Original message details are unavailable.
Original message details are unavailable.
Original message details are unavailable.
Original message details are unavailable.
Original message details are unavailable.
Original message details are unavailable.
Sorry Pips, but I'm not buying it. Everything you say can be condensed into one sentence:
"The company will have a new owner but we believe that said new owner will not even try to interfere in the way we run it."
And if you really believe that, I have a bridge you might like to acquire...
^ Pretty much all that should be said on this thread.
Can't help but feel we're getting a smoke and mirrors treatment.
Love the paranoia
it's not paranoia, it's being logical.
You don't buy 100% of the stocks of a company just to "let it run as normally". Any assurances that the company will run the way it is being run now is moot.
If the company is turning a consistent and steady profit yes you do. You only alter it if it is failing or not turning a profit. Buying it cheap, fixing it up so it becomes profitable then selling it for more money then you bought it for. If a company is turning a consistent and steady profit you buy a large share so you are required to make minimal effort to profit on your diversity. You buy majority share if you're interested in the product and want to maintain that profit stream. You buy 100% share when you have a very strict financial strategy and don't want people messing with it.
Or you want access to the profit they have and want to make sure no one else can mess with it.
So business as usual. I'm a big entropy fan.
All subtlety and nuance of a napalm enema
Original message details are unavailable.
Original message details are unavailable.
Original message details are unavailable.
Original message details are unavailable.
Original message details are unavailable.
Sorry Pips, but I'm not buying it. Everything you say can be condensed into one sentence:
"The company will have a new owner but we believe that said new owner will not even try to interfere in the way we run it."
And if you really believe that, I have a bridge you might like to acquire...
^ Pretty much all that should be said on this thread.
Can't help but feel we're getting a smoke and mirrors treatment.
Love the paranoia
it's not paranoia, it's being logical.
You don't buy 100% of the stocks of a company just to "let it run as normally". Any assurances that the company will run the way it is being run now is moot.
If the company is turning a consistent and steady profit yes you do. You only alter it if it is failing or not turning a profit. Buying it cheap, fixing it up so it becomes profitable then selling it for more money then you bought it for. If a company is turning a consistent and steady profit you buy a large share so you are required to make minimal effort to profit on your diversity. You buy majority share if you're interested in the product and want to maintain that profit stream. You buy 100% share when you have a very strict financial strategy and don't want people messing with it.
Or you want access to the profit they have and want to make sure no one else can mess with it.
So business as usual. I'm a big entropy fan.
All subtlety and nuance of a napalm enema
16-Mar-2016 17:43:46