Musk Proposes to Buy Twitter for Original Price of $54.20 a Share

[surface]

Today I learnt businesses are not in it for the profit

Maybe they should start calling themselves charities

I wonder if a company can be in a loss on paper but profitable to shareholders ? Simultaneously loss & profit then ?

 

[Pegasus]

You want to buy a company that has assets for nothing? You mad bro?

It was a more detailed example of a not for profit company that can exist which I covered in the post to which your reply was "HaHa". Which again proves your statements wrong.

High school accounting is just the theory. Out in the world it is used in many ways that you don't learn in class.

 

[ShaunSA]

It was a more detailed example of a not for profit company that can exist which I covered in the post to which your reply was "HaHa". Which again proves your statements wrong.

High school accounting is just the theory. Out in the world it is used in many ways that you don't learn in class.

tl/dr/dc

 

[Vorastra]

@ShaunSA where's today's morning greeting

 

[Pegasus]

tl/dr/dc

Yes we can see that, but you continue to care enough to make stupid remarks because you don't want to read anything, or are to stupid to understand it.

 

[Ponderer]

I already stated how I see it.

No - you did not.

Not sure others would. Perhaps since it's a Nazi soldier you can find a neo-Nazi and ask if they see it the same way?

I'm asking you what you think - not asking you what others think.
Unless of course you don't know what your own thinking is.

 

[quovadis]

I wonder if a company can be in a loss on paper but profitable to shareholders ? Simultaneously loss & profit then ?

The devil is in the detail and not "net profit".

 

[quovadis]

No - you did not.

I'm asking you what you think - not asking you what others think.
Unless of course you don't know what your own thinking is.

"I’d think Elon was talking about the messenger pigeons "

 

[Pegasus]

I wonder if a company can be in a loss on paper but profitable to shareholders ? Simultaneously loss & profit then ?

If the share price increased since they bought their shares then they could sell them at a profit.

 

[ShaunSA]

I wonder if a company can be in a loss on paper but profitable to shareholders ? Simultaneously loss & profit then ?

The hint is in the word "profit" But Peggy will argue otherwise cos he did high school maths and not English

 

[Pegasus]

The hint is in the word "profit" But Peggy will argue otherwise cos he did high school maths and not English

So yet another stupid remark.

How about giving a proper reply to the question with examples.

 

[Ponderer]

I am in complete agreement with leftists today.

Exactly what "are you in agreement" with?

 

[surface]

The hint is in the word "profit" But Peggy will argue otherwise cos he did high school maths and not English

I don't know what beef is tbh. Company is making profit for shareholders but it is making loss in the books. That is the trend.

I have heard of people acquiring loss making businesses in order to do some technical adjustments and they profit for themselves over a gamut of companies they "own". I really don't understand much of it but this looks like Gupta style shell company tactic if it is so. Of course twitter is not a shell company.

 

[Ponderer]

The devil is in the detail and not "net profit".

Except that in the end, it all boils down to Net Profit.

 

[Pegasus]

Exactly what "are you in agreement" with?

That you and shaun are dimwits.

 

[Ponderer]

Yes we can see that, but you continue to care enough to make stupid remarks because you don't want to read anything, or are to stupid to understand it.

It would seem that you are "to clever" to understand that in the end, it's all about making (earning) money.

 

[ShaunSA]

I don't know what beef is tbh. Company is making profit for shareholders but it is making loss in the books. That is the trend.

I have heard of people acquiring loss making businesses in order to do some technical adjustments and they profit for themselves over a gamut of companies they "own". I really don't understand much of it but this looks like Gupta style shell company tactic if it is so. Of course twitter is not a shell company.

I have no beef tbh. But pretending the end goal of a company/business isn't a profit is just playing with words

 

[ShaunSA]

That you and shaun are dimwits.

Whatever you say Peggy

 

[quovadis]

Except that in the end, it all boils down to Net Profit.

No, it doesn't.

 

[ShaunSA]

It would seem that you are "to clever" to understand that in the end, it's all about making (earning) money.

A prophet by any other name