Originally posted by AThousandYoungIs there a point to your post?
[b]And yes there still are shareholders but now they own berkshire hathaway instead of burlington northern santa fe.
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, sto ...[text shortened]... y but the physical wealth. For all we know everyone was fired and new people were put in place.[/b]
It just sounds like random sentences that don't have any relation to each other or anything I said.
Originally posted by no1marauderI don't know what "theory" you're talking about. I was explaining a fact to you. There was never a theory mentioned anywhere.
A 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".
My second sentence was referring to what common stockholders are ent ...[text shortened]... e given some statutory "rights" like receiving certain information on a timely basis, etc.).
Bankruptcy is when a company's is unable to pay its debts. Total assets aren't a factor. CURRENT assets, net income and cash flows are factors but plant, property and equipment aren't. A factory can't do anything to pay your debts (unless its producing and selling something in which case that would show up on net income). A factory just sits there. Yeah, you could sell it but 1) how are you going to produce anything? and 2) How long is that going to take? Its the current liabilities that will bankrupt a company not the long term.
Here's an article from investopedia saying the exact same thing I said (almost verbatim):
"Different bankruptcy proceedings or filings generally give some idea as to whether the average investor will get back all or a portion of his investment, but even that is determined on a case-by-case basis. There is also a pecking order of creditors and investors of who get paid back first, second and last."
Read more: http://www.investopedia.com/articles/01/120501.asp#ixzz1UUN7cYvM
Your second sentence was "you're not entitled to anything from the company" which is obviously wrong several times over and even by your own admission.
Now quit wasting my time with these inane posts. What do you get out of of being wrong over and over. If I tell you you're absolutely wrong then I can guarantee you are. Continuing to pretend you arent is only going to make you look that much dumber in the long run.
1 edit
Originally posted by savage4731Total assets aren't a factor in bankruptcy???
I don't know what "theory" you're talking about. I was explaining a fact to you. There was never a theory mentioned anywhere.
Bankruptcy is when a company's is unable to pay its debts. Total assets aren't a factor. CURRENT assets, net income and cash flows are factors but plant, property and equipment aren't. A factory can't do anything to pay your de retend you arent is only going to make you look that much dumber in the long run.
You're an idiot; I suggest you actually fill out some bankruptcy forms. In a Chapter 7, ALL assets are considered part of the bankruptcy estate and are subject to liquidation.
I said a common stockholder's chance of getting anything was "near zero"; the article you cited said:
"Usually, the stock of a company undergoing Chapter 7 proceedings is usually worthless, and investors lose the money they invested."
Investopedia is keeping it simple; in fact in a liquidation I've never heard of common stockholders receiving anything of substance.
Originally posted by no1marauderTotal assets are not a factor in determining whether or not someone is able to pay their outstanding debts. Yes, what I said was absolutely correct.
Total assets aren't a factor in bankruptcy???
You're an idiot; I suggest you actually fill out some bankruptcy forms.
I can give you a 1000 more links saying the same thing. In fact, every financial site is going to say the same thing because its true.
Assets would need to be included on forms for any number of reasons but that's not one of them.
name-calling isn't going to magically make you right. I've SHOWN you were wrong. You responded by name-calling. Who's the idiot?
1 edit
Originally posted by savage4731Look up the word "insolvent", genius. And read my edit above.
Total assets are not a factor in determining whether or not someone is able to pay their outstanding debts. Yes, what I said was absolutely correct.
I can give you a 1000 more links saying the same thing. In fact, every financial site is going to say the same thing because its true.
Assets would need to be included on forms for any number of reaso y make you right. I've SHOWN you were wrong. You responded by name-calling. Who's the idiot?
Of course, total assets are considered in whether you can pay off your debts - what else would you pay them with?
Originally posted by wittywonkaThe S&P sitting on 1.5 trillion in cash, and not hiring. But...But...But It's not trickeling down like Ronnie Reagan said it would. What do we do now??🙄🙄🙄
Going...going...going... gone?
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/ondeadline/post/2011/08/us-stocks-poised-to-fall-sharply-at-the-opening/1
Maybe this will help:
Some companies are so far in debt or have other problems so serious that they can't continue their business operations. They are likely to "liquidate" and file under Chapter 7. Their assets are sold for cash by a court appointed trustee. Administrative and legal expenses are paid first, and the remainder goes to creditors. Secured creditors will have their collateral returned to them. If the value of the collateral is not sufficient to repay them in full, they will be grouped with other unsecured creditors for the rest of their claim. Bondholders, and other unsecured creditors, will be notified of the Chapter 7, and should file a claim in case there's money left for them to receive a payment.
Stockholders do not have to be notified of the Chapter 7 case because they generally don't receive anything in return for their investment. But, in the unlikely event that creditors are paid in full, stockholders will be notified and given an opportunity to file claims.
http://www.sec.gov/investor/pubs/bankrupt.htm
Originally posted by no1marauderWhy am I wasting my time....
Total assets aren't a factor in bankruptcy???
You're an idiot; I suggest you actually fill out some bankruptcy forms. In a Chapter 7, ALL assets are considered part of the bankruptcy estate and are subject to liquidation.
I said a common stockholder's chance of getting anything was "near zero"; the article you cited said:
...[text shortened]... n a liquidation I've never heard of common stockholders receiving anything of substance.
Every debate on here turns into me explaining things to stupid people who never seem to get them.
"In a Chapter 7, ALL assets are considered part of the bankruptcy estate and are subject to liquidation."
My God... read your own sentence. Are you really that dumb??? The assets in that quote you plagiarized are the THING BEING LIQUIDATED. The thing being liquidated has nothing to do the ability to pay your debts. They are 2 different things and nothing in your quote even implies anything to the contrary. The total assets won't be used to pay the debts until AFTER the fact. Read what I said above. I've already explained this.
"I said a common stockholder's chance of getting anything..."
And I explained several pages back that it was irrelevant whether or the stockholder actually gets anything. The only thing I need to prove what I said is for the stockholder to have a CLAIM which they absolutely do as I've already shown.
Originally posted by no1marauderummm... yeah... your point?
Maybe this will help:
Some companies are so far in debt or have other problems so serious that they can't continue their business operations. They are likely to "liquidate" and file under Chapter 7. [b]Their assets are sold for cash by a court appointed trustee. Administrative and legal expenses are paid first, and the remainder goes t ...[text shortened]... and given an opportunity to file claims.
http://www.sec.gov/investor/pubs/bankrupt.htm[/b]
I think I've already said just about everything in there. I dont see anything there that even implies something I said might have been wrong.
Originally posted by savage4731This bit was wrong, as I think you probably realize now:
I dont see anything there that even implies something I said might have been wrong.
Total assets are not a factor in determining whether or not someone is able to pay their outstanding debts.
Originally posted by savage4731Now I recall; you're the moron who thinks that someone else citing to an article is guilty of "plagarism".
Why am I wasting my time....
Every debate on here turns into me explaining things to stupid people who never seem to get them.
"In a Chapter 7, ALL assets are considered part of the bankruptcy estate and are subject to liquidation."
My God... read your own sentence. Are you really that dumb??? The assets in that quote you plagiarized are the THING ...[text shortened]... d is for the stockholder to have a CLAIM which they absolutely do as I've already shown.
You pay bills from either your A) Income or B) Selling your assets. A company has no present income when it goes into Chapter 7, so it has to sell all its assets.The idea that total assets have nothing to do with bankruptcy is insane. If you had sufficient assets, you wouldn't need to liquidate; you might do a reorganization, but in that case the issue of what stockholders get is moot.
Originally posted by savage4731My point is that, while you said "I dont see anything there that even implies something I said might have been wrong", in fact you were wrong, and while you're clearly not the kind of poster who who'd be inclined to admit it, you surely realize that your statement - "Total assets are not a factor in determining whether or not someone is able to pay their outstanding debts" - is wrong.
your point ?