Sign up  |  Log in

Biggest LOSER in America?

Matt Likes Analysis wrote:

Black Swan wrote:

Matt Likes Analysis wrote:

accepting any net worth figure is wholly irresponsible. i mean, enron used to be commonly understood to be worth $80B, but soon after it was worth nothing, and we had enough public information to determine it was worth nothing the whole time but no one cared to look.

i find it funny that any financial analyst would ever believe any figure without some basis for it especially when it is explicitly known that there is a whack load of debt involved which could easily make the equity line negative.

I mean, both of these figures were compiled using pricing hard assets as opposed to cash flows and intangibles, going to Enron is the debate equivalent of screaming Hitler (automatic 10 point deduction).

k, fine, Valeant. VRX is a better example anyway. debt fueled acquisition spree, overpaying along the way and barely cash flow positive without extorting sick and dying people.

So look, two third party organizations have come up with their best independent estimates both straddling $3B.  It may not have been the most rigorous, but at this stage, the burden of proof is on the naysayers.

#FreeCVM #FreeTurd #2007-2017

Black Swan wrote:

Matt Likes Analysis wrote:

Black Swan wrote:

Matt Likes Analysis wrote:

accepting any net worth figure is wholly irresponsible. i mean, enron used to be commonly understood to be worth $80B, but soon after it was worth nothing, and we had enough public information to determine it was worth nothing the whole time but no one cared to look.

i find it funny that any financial analyst would ever believe any figure without some basis for it especially when it is explicitly known that there is a whack load of debt involved which could easily make the equity line negative.

I mean, both of these figures were compiled using pricing hard assets as opposed to cash flows and intangibles, going to Enron is the debate equivalent of screaming Hitler (automatic 10 point deduction).

k, fine, Valeant. VRX is a better example anyway. debt fueled acquisition spree, overpaying along the way and barely cash flow positive without extorting sick and dying people.

So look, two third party organizations have come up with their best independent estimates both straddling $3B.  It may not have been the most rigorous, but at this stage, the burden of proof is on the naysayers.

my point is that basically hundreds of independent people thought something like VRX was worth a bazillion dollars when it is was actually worth 1/10 of that value in hindsight, and who knows where that story goes a few years from now. and that bazillion dollar estimation was hundreds of professional analysts using publicly available information. with trump, we don’t even have information so how can we trust any estimate? he could have an outstanding lien for $10 billion against the $3 billion estimates. who knows.

Matt Likes Analysis wrote:

Black Swan wrote:

Matt Likes Analysis wrote:

Black Swan wrote:

Matt Likes Analysis wrote:

accepting any net worth figure is wholly irresponsible. i mean, enron used to be commonly understood to be worth $80B, but soon after it was worth nothing, and we had enough public information to determine it was worth nothing the whole time but no one cared to look.

i find it funny that any financial analyst would ever believe any figure without some basis for it especially when it is explicitly known that there is a whack load of debt involved which could easily make the equity line negative.

I mean, both of these figures were compiled using pricing hard assets as opposed to cash flows and intangibles, going to Enron is the debate equivalent of screaming Hitler (automatic 10 point deduction).

k, fine, Valeant. VRX is a better example anyway. debt fueled acquisition spree, overpaying along the way and barely cash flow positive without extorting sick and dying people.

So look, two third party organizations have come up with their best independent estimates both straddling $3B.  It may not have been the most rigorous, but at this stage, the burden of proof is on the naysayers.

my point is that basically hundreds of independent people thought something like VRX was worth a bazillion dollars when it is was actually worth 1/10 of that value in hindsight, and who knows where that story goes a few years from now. and that bazillion dollar estimation was hundreds of professional analysts using publicly available information. with trump, we don’t even have information so how can we trust any estimate? he could have an outstanding lien for $10 billion against the $3 billion estimates. who knows.

1) Yeah, but to my first point, that was based on intangible assets and cash flows vs real marketable physical assets.  Different game you’re trying to play, but nice try.

2) If you use that approach then nobody ever really knows what anybody is worth and the whole thing becomes stupid semantics.

3) The whole topic is largely irrelevant to anybody outside of the liberal try hards.

4) If you want to make a concrete case for a different valuation, then make it.  Otherwise this is just pie in the sky conjecture and I’m getting bored.

#FreeCVM #FreeTurd #2007-2017

Black Swan wrote:

The reason I didn’t vote is because I think people with these naive ideas of Mr. Smith goes to Washington are living in a fiction that never existed and when you peel back the layers of the hyperbole you largely wind up with a bunch of manufactured left wing hysteria over a presidency that is only superficially different from anything we’ve had.

I disagree.  Donald Trump is drastically different from any president we’ve had for decades, in that I think he misunderstands and misinterprets foundational American values.  As I’ve said in this thread and elsewhere, you are free to disagree.

http://picker.uchicago.edu/Enron/EnronAnnualReport2000.pdf

Enron’s report for 2000. That’s actually a nice exercise. Seeing what happened to failed companies.

lastly I wouldn’t call market cap net worth. Net worth is more like shareholders equity. Market cap is more like if someone paid for all of my future income right now.

Enron had a market cap of 65b at peak. They had about the same amount in assets. And about 55b in debt. So a net worth of 10b. And that’s just as reported not even including their shenanigans.

it traded at a 55 earning multiple and a 6 times its net worth.

On October 16, 2001, Enron announced that restatements to its financial statements for years 1997 to 2000 were necessary to correct accounting violations. The restatements for the period reduced earnings by $613 million (or 23% of reported profits during the period), increased liabilities at the end of 2000 by $628 million (6% of reported liabilities and 5.5% of reported equity), and reduced equity at the end of 2000 by $1.2 billion (10% of reported equity).[27]

these restatements caused the panic. Most of the restatements were due to the mark to market assumptions. But trust was lost. They then got downgraded. And they had a ton of debt that they had to payoff. Then people stopped dealing with them cuz they were afraid of a collapse. There was suppose to be a buyout for the co. But they got scared of the debt. They did more restatements cuz of the spv crap. They started selling assets on the cheap to pay debt. Then the co that was suppose to merge was like nah nah nah ur only worth 4b not 8b you lying sleuth. Then they were downgraded to junk. And the people who were suppose to merge were like haha well **** that. Good luck. So in the end they filed for bankruptcy! Not enough assets to cover the debt. So even the lenders got ****ed. Some lender were ok since their loans were  tied to the assets. So the people with the lowest seniority got super ****ed.

I love my cheese. I got to have my cheddar.

frisian wrote:

Black Swan wrote:

The reason I didn’t vote is because I think people with these naive ideas of Mr. Smith goes to Washington are living in a fiction that never existed and when you peel back the layers of the hyperbole you largely wind up with a bunch of manufactured left wing hysteria over a presidency that is only superficially different from anything we’ve had.

I disagree.  Donald Trump is drastically different from any president we’ve had for decades, in that I think he misunderstands and misinterprets foundational American values.  As I’ve said in this thread and elsewhere, you are free to disagree.

LOL, yes!  We get that, but you’re just aimlessly repeating yourself like a rambling bot.  You are right, you’ve said this countless times but to my point (which apparently does not compute) is that the other half does not agree, you’re not addressing their obviously different point of view on policies so you’re basically just talking to yourself, which amounts to whining about the election.  The left is so firmly self absorbed that even when you point that out and they acknowledge it, they then just continue to drone on about how Trump doesn’t fit their value system which everybody already realizes.  The best part is even after I pointed it out, two posts later you’re literally back to droning on about your opinion, yes we get it liberals hate Trump.  Good luck on your journey to convince exactly the same people to not vote for him that didn’t the first time, I’m sure the exercise will be rewarding!

#FreeCVM #FreeTurd #2007-2017

america doesnt care about policies. we need a scandal. like a trump golden shower or something. actaully teflon don will prolly survive that. r kelly is a belieber

I love my cheese. I got to have my cheddar.

Black Swan wrote:

frankybarnes wrote:

The sheer volume and frequency of Quack Swan’s posting says he cares way more about this than literally anyone else on AF and he needs a hobby. Happy pwning!

Yeah, I care so much I haven’t bothered to vote in two decades.  

Lol, you replied to my comment 2 minutes after it was posted and have posted like a dozen times since in this thread. You care more than anyone and are so deep in self-denial you don’t even see it enlightened

Lol, yawn I thought you’d do better.  What can I say, I think prodding crybaby libs is funny, everyone needs a hobby!

#FreeCVM #FreeTurd #2007-2017

Another Trump ghostwriter gave a hilarious interview.  Trump was basically looking at carpet swatches as day and yelling at people while his businesses were bleeding money.  Why in the world did people lend to this person? Terrible businessman, but great salesman. 

frankybarnes wrote:

Black Swan wrote:

frankybarnes wrote:

The sheer volume and frequency of Quack Swan’s posting says he cares way more about this than literally anyone else on AF and he needs a hobby. Happy pwning!

Yeah, I care so much I haven’t bothered to vote in two decades.  

Lol, you replied to my comment 2 minutes after it was posted and have posted like a dozen times since in this thread. You care more than anyone and are so deep in self-denial you don’t even see it enlightened

who did it better triggered Swan or Sarah sanders?

"You want a quote? Haven’t I written enough already???"

RIP

From one great Billionaire to another!

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/charlie-munger-democrats-trump-122206033.html

The Democrats have made a big mistake in their blanket opposition to the policies of President Donald Trump, especially on immigration, said Charlie Munger, the right-hand man of Berkshire Hathaway (BRK-ABRK-B) CEO Warren Buffett.

“Donald Trump is right on [immigration],” says Munger, 95, in his first interview after the Berkshire Hathaway Shareholders Meeting. “Democrats are committing suicide…they hate him so much that they’re against him even when he’s right.”

“We should have way more control over our borders than we do,” adds Munger, a Republican.

#FreeCVM #FreeTurd #2007-2017

Winning!

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/05/09/trump-job-approval-highest-mark-since-feb-2017-rcp-average/1152205001/

Trump job approval surges to highest level since first month in office, RCP average finds

#FreeCVM #FreeTurd #2007-2017

Nerdyblop wrote:

http://picker.uchicago.edu/Enron/EnronAnnualReport2000.pdf

Enron’s report for 2000. That’s actually a nice exercise. Seeing what happened to failed companies.

lastly I wouldn’t call market cap net worth. Net worth is more like shareholders equity. Market cap is more like if someone paid for all of my future income right now.

Enron had a market cap of 65b at peak. They had about the same amount in assets. And about 55b in debt. So a net worth of 10b. And that’s just as reported not even including their shenanigans.

it traded at a 55 earning multiple and a 6 times its net worth.

On October 16, 2001, Enron announced that restatements to its financial statements for years 1997 to 2000 were necessary to correct accounting violations. The restatements for the period reduced earnings by $613 million (or 23% of reported profits during the period), increased liabilities at the end of 2000 by $628 million (6% of reported liabilities and 5.5% of reported equity), and reduced equity at the end of 2000 by $1.2 billion (10% of reported equity).[27]

these restatements caused the panic. Most of the restatements were due to the mark to market assumptions. But trust was lost. They then got downgraded. And they had a ton of debt that they had to payoff. Then people stopped dealing with them cuz they were afraid of a collapse. There was suppose to be a buyout for the co. But they got scared of the debt. They did more restatements cuz of the spv crap. They started selling assets on the cheap to pay debt. Then the co that was suppose to merge was like nah nah nah ur only worth 4b not 8b you lying sleuth. Then they were downgraded to junk. And the people who were suppose to merge were like haha well **** that. Good luck. So in the end they filed for bankruptcy! Not enough assets to cover the debt. So even the lenders got ****ed. Some lender were ok since their loans were  tied to the assets. So the people with the lowest seniority got super ****ed.

huh?

equity value is literally the real-time net worth of equityholders. ever looked at a ‘forbes richest’ list before? how do you think they settle on who is the richest? the market value of the equity held by those people.

also, you don’t subtract debt from equity. you add them together to get enterprise value. the equity value is in addition to the debt. you can talk about the book value of shareholders equity by subtracting debt from total assets but that has nothing to do with net worth or equity value.

also, everything enron did wrong was apparent to anyone who was willing to look. the company used SPVs in a way that nobody else did and professional analysts at the time should have caught this. instead, they let enron get away with it for four years.

Black Swan wrote:

Matt Likes Analysis wrote:

Black Swan wrote:

Matt Likes Analysis wrote:

Black Swan wrote:

Matt Likes Analysis wrote:

accepting any net worth figure is wholly irresponsible. i mean, enron used to be commonly understood to be worth $80B, but soon after it was worth nothing, and we had enough public information to determine it was worth nothing the whole time but no one cared to look.

i find it funny that any financial analyst would ever believe any figure without some basis for it especially when it is explicitly known that there is a whack load of debt involved which could easily make the equity line negative.

I mean, both of these figures were compiled using pricing hard assets as opposed to cash flows and intangibles, going to Enron is the debate equivalent of screaming Hitler (automatic 10 point deduction).

k, fine, Valeant. VRX is a better example anyway. debt fueled acquisition spree, overpaying along the way and barely cash flow positive without extorting sick and dying people.

So look, two third party organizations have come up with their best independent estimates both straddling $3B.  It may not have been the most rigorous, but at this stage, the burden of proof is on the naysayers.

my point is that basically hundreds of independent people thought something like VRX was worth a bazillion dollars when it is was actually worth 1/10 of that value in hindsight, and who knows where that story goes a few years from now. and that bazillion dollar estimation was hundreds of professional analysts using publicly available information. with trump, we don’t even have information so how can we trust any estimate? he could have an outstanding lien for $10 billion against the $3 billion estimates. who knows.

1) Yeah, but to my first point, that was based on intangible assets and cash flows vs real marketable physical assets.  Different game you’re trying to play, but nice try.

2) If you use that approach then nobody ever really knows what anybody is worth and the whole thing becomes stupid semantics.

3) The whole topic is largely irrelevant to anybody outside of the liberal try hards.

4) If you want to make a concrete case for a different valuation, then make it.  Otherwise this is just pie in the sky conjecture and I’m getting bored.

yes, the assets themselves are tangible and marketable but you have no information on outstanding debts or even any third-party terms associated with those assets. would you feel comfortable investing in a company when you only see the asset side of the balance sheet? if so, i have some shares of Frontier Communications i’d like to sell to you for $200 per share. that’s a fair deal if you ignore the liabilities. should i put together the paperwork?

Lol I think we’re mixing definitions. Let me define.

Equity value is shareholders equity aka book value. It’s assets minus debt in balance sheet. Essentially net worth.

market cap is how the market values the company’s bs is and cf. this can easily deviate from the book value of the company because companies are often valued for their earning potential.

Enterprise value is the market cap of equity and the market value of debt minus cash aka takeover value.

A persons net worth uses market cap because that is what it’s worth when you sell it in the market.

consider someone who saves a million dollars per year but a net worth of 0 right now. What would you pay to be him?

what about a person who doesnt make any money but has 10m dollars in cash right now. What would you pay to have that 10m. 

I love my cheese. I got to have my cheddar.

Matt Likes Analysis wrote:

Black Swan wrote:

Matt Likes Analysis wrote:

Black Swan wrote:

Matt Likes Analysis wrote:

Black Swan wrote:

Matt Likes Analysis wrote:

accepting any net worth figure is wholly irresponsible. i mean, enron used to be commonly understood to be worth $80B, but soon after it was worth nothing, and we had enough public information to determine it was worth nothing the whole time but no one cared to look.

i find it funny that any financial analyst would ever believe any figure without some basis for it especially when it is explicitly known that there is a whack load of debt involved which could easily make the equity line negative.

I mean, both of these figures were compiled using pricing hard assets as opposed to cash flows and intangibles, going to Enron is the debate equivalent of screaming Hitler (automatic 10 point deduction).

k, fine, Valeant. VRX is a better example anyway. debt fueled acquisition spree, overpaying along the way and barely cash flow positive without extorting sick and dying people.

So look, two third party organizations have come up with their best independent estimates both straddling $3B.  It may not have been the most rigorous, but at this stage, the burden of proof is on the naysayers.

my point is that basically hundreds of independent people thought something like VRX was worth a bazillion dollars when it is was actually worth 1/10 of that value in hindsight, and who knows where that story goes a few years from now. and that bazillion dollar estimation was hundreds of professional analysts using publicly available information. with trump, we don’t even have information so how can we trust any estimate? he could have an outstanding lien for $10 billion against the $3 billion estimates. who knows.

1) Yeah, but to my first point, that was based on intangible assets and cash flows vs real marketable physical assets.  Different game you’re trying to play, but nice try.

2) If you use that approach then nobody ever really knows what anybody is worth and the whole thing becomes stupid semantics.

3) The whole topic is largely irrelevant to anybody outside of the liberal try hards.

4) If you want to make a concrete case for a different valuation, then make it.  Otherwise this is just pie in the sky conjecture and I’m getting bored.

Useless blabbering

Yes, thank you for pointing out a bunch of generalizations we already were aware of but in your incoherent rant you failed to address points 2-4.  My point stands, independent analysts put the value at $3.0B, we’re not entitled legally to more info, that’s what we have, it’s an entirely irrelevant topic for liberal try hards anyway, you have no competing analysis to offer and barring cases of extreme outliers the majority of the time these estimates are correct.

If you can’t address A) why this even matters or B) offer a compelling analysis that puts his wealth at another number, unfortunately its just white noise like the time you lectured the forum for a month about HQ2 before losing a bet to a bot.

#FreeCVM #FreeTurd #2007-2017

brain_wash_your_face wrote:

Trump IPO’d a company that included, I sh!t you not, an under development casino in Gary, Indiana. It has filed for bankruptcy a bunch of times…

Latest from Gary: Boy, 16, fatally shot while trying to sell Xbox

you basically need to come from a target school pedigree/work at prestigious firm in the US/have a really good connection.

- AF hivemind