pabraifan

Can I still join?

Happy Birthday! and thanks for running this forum

It took Congress and Senate less than 30 seconds to pass bill unanimously to repeal STOCK Act partially with no debate or discussion. Shameful. http://www.policymic.com/articles/35781/stock-act-president-obama-signs-bill-that-would-kill-government-transparency-database http://www.rollcall.com/news/obama_signs_partial_repeal_of_stock_act-224019-1.html?pos=hln

awesome. Thank you very much

Happy Anniversary and thank you very much,Parsad. I enjoy this forum and have learned a lot.

Berkowitz full video: http://www.bloomberg.com/video/one-on-one-with-bruce-berkowitz-f7ly_oVuSpeEDzVyggRbdA.html

thank you very much

thank you

the reason for Fairfax declining maybe due to forced selling: http://www.gurufocus.com/news/199642/forced-selling-of-fairfax-financial

Well, when you make rules that everybody's supposed to play by and someone doesn't, it harms all the others who were supposed to be playing the game with the same information as everybody else but actually weren't. So everybody who could have benefited from knowing that Buffett was about to invest but didn't was harmed (most directly those on the other side of the trades, but also everybody else who with that information would have traded differently). That's a lot of people. But that's just the first degree; once you have enough of that stuff, it erodes confidence in the whole game and makes the whole system stop working, so that's a lot more damage, even if more indirect and diffuse. I agree with Liberty. If a precedence is set, then the system will stop working and give people incentive to rub elbows with politicians, not play by the rule and do some charity to cover their butt if caught.

Totally agree. If the judge shows leniency for people committing insider trading law, where will the line be drawn ? Fraudsters as Ken Lay will also ask for leniency too with the same reasons. It's a slippery slope. Without harse sentencing, people will do whatever they want in the stock market and the small investors will be taken advantaged of. A good example is Japan where people don't respect insider trading law.

Thank you for posting

George Soros latest view on EU problem: http://www.georgesoros.com/articles-essays/entry/the_tragedy_of_the_european_union/ Enjoy James

Nice article about Vancouver real estate: http://www.theeconomicanalyst.com/content/vancouver-housing-full-correction-mode-implications-canadian-banks

Sure. If you're paying below market rents and locked up for such a low rate for the future, then you should be able capitalize the between greater assets and liability. Whether asset will match with liability is a question for the accountants. It is better to reflect reality someway than leaving it out from the balance sheet and in the disclosure. Back to the original question:Yes, operating leases should be capitalized as assets an liabilities on the balance sheet as finance leases. The only difference bw finance and operating leases is ownership, but both are contractually liable. Capitalizing operating leases will allow investors to have a better picture about the company;s D/E ratio.Hiding operating leases in disclosures is definitely not the solution.