3 edits
Originally posted by savage473177.4% because his group already owned 22.6%. There ARE no shareholders anymore outside of Berkshire. That company as an entity distinct from Berkshire - it's gone.
Well actually HE didn't buy it, Berkshire Hathaway did. All of the Bershire investors woud be pretty ticked if Buffett tried to claim he himself owned it.
And according to your own article it was 77.4% not the entire company. The way those shares are divided is by stock.
The distinction that your making is entirely your own. You say because you ow assets (after debts etc. )
And again, that was two years ago. We were talking about today.
It was done under Buffett's leadership.
Also, "commodities" are physical wealth.
- Joined
- 03 Feb 07
- Moves
- 214786
1 edit
Weird thing here. The market tumbled today because of the downgrade, yet investors are lining up to purchase T-Bills. What this suggests to me is that investors aren't really afraid of the downgrade itself in terms of US solvency, but only with the impact the downgrade is having on their fellow investors. In other words, the stock market is afraid of its own stupidity.
http://money.cnn.com/2011/08/08/markets/markets_newyork/index.htm/?hpt=hp_t1
1 edit
Originally posted by savage4731The chance of a common shareholder getting any portion of a bankrupt corporation's assets are pretty much zero. And you're not entitled to anything from the company just because you own a share.
Well actually HE didn't buy it, Berkshire Hathaway did. All of the Bershire investors woud be pretty ticked if Buffett tried to claim he himself owned it.
And according to your own article it was 77.4% not the entire company. The way those shares are divided is by stock.
The distinction that your making is entirely your own. You say because you ow assets (after debts etc. )
And again, that was two years ago. We were talking about today.
Originally posted by AThousandYoungThat wasn't my point. What I was saying was that in order to divide it into 77.4%/22.6% you have to do that with stock.
77.4% because his group already owned 22.6%. There ARE no shareholders anymore outside of Berkshire. That company as an entity distinct from Berkshire - it's gone.
It was done under Buffett's leadership.
Also, "commodities" are physical wealth.
And yes there still are shareholders but now they own berkshire hathaway instead of burlington northern santa fe.
Some commodities are , but then again you have futures, derivatives and all kinds of crazy ways to invest. If someone wants to invest in gold for example they can buy physical gold coins but there's also plenty of other ways too such as a gold ETF (which is a stock).
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderWe're not talking about liklihood. That's a different debate.
The chance of a common shareholder getting any portion of a bankrupt corporation's assets are pretty much zero. And you're not entitled to anything from the company just because you own a share.
And you are absolutely wrong. A stockholder IS entitled to receive the assets. Granted, common stock is pretty far down the pecking order (debts first, then preferred) but if assets are left over at that point then common stockholders ABSOLUTELY have a right to those assets. You are completely wrong if you think otherwise.
Originally posted by KunsooProbably a knee-jerk reaction. People are pulling their money out and dont know where to put it. Traditionally that would have been a good move. A lot of people may not be completely aware of the implications of all the destruction Obama has done. So, they're just doing what they've always done.
Weird thing here. The market tumbled today because of the downgrade, yet investors are lining up to purchase T-Bills. What this suggests to me is that investors aren't really afraid of the downgrade itself in terms of US solvency, but only with the impact the downgrade is having on their fellow investors. In other words, the stock market is afraid of its own stupidity.
http://money.cnn.com/2011/08/08/markets/markets_newyork/index.htm/?hpt=hp_t1
2 edits
Originally posted by savage4731And yes there still are shareholders but now they own berkshire hathaway instead of burlington northern santa fe.
That wasn't my point. What I was saying was that in order to divide it into 77.4%/22.6% you have to do that with stock.
And yes there still are shareholders but now they own berkshire hathaway instead of burlington northern santa fe.
Some commodities are , but then again you have futures, derivatives and all kinds of crazy ways to invest. If someo ...[text shortened]... al gold coins but there's also plenty of other ways too such as a gold ETF (which is a stock).
There are still stockholders in Berkshire. Berkshire has expanded to include the Burlington company. Those who used to own stocks in Burlington sold those stocks for money and no longer have stocks in that company.
Yes, stocks can be one way to acquire physical wealth. But the objective is not the stocks or the company but the physical wealth. For all we know everyone was fired and new people were put in place.
Originally posted by savage4731A bankruptcy liquidation is when a company is insolvent i.e. its debts exceed its assets. So there are no assets after the debts are paid off in a bankruptcy (in general any physical assets are auctioned off and the proceeds go to creditors). So there goes your "theory".
We're not talking about liklihood. That's a different debate.
And you are absolutely wrong. A stockholder IS entitled to receive the assets. Granted, common stock is pretty far down the pecking order (debts first, then preferred) but if assets are left over at that point then common stockholders ABSOLUTELY have a right to those assets. You are completely wrong if you think otherwise.
My second sentence was referring to what common stockholders are entitled from a corporation under normal circumstances. The answer is nothing of value (they are given some statutory "rights" like receiving certain information on a timely basis, etc.).
Originally posted by savage4731Record corporate profits and all notwithstanding.
Probably a knee-jerk reaction. People are pulling their money out and dont know where to put it. Traditionally that would have been a good move. A lot of people may not be completely aware of the implications of all the destruction Obama has done. So, they're just doing what they've always done.
- Joined
- 03 Feb 07
- Moves
- 214786
Originally posted by savage4731Boy, your logic is really in odd places today.
Probably a knee-jerk reaction. People are pulling their money out and dont know where to put it. Traditionally that would have been a good move. A lot of people may not be completely aware of the implications of all the destruction Obama has done. So, they're just doing what they've always done.
- Joined
- 03 Feb 07
- Moves
- 214786
Originally posted by no1marauderIt's an especially wild day for him. First I'm criticizing the President while really complementing him. Now investors are investing in US solvency because they really do believe that the country is insolvent and it's just what they've always done when they believed the country was insolvent.
"Today"?
It takes some doing to come up with stuff like that.
Originally posted by KunsooIt shows the masterful skill of his handlers. Awe-inspiring.
It's an especially wild day for him. First I'm criticizing the President while really complementing him. Now investors are investing in US solvency because they really do believe that the country is insolvent and it's just what they've always done when they believed the country was insolvent.
It takes some doing to come up with stuff like that.