Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : The Trump Presidency -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (69514)	5/2/2018 6:52:06 PM
From: neolib	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 365028

Bullshit: Which means it doesn't matter to the owners overall balance. Another way of saying there is no real return. 1) A lends to B on terms X (A & B owned by the same owner) 2) A lends to C on terms Y, B borrows from D on terms Z (A & B owned by the same owner, C & D not related to A & B owner). The question is what is the difference to the owner of A & B between 1 or 2. You keep pointing out something entirely irrelevant. The question for the owner to ask is what are the details of X, Y, and Z. That is how the owner decides whether 1 is better than 2, or the other way around. 1 may well leave the owners overall balance better than 2 does. You could make a valid point that a common owner of A & B may be a determent to A to the benefit of B (or the other way around), all while leaving the sum of A & B constant. That is a valid point. Which of course is why the IRS has quite extensive rules about related party transactions, because it would be a great game to play for tax reasons.