rb

I doubled my ABEV today. ;) You should send Spek a case of beer to help with the coming pain ;) I kid.

BS! MSFT had a large and growing dividend and doing plenty of buybacks when the stock was in the dumps. I know that because I was in the dumpster picking up stock. Kept staying in the dumps for a few years after that. About 2 years before that.

It's probably around minus 15% or 20%.

BS! MSFT had a large and growing dividend and doing plenty of buybacks when the stock was in the dumps. I know that because I was in the dumpster picking up stock. Kept staying in the dumps for a few years after that.

Thank you good sir!

Does anyone know a place where I can find older annul reports for obscure companies? I'm specifically looking for 2007-2012 for a company called Meritage Hospitality Group that trades OTC.

I think one error you guys are making when thinking about banks and rates is that you are not comparing Apples to Apples. The Japanese are degenerate savers. A large tract of Europe are degenerate savers. Americans are degenerate spenders. One of these things is not like the other. Maybe you should look somewhere closer to home. Pre GFC Canadians have been moderate savers, post GFC Canadians have become moderate spenders. Rates came down, NIM margins contracted a lot. Now check what happened to the earnings of Canadian banks.

It's even better if you're part of the "looter class" and not an American. Then you can loot America and not have to deal with its shitty infrastructure at the same time. ;D Attaboy Mitch!

Seriously what is it with the Americans? https://www.marketwatch.com/story/two-mcdonalds-workers-shot-by-customer-over-dining-area-dispute-2020-05-07?mod=bnbh

So let me get this straight. The states that pay more than the receive (let's call them the makers) tend to be large and blue. The states that pay less than they receive tend to be small and red (let's call them the takers). The makers are more affected by this because it turns out that density matters in how a virus spreads. But the makers and the takers should get the same amount on money. Moreover the takers should get a lot more per capita because they are smaller. In addition the takers who don't need the money for health care because they have low density should feel free to spend the money on whatever they want i.e tax cuts (preferably on the rich) as is their custom. Did I get this one right? But please feel free to lecture me more about corruption, China and the fisting of the common man.

I'm putting this thing up here again. Only this time it has scotch in it.

Not a doctor by any stretch. But from what I've read there's a whole slew of tests, some more invasive than others. The really up you nostrill thing seems to be that it's the place where the virus will be more concentrated and easier to catch in a sample in order to avoid false negatives. There apparently are other less invasive tests. But i guess it depends on the sensitivity/reliability of the test and I can't speak to that. But it seems pretty logical that the more concentrated a sample would be, the lower the chance for a false negative.

About that reopening https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-usa-texas/texas-back-in-business-barely-yall-as-malls-restaurants-empty-idUSKBN22H19K

Yea I'm starting to think that you're really trying to pull this one by the hairs. Sure there are commitments that we do not capitalize because some are clearly operating expenses. Your example of planes doubling is also pretty out there. Sure some freak even may happen and risks may be distribuited in freaky ways. But generally it doesn't happen. It's no secret that equipment will generally be worth less over time. It's also no secret the land will generally be worth more over time. These things make their way into the leasing rates. That's why you can rent a place in SF at a 3% cap rate when the mortgage is at 4% or whatever. You don't really loose out on the appreciation of the land, you still get the benefit through the lease rate. I don't really have a dog in this fight though. You don't want to capitalize leases, then don't.

Well they also gave back the asset. I'm not familiar with the transaction. But to use your numbers and your example, if you're willing to pay a 15% breakup fee most banks will let you out of your mortgage contract.

On the liability side your argument doesn't make sense at all. First off leases come in all shapes and colours. For some you do need a capital outlay, for some you don't. If you have a contractual obligation to pay something over a period of time, what is that if not a liability? Even in the cases where you say that you don't have an initial capital outlay. That's like 0% down financing. If you do 0% down financing isn't the money you borrowed a liability? Of course it is. On the asset side are you not employing the asset in the use of your business? Does that asset not work to produce income? Think of it from the perspective of two airlines which are otherwise identical but one bought its whole fleet and one leased its whole fleet. Is the latter more asset light than the former? Of course not. The idea that owning an asset outright or leasing it are vastly different from an economic perspective is also flawed. If that were true then one party is taking a massive bath on the deal. So then what you should see is that leasing companies are either duds or fantastically good businesses. Therefore lessors should trade at massive discounts or massive premiums. Alas that's not true either.

Here it is. Thanks. I'm LMAO at the cheque. There's probably a regulation somewhere of what can go on cheques. The only place the could put his name in is in the description. Likely because the president doesn't have signing authority at the treasury. BUT Vona Robinson does. So she gets to sign the cheques, not Trump. Ooooohh he must have been pissed about that.

Maybe you want to detail how.

You capitalize them. They represent assets that are used in order to conduct business. Changing some wording in the contract does not change the economic nature of the transaction.

I'll assume you have experiences that are biasing your knowledge base. Now, keep in mind, I do too. ;) No I don't base my statement on biases like you do. Just facts. The TLDR on this is that there's nothing that special about China. Also nothing too exceptional about the US. These are just stories we tell ourselves. The US is a moderately affluent country. But they have a lot of people. So great power. China is actually a very average country. Almost the definition of average. They're about as affluent as other big names such as Turkmenistan, the Dominican Republic, Palau and Serbia. Somewhat below the great Belarus and well below some other great places like Bulgaria! But there's a lot of them so great power. The thing is nobody put China in power. They put themselves in power by achieving the incredible feat of being average and under performing Bulgaria. All that China had to do was to stop shooting themselves in the foot with cultural revolution type shit. It was inevitable. Now you might argue that other "types" of administrations would have been able to suppress China through economic and military wars. That worked in the case of Cuba, but sucked in the case of a larger country like Vietnam. My guess is that it would have really sucked in the case of China.

Why does that matter?

This is so dumb! I cannot even begin....

Ahem, maybe not sky scraping hospitals. But...

They're more of a cash only outfit.

Can somebody post a picture of a Donald Trump cheque. I'm dying of curiosity.