then, i am only banned when some one hits the report button(LIM-- i bet you hit the report button).
And each one of your reasons has either been refuted, or I have indicated that a presentation of the "plausible concept" would make clear to you why your reasons were unfounded.
Yet you continue taking this dogmatic stance that my plausible notion must be nonsense and therefore need not be considered. I have encouraged you repeatedly - then told you I was encouraging you - to ask me for a description of the concept and you have continued from the dogmatic position that it is nonsense and therefore need not be considered. I do smile at your consistency.
You cannot know that because you have yet to ask for any detail of the concept.
There is nothing arbitrary about the splitting. It is wholly consistent with the building and extension of value. But since you have never asked for a description of the concept, knowing in advance that it was silly, you continue with this misguided apprehension of what the concept is.
Seriously Joe - and I probably do mean this as both objective observation and insult - you appear to have a massively close minded approach to ideas that don't square with how you think reality should be.
No. Because as I have indicated in post after post, you have yet to actually show any interest in considering the concept, because you already have decided that it is silly and could not possibly work. And so you have never actually asked to have a description of the idea, despite my continuous encouragement for you to do so.
I have no intention of presenting an outline of the concept until and unless you ask to see it and assure me that you will review it in a genuinely open minded manner (and convince me that you will be genuinely open minded in your assessment).
LOL...only in your dreams. List those refutations. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! The fact is the OP is implausible for the may reasons previously given and despite your many assertions to the contrary you have yet to provide even an iota of substantiation of this "plausiblity" you have asserted. The fact is what was described in the OP isn't in any way similar to franchising.
Well this notion that you believe is plausible doesn't make sense, because the OP doesn't make sense. As you have been repeatedly told, corporations need good business reasons to split, and you have offered NONE. And as you have been told and should know if you were a franchisee, the OP isn't descriptive of franchising. As you have been repeatedly told, franchising doesn't split up the franchisor or the franchisee. It doesn't split any thing.
Yes I can, because you wrote, "On the other hand, Joe, the OP has - perhaps by chance - described a plausible method of building a franchise business."
As has been repeatedly pointed out to you, the OP isn't in anyway descriptive of franchising.
Well, there shouldn't be anything arbitrary about splitting a company for the aforementioned and often repeated reasons I have given you. Splitting a company may be consistent with extending value or it may not be consistent with extending value. It is dependent upon circumstance. The issue here is the arbitrary nature of the splitting laid out in the first sentence of the OP and your followup assertion that it described a franchise business model. It doesn't. It really is that simple.
"What if there were a corporation that was designed to split into two daughter corporations ever x amount of time, such as once per year?" - OP
Well, that's fine. You are entitled to keep your machinations and schemes to yourself. And I will sleep just fine not knowing them. But the fact is and my point has been, that contrary to your assertion, the OP isn't in any way descriptive of a franchise business model nor does the model described in the OP make business sense because as has been repeatedly explained to you, there is no reason for this periodic and arbitrary splitting of a company described in the OP.
All your assertions to the contrary are merely that, empty desires. Any scientist, any business man, any entrepreneur, anyone with half a brain, would inquire further. They would want to see the hypothesis described, then - instead of assertions - they would be able to point out, item by item that their claims of folly were proven.
Yet once again, with such dumb assed determination, you avoid asking me to describe my plausible idea. I guess you are afraid I might just have something that makes sense and that would make you look like a fool. I advise you to remove all risk and place me on ignore.
Company performs first split. On the first iteration of splitting there are three daughter companies formed. All company splits will be division by three. There are now three companies. Total company assets are split evenly between the three daughter companies. The three companies have one rule. The one company that performs the best absorbs the company that performs the worst of the three companies. At that point there will be two companies. Then the cycle will repeat. The cycle is 'one three two', then of those two 'one three two'. Absorptions can be added at other levels if need be. This will ensure that there are not too many corporations operating. DE
You need a good business reason to do these splits and mergers and you don't have one, and that's a big problem. Additionally, if you want this to be sustainable, you need to have growth rates of at least 100% and that just doesn't happen for extended periods of time.
1. That is a very poor match for your description in the OP.
2. The reasons put forward by Joe in reference to what he imagined my notion to be do apply to yours and render it impractical/impossible.
Separate names with a comma.