Pea:
Are you now or have you ever been to a considerable degree insane? It seems like it. You are all over the board and have a freaky habit of reiterating acctg 101 concepts that any solid business freshman major has down squarely. What is the point of that? I mean for the love of Pete you present as clever the startling conclusion that if you have a formula of A - L = SE then it must be true that A - L - SE = 0. Bravo! If 6-4=2 then 2-2 = 0. Wow were you a math major?<g> Now onto your lies.
First I never stated SE is irrelevant, I stated: it is irrelevant for purposes of what you said it could measure. To wit, your incorrect contention that 'The thing to really know if a company is actually earning money is to look at current total stockholder equity.'
As usual you are stating the exact OPPOSITE of what others post. Why do you bother, it's so obvious and so easy to refute? Here's your next lie about my post: 'Then you stated that its change was not relevant either.'
Huh?
For the record I pointed out that a change in SE could indeed be informative and then quipped a change in comparable metrics of almost anything has some value. Here's my exact post: 'an argument could be made that rate of change of nigh *any* comparable number should tell something.' Don't you remember that? In any event you have already been manhandled and only look more and more foolish as you post blather.
Your very first paragraph is drivel. You state: 'You claimed that Assets under reported their value.' What in the world are you talking about???? Here it is again for the millionth time, you wrote: 'Intel has unrealized losses in the stock, their fabs are worth less than they paid, their acquisitions are worth less and it all reduces stockholders equity' I wrote: [this] is exactly the opposite of what actually happens since they're carried at adj. book. I guess you meant they should reduce SE but don't.'
So how am I claiming Assets are under reported in value??
My whole point was to agree with you that depreciation does not happen at quick enough pace so assets may be *over* reported! That shows, inter alia, SE is not a good current indicator of even current values. I give up with you, you're playing dense on purpose (I hope) but it is tiresome. Like AMD, you're to be swatted away as an annoyance. Sound rude? Your ploy deserves it.
RO
Ps. I call you Pea since it ties into your name and is short for Pea Brain. Funny actually. You call me Dim Robert, but it isn't puny at all or in any way clever... oh that's right...par for the course. LOL
PPs. I can't help it I have to paste this one liner from you that has me ROFLMAO:
'For the last six months Intel's shareholder equity declined. Thus, they truly did not earn money but, lost money.' Imagine INTC borrowed money in the market place by issuing add'l long term debt. Imagine they did that a day before announcing earnings. SE would go down since LT liabilities have just gone much further up. How in the world would that have ANYTHING to do with earnings for that quarter? LOL Come on just admit you are missing it here and get on with learning the right answer. |
