TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Canada - Toronto & Southern Ont.
-- Tamils shut down Gardiner!
Pages (22): « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 [12] 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 »

quote:

Originally posted by MarkT yes, there is a reason...but it has nothing to do with profitability or value. companies can easily manipulate relative share price. If a stock splits, is the company half as profitable? lol! FAIL!

i don't think berkshire and hathaway have ever had a stock split. besides stock splits are usually meant to lower share price in order to attract investors. A reverse stock split is only done to increase share value, usually when a company is almost trading on pinksheets or its called Nortel.

If you believe that insurance companies dont make tons and tons of money take a look at their income statements and balance sheets.

quote:

Originally posted by Nrg2Nfinit and i appologize if you hate tamils so much that you take offense to me calling you one el kaydee.

Tamil TIGERS. Tamil TIGERS. Do you still not understand the difference between all Tamils and the LTTE?

How can you go on about there being another side to the argument when you do not even understand the argument?

quote:

Originally posted by Nrg2Nfinit i don't think berkshire and hathaway have ever had a stock split. besides stock splits are usually meant to lower share price in order to attract investors. A reverse stock split is only done to increase share value, usually when a company is almost trading on pinksheets or its called Nortel. If you believe that insurance companies dont make tons and tons of money take a look at their income statements and balance sheets.

points just fly way over your head don't they?

are you not getting the principle of prevention better than cure?

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut How can you go on about there being another side to the argument when you do not even understand the argument?

Here Nrgnotinfinit, do some reading:

quote:

Q&A: Sri Lanka crisis The Sri Lankan army says that there will be no more breaks in fighting against Tamil Tiger rebels as it completes manoeuvres to defeat them after years of war. Mullaitivu, the last of the rebels' north-eastern strongholds, was taken in February preceded by the fall of Kilinochchi and rebel-held parts of the Jaffna peninsula. The rebels now control only a small stretch of coastal land - estimated by the army to be no more than 12 sq km (5 sq m) - in the north-east of the country. Thousands of people - troops, Tamil Tiger rebels and Tamil, Sinhalese and Muslim civilians - are estimated to have been killed since fighting escalated after 2005. Thousands more have been displaced. Why is there so much concern over civilians? Aid agencies and the UN say that hundreds - if not thousands - of civilians have died since the fighting in the north-east escalated from the beginning of 2009. Many have warned that as the ground war draws to a conclusion, the plight of Tamil civilians will worsen. Although there are displaced civilians in government and rebel-held areas, there is particular concern for those who are trapped in the small tract of land still under the Tigers' control. Estimates of their number vary. The UN and aid agencies say it could be as high 120,000. Whatever the total, these people appear to be in mortal danger. Not only do they lack food and basic medical facilities, but there are accusations that they have been inadvertently fired upon by the army - eager to eliminate the last of the rebels - and the Tigers themselves, who are accused of using them as human shields. The government - no doubt sensitive to the growing demands from the international community for civilians to be afforded better protection - says that 100,000 people have fled rebel-held areas in recent days. But if there figures are correct, this number exceeds its earlier estimates of the number of civilians trapped. How serious is the violence? Seldom has the Sri Lankan civil war been as hard-fought as it is now. The army is pushing to defeat the rebels as soon as possible. The capture of Mullaitivu so soon after the rebels' de facto capital of Kilinochchi fell was a huge symbolic victory for the army. From the beginning of 2009 it has repeatedly stated that the total defeat of the Tamil Tigers is imminent and while most analysts agree that is now only a matter of time, the longer it takes to get the the job done the more pressure it will face. This pressure will come from the international community concerned over the plight of civilians and domestically from a war-weary population. While independent confirmation of the casualty figures in the recent fighting is impossible to verify - access to the area is strictly controlled by the government - there is little doubt that both sides have suffered considerable losses. Why the upsurge in violence? It increased after President Mahinda Rajapaksa's hard-line election campaign in November 2005, when he ruled out autonomy for Tamils in the north and east and promised to review the peace process. In between then and now the military offensive against the rebels has been ratcheted up, with the government formally abandoning a six-year-old Norwegian brokered ceasefire at the beginning of 2008. Some analysts argued that the rebels provoked the government into retaliation and war by staging attacks despite the truce, but others said they wanted to negotiate from a position of strength. Peace moves The two sides held six rounds of direct talks following the 2002 truce agreement. They agreed to exchange prisoners of war for the first time and the rebels at one stage even dropped their demand for a separate state. It was arguably the closest the country has ever come to a lasting peace settlement. But the Tigers pulled out of talks in 2003 and again in 2006 - claiming they were being sidelined - and between then and 2008 both sides accused each other of numerous breaches of the ceasefire as the country slid inexorably towards all-out war. As hostilities in the north-east have intensified, fears have risen for civilians caught up in the conflict. The UN, the Red Cross, aid agencies and human rights groups have expressed concern over the plight of up to 250,000 people trapped in rebel-held areas. In February 2009 key international backers - the US, EU, Japan and Norway - urged the rebels to consider laying down their arms and discussing an end to hostilities with the government. In April 2009 the UN again called on both sides to pause hostilities so aid can be sent in and people evacuated. What do the rebels want? It could be argued that given their parlous military position, the rebels will be happy today to survive as an armed force. They started fighting in the 1970s for a separate state for Tamils in Sri Lanka's north and east. They argued that the Tamils had been discriminated against by successive majority Sinhalese governments. They are a proscribed terrorist group in many countries. Are the rebels finished? With its advances in the east in 2007 and progress in the north in 2009, almost all of Sri Lanka is now under government control. But even though the army is now in a commanding position after taking Mullativu, Kilinochchi and Jaffna, the rebels have shown on innumerable occasions their capacity to fight a guerrilla war through the use of suicide bombings, assassinations and even aerial attacks carried out by planes operating from secret jungle bases. On 20 February an aerial attack involving at least two planes against the capital, Colombo, was blamed on the Tigers. What is the current military balance? Analysts say the recent success of the government can be explained by a number of factors including: * Increased government spending on the latest military assault * Crackdowns across Europe, Canada and the US on overseas fund-raising for the Tigers * Much reduced arms supplies for the Tigers because of stringent joint patrols by the Sri Lankan and Indian navies searching for vessels smuggling arms from south-east Asia What is the human and economic cost of the war? The conflict has killed has now killed well in excess of 70,00 people, displaced thousands more and held back the island's growth and economic development. Both the military and the Tigers have been regularly accused of gross abuses of human rights by organisations such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch. In October 2007, the government announced that it planned to increase defence expenditure in 2008 by nearly 20% to 166.4bn rupees ($1.48bn) from 139.6bn in 2007. Story from BBC NEWS: http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/...sia/2405347.stm Published: 2009/04/24 09:22:50 GMT

and in case you want the cliff notes,

The Sri Lankan government is sick and tired of the Tamil Tigers and is finally on the brink of eradicating the problem by taking down the top people right now having surrounded them. THIS is why these protests have suddenly cropped up in toronto and in few parts around the world as the Tamils are losing and can't accept it.

quote:

Originally posted by Nrg2Nfinit i don't think berkshire and hathaway have ever had a stock split. besides stock splits are usually meant to lower share price in order to attract investors. A reverse stock split is only done to increase share value, usually when a company is almost trading on pinksheets or its called Nortel. If you believe that insurance companies dont make tons and tons of money take a look at their income statements and balance sheets.

I'm quite aware.

bringing up share price is a poor argument for evaluating a company's financial health.

ever think that they just don't want volume trading of their stock?

quote:

Originally posted by Nrg2Nfinit there is a reason why berkshire and hathaway shares are 90,100 dollars a piece

LOL, I just realized I missed this one after seeing Mark's comment.

BRK.A: Mkt cap $140 billion, share price $90,100, avg. vol 1000
GE: Mkt cap $150 billion, share price $14.19, avg. vol 126m
MSFT: Mkt cap $172 billion, share price $19.32, avg. vol 63.77m

Lol, epic fail there. Plus, BRK also just posted $1.5 billion in losses. We're way off topic now but seriously, WTF was that about.

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut The point is that you already said this, that Ignatieff is a green opportunist with no actual authority, that impossibly na�ve attitudes such as this are the breeding grounds for terrorism and terrorist groups, and that you're a retard.

i thought we could keep this civil but apparently you're too angry that no ambulance was impeded by the protest and no one died to prove your silly point. Anyways My argument is that there is an issue (which i have to admit i am not clear on) and an MP is willing to make a stance due to the protest.

from what i understand they simply want independence from sri lanka. And they are getting masacred for it. Perhaps they have carried out asssasinations and what not but it seems like the general tamils are being persecuted for this and perhaps a third party intervention is needed.

quote:

Originally posted by MarkT I'm quite aware. bringing up share price is a poor argument for evaluating a company's financial health. ever think that they just don't want volume trading of their stock?

i dunno but 1.5 billion dollar losses relative to 107 billion dollars in revenue is peanuts

i realize that their net income now is 4 billion something relative to 14 billion or something from the previous year but seeing as how everyone just came out of a recesion my point still stands that insuracnce companies are money making machines.

you cannot argue with that.

quote:

Originally posted by El K Dee what kind of idiot are you? just because of the colour of my skin i'm tamil?

LOL...

I always thought you were Sri Lankan...

quote:

Originally posted by VDub LOL... I always thought you were Sri Lankan...

quote:

Originally posted by LKD what kind of idiot are you? just because of the colour of my skin i'm tamil?

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut LOL, I just realized I missed this one after seeing Mark's comment. BRK.A: Mkt cap $140 billion, share price $90,100, avg. vol 1000 GE: Mkt cap $150 billion, share price $14.19, avg. vol 126m MSFT: Mkt cap $172 billion, share price $19.32, avg. vol 63.77m Lol, epic fail there. Plus, BRK also just posted $1.5 billion in losses. We're way off topic now but seriously, WTF was that about.

they never issue new shares thats why, buffet doesnt want people buying in. They don't require more equity thats why their market capital is low.

compare their revenues

you guys are all ganging up on me. Im not even tamil what the hell.

can someone at least play devils advocate with me?

you can lkd because your the closest one here to tamil (genetically)

quote:

Originally posted by Nrg2Nfinit ignatieff. wow everyone is ganging up on me.. geez can someone else play devils advocate too? this is too one sided

I am not ganging up on you but you should spell his name right.

quote:

Originally posted by Nrg2Nfinit you guys are all ganging up on me. Im not even tamil what the hell. can someone at least play devils advocate with me? you can lkd because your the closest one here to tamil (genetically)

hahaha wow man ur so funny...please quite ur day job rait nao and get into the comic eh?

quote:

Originally posted by urban_legend I am not ganging up on you but you should spell his name right.

its kind of difficult when you have to rebutle 20 posts a minute

quote:

Originally posted by El K Dee hahaha wow man ur so funny...please quite ur day job rait nao and get into the comic eh?

LEARN TO SPELL ITS QUIT NOT IGNATIEV

quote:

Originally posted by Nrg2Nfinit its kind of difficult when you have to rebutle 20 posts a minute

maybe you should know a little about a subject before "playing devils advocate"

ok well this thread would have been pointless if i didnt interfere it would have just been about people bashing tamils.

at least i brought on a new perspective although limited in defense i must admit.

quote:

Originally posted by Nrg2Nfinit i dunno but 1.5 billion dollar losses relative to 107 billion dollars in revenue is peanuts

That's $1.5 billion net losses, Einstein.

quote:

Originally posted by Nrg2Nfinit they never issue new shares thats why, buffet doesnt want people buying in. They don't require more equity thats why their market capital is low.

Do you understand that corporations don't actually control the market cap... that it's just the number of shares outstanding times the share price? In other words, it's the most accurate measurement available of the market value of a company.

Issuing more shares would not give Buffet more equity, even if he did require it... ugh, this discussion is getting more inane with each post!

quote:

Originally posted by MarkT I'm quite aware. bringing up share price is a poor argument for evaluating a company's financial health. ever think that they just don't want volume trading of their stock?

yes i mentioned this below

quote:

Originally posted by Nrg2Nfinit if i didnt interfere it would have just been about people bashing tamils.

How many times do we need to tell you that this is about the LTTE, and not Tamils? I mean here you are telling me I'm not keeping it civil, but you've been beaten over the head with this point three or four times now and you still don't get it. What are we supposed to think?

quote:

Originally posted by El K Dee

Not like I care or it matters...

It was just my assumption...

quote:

Originally posted by VDub Not like I care or it matters... It was just my assumption...

I wonder what ur second guess is...lol

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut That's $1.5 billion net losses, Einstein. Do you understand that corporations don't actually control the market cap... that it's just the number of shares outstanding times the share price? In other words, it's the most accurate measurement available of the market value of a company.

obviously, but if they only issue limited shares the market cap will be lower !

1 billion shares at 50 dollars each or 1000 shares at 90,000 each.

ill let you do the math on this one pythagarous

quote:

Issuing more shares would not give Buffet more equity, even if he did require it... ugh, this discussion is getting more inane with each post!

why not?

you issue more shares you have to declare it on the balance sheet. thus the shareholders equity is increased no?

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.