Originally posted by FMFNo its not.
My 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 - [b]"Total assets are not a factor in determining whether or not someone is able to pay their outstanding debts" - is wrong.[/b]
I gave a link backing it up and even explained why it was true.
Nobody has shown anything to the contrary. And every finance book and site will agree with me.
Therefore, I'm right.
Originally posted by savage4731Well actually I did. And so has no1. I even quoted the incorrect assertion you made. I think he did too. Why not address the point that is being made?
And furthermore I know no one has shown anything that might have even implied I might be wrong.
Originally posted by no1marauderoh and here's your definition of insolvency:
Look up the word "insolvent", genius. And read my edit above.
Of course, total assets are considered in whether you can pay off your debts - what else would you pay them with?
What Does Insolvency Mean?
When an individual or organization can no longer meet its financial obligations with its lender or lenders as debts become due. Insolvency can lead to insolvency proceedings, in which legal action will be taken against the insolvent entity, and assets may be liquidated to pay off outstanding debts.
Investopedia explains Insolvency
Before an insolvent company or person gets involved in insolvency proceedings, it will likely be involved in more informal arrangements with creditors, such as making alternative payment arrangements. Insolvency can arise from poor cash management, a reduction in the forecasted cash inflow or from an increase in cash expenses.
Read more: http://www.investopedia.com/terms/i/insolvency.asp#ixzz1UUdwRVf0
1 edit
Originally posted by FMFActually, you didnt.
Well actually I did. And so has no1. I even quoted the incorrect assertion you made. I think he did too. Why not address the point that is being made?
You copy and pasted a quote from me and then said "you're wrong". That's not an argument.
Given the amount of evidence supporting me and the complete lack of evidence against me I dont see any reason to argue any further until you can at least articulate something resembling an argument as to why you might think I could be wrong.
Abd btw, I've answered everything he's said. If you missed something let me know and I'll point it out. But don't lie. That's wouldn't be good on your part.
Originally posted by savage4731Ok then. Total assets are one of the main factors in determining whether or not someone is able to pay their outstanding debts. Are you saying this is wrong?
Actually, you didnt.
You copy and pasted a quote from me and then said "you're wrong". That's not an argument.
Originally posted by no1marauder"available" assets is layman terminology for current assets (which is exactly what I said). Thats what current assets are.
Insolvency is the condition of having more debts than available assets which might be used to pay them, [b]even if the assets were mortgaged or sold.
http://definitions.uslegal.com/i/insolvency/[/b]
Your link agrees with me.
Originally posted by savage4731You haven't explained anything. If I have enough assets to pay my outstanding debts, then I can or will, or maybe I won't - if I don't want to. If I don't have enough assets to pay my outstanding debts, then I won't be able to. therefore it's self-evident that total assets are a key factor in determining whether or not someone is able to pay their outstanding debts.
Absolutely. I've already explained that.
Originally posted by FMFYeah, I've explained 3 or 4 times now. Total assets include things like plant, property and equipment. Obviously those things can't be used to pay immediate debts. There's a problem with liquidity and also the problem with the fact that if you sell those type of assets you won't be able to stay in business. Thats why use current assets instead.
You haven't explained anything. If I have enough assets to pay my outstanding debts, then I can or will, or maybe I won't - if I don't want to. If I don't have enough assets to pay my outstanding debts, then I won't be able to. therefore it's self-evident that total assets are a key factor in determining whether or not someone is able to pay their outstanding debts.
Originally posted by savage4731This is why you are wrong to claim that total assets are not a factor in determining whether or not someone is able to pay their outstanding debts. Total assets include things other than things like plant, property and equipment. Obviously more liquid portions of one's total assets can be used to pay immediate debts. Therefore total assets are a huge factor in determining capacity or how to pay debts. This is why your assertion was wrong.
Total assets include things like plant, property and equipment. Obviously those things can't be used to pay immediate debts.
2 edits
Originally posted by savage4731Plenty of companies have sold assets to pay of debt, and stayed in business....
Yeah, I've explained 3 or 4 times now. Total assets include things like plant, property and equipment. Obviously those things can't be used to pay immediate debts. There's a problem with liquidity and also the problem with the fact that if you sell those type of assets you won't be able to stay in business. Thats why use current assets instead.
Hyundai ( now Hynix SemiConductor ) sold it's LCD division, want me to list more, or are you finished arguing for the night?
One more, National Semiconductor sold fabs in Salt lake city, Portland Maine and their right to the fairchild name..... went with them. They were purchased by Citi Group, and are still open.
So that pretty much kills your theroy that they can't sell assets and stay in business.
Large companies are always selling or spinning off smaller branches of their businesses to stay in business.
Originally posted by FMFOh joy. another inane, nonsensical rambling post to answer with no point behind it. Just random sentences thrown together.
This is why you are wrong to claim that total assets are not a factor in determining whether or not someone is able to pay their outstanding debts. Total assets include things other than things like plant, property and equipment. Obviously more liquid portions of one's total assets can be used to pay immediate debts. Therefore total assets are a huge factor in determining capacity or how to pay debts. This is why your assertion was wrong.
Let's go one by one:
"This is why you are wrong to claim that total assets are not a factor in determining whether or not someone is able to pay their outstanding debts."
Huh? What's "this" ? You haven't given me anything. All you've done is say I'm wrong without anything behind it.
"Total assets include things other than things like plant, property and equipment."
Yeah... and ? I never said they didn't. I gave an explanation using the types of examples typically given. You're the only one that has claimed total assets are limited to those things.
"Obviously more liquid portions of one's total assets can be used to pay immediate debts"
okay... so far we agree....
"Therefore total assets are a huge factor in determining capacity or how to pay debts."
Huh? you lost it. That conclusion doesn't flow logically from your premises. Total assets includes all off the non-liquid assets. Why would your non-liquid assets tell you anything about your ability to pay current liabilities?
"This is why your assertion was wrong."
I dont know what assertion you're talking about. I don't remember making one. All I've done is state facts.
Hurry and try and make a point. I'm getting bored with you. I don't mind debating things but explaining them is boring. I'm not here to be your personal tutor. If you're ignorant that's a you problem not a me problem.
Originally posted by Hugh GlassYeah, they do that.
Plenty of companies have sold assets to pay of debt, and stayed in business....
Hyundai ( now Hynix SemiConductor ) sold it's LCD division, want me to list more, or are you finished arguing for the night?
One more, National Semiconductor sold fabs in Salt lake city, Portland Maine and their right to the fairchild name..... went with them. They were purc ...[text shortened]... s are always selling or spinning off smaller branches of their businesses to stay in business.