forums.rs

Forums

Potential Acquisition - Update Thread is locked

Quick find code: 294-295-346-65774421

of 166
Tclcis

Tclcis

Posts: 4,540 Adamant Posts by user Forum Profile RuneMetrics Profile
Where do you get the $1.5m from?
Jagex reported a net profit of *24m last year, the expenses can be seen in Krista's thread for previous years.
And if the conglomerate have been using the company for negative gearing, then a loss for the last year is a good thing.

31-Mar-2016 10:44:43

Dilbert2001
Jun Member 2006

Dilbert2001

Posts: 30,168 Sapphire Posts by user Forum Profile RuneMetrics Profile
Original message details are unavailable.
Where do you get the $1.5m from?
Jagex reported a net profit of *24m last year, the expenses can be seen in Krista's thread for previous years.
And if the conglomerate have been using the company for negative gearing, then a loss for the last year is a good thing.

The OFFICIAL 2014 financial report of Jagex was out on Company House on July 2015. That's the OFFICIAL one. Their 2015 report is not shown yet.

What you said simply makes no sense regarding "negative gearing". You don't borrow money to lose more money just to claim some tax benefit, especially when the APY on $300 million can easily be over *20 million itself.

31-Mar-2016 10:51:18

Nexus Origin

Nexus Origin

Posts: 21,010 Opal Posts by user Forum Profile RuneMetrics Profile
Original message details are unavailable.
That's the bottom line of a PUBLICLY LISTED company. They have to tell their shareholders why $300 million with $100 million up front before the deal is even completed has to be spent on something with a PE of 200 while the company is in the RED. But... they're not in the RED. Just because they estimated a loss of $50 million for last year, doesn't mean that they're $50 million in the hole. It just means their costs exceeded their revenue by $50 million for the year. They still have the hundreds of millions in profit/assets from the previous years in which they were highly successful.

If I have $300 million dollars, and I lose $50 million dollars, I'm stil­l $250 million in the green.
_
_
_
_
_________
m
_________
_
_
_
_

McDelivery Now Available In Canada

McDonalds
-
I'm lovin' it.

31-Mar-2016 10:57:34 - Last edited on 31-Mar-2016 10:59:19 by Nexus Origin

Tclcis

Tclcis

Posts: 4,540 Adamant Posts by user Forum Profile RuneMetrics Profile
Well is the borrowing of money directly related to the loss? Or are they separate concerns?

Meaning, was the loss due to the conglomerate using negative gearing to offset their other profits and then the whole buyout a completely separate idea after that benefit of the negative gearing was done for the tax year.

31-Mar-2016 11:01:20

Dilbert2001
Jun Member 2006

Dilbert2001

Posts: 30,168 Sapphire Posts by user Forum Profile RuneMetrics Profile
Original message details are unavailable.
Original message details are unavailable.
That's the bottom line of a PUBLICLY LISTED company. They have to tell their shareholders why $300 million with $100 million up front before the deal is even completed has to be spent on something with a PE of 200 while the company is in the RED. But... they're not in the RED. Just because they estimated a loss of $50 million for last year, doesn't mean that they're $50 million in the hole. It just means their costs exceeded their revenue by $50 million for the year. They still have the hundreds of millions in profit/assets from the previous years in which they were highly successful.

If I have $300 million dollars, and I lose $50 million dollars, I'm stil­l $250 million in the green.

They are still in the RED last year. It simply show they lost money last year. It has nothing to do with their net asset.

31-Mar-2016 11:05:55

Dilbert2001
Jun Member 2006

Dilbert2001

Posts: 30,168 Sapphire Posts by user Forum Profile RuneMetrics Profile
Original message details are unavailable.
Well is the borrowing of money directly related to the loss? Or are they separate concerns?

Meaning, was the loss due to the conglomerate using negative gearing to offset their other profits and then the whole buyout a completely separate idea after that benefit of the negative gearing was done for the tax year.

They are separate issues. But these issues together don't make the theory of a moneylosing company borrowing more money and paying a huge interest to acquire a company returning far less than the interest paid without a game CHANGING plan not very palatable.

31-Mar-2016 11:10:50

Nexus Origin

Nexus Origin

Posts: 21,010 Opal Posts by user Forum Profile RuneMetrics Profile
Original message details are unavailable.
Original message details are unavailable.
Original message details are unavailable.
That's the bottom line of a PUBLICLY LISTED company. They have to tell their shareholders why $300 million with $100 million up front before the deal is even completed has to be spent on something with a PE of 200 while the company is in the RED. But... they're not in the RED. Just because they estimated a loss of $50 million for last year, doesn't mean that they're $50 million in the hole. It just means their costs exceeded their revenue by $50 million for the year. They still have the hundreds of millions in profit/assets from the previous years in which they were highly successful.

If I have $300 million dollars, and I lose $50 million dollars, I'm stil­l $250 million in the green.

They are still in the RED last year. It simply show they lost money last year. It has nothing to do with their net asset. Being in the red means you don't have enough money to cover the costs of operating. If you still have profit/assets that exceed your losses, you're not in the red, you simply lost money that year. You're still in the green.
_
_
_
_
_________
m
_________
_
_
_
_

McDelivery Now Available In Canada

McDonalds
-
I'm lovin' it.

31-Mar-2016 11:16:17

Nexus Origin

Nexus Origin

Posts: 21,010 Opal Posts by user Forum Profile RuneMetrics Profile
Original message details are unavailable.
Original message details are unavailable.
Well is the borrowing of money directly related to the loss? Or are they separate concerns?

Meaning, was the loss due to the conglomerate using negative gearing to offset their other profits and then the whole buyout a completely separate idea after that benefit of the negative gearing was done for the tax year.

They are separate issues. But these issues together don't make the theory of a moneylosing company borrowing more money and paying a huge interest to acquire a company returning far less than the interest paid without a game CHANGING plan not very palatable. What makes you think that the interest will exceed the profit? They stated in one news release that they expect around a 7.7m ROI per year. That's quite a lot more than the 1.5m you're estimating that it would cost them for the loan.
_
_
_
_
_________
m
_________
_
_
_
_

McDelivery Now Available In Canada

McDonalds
-
I'm lovin' it.

31-Mar-2016 11:18:46

Dilbert2001
Jun Member 2006

Dilbert2001

Posts: 30,168 Sapphire Posts by user Forum Profile RuneMetrics Profile
Original message details are unavailable.
Original message details are unavailable.
Original message details are unavailable.
Original message details are unavailable.
That's the bottom line of a PUBLICLY LISTED company. They have to tell their shareholders why $300 million with $100 million up front before the deal is even completed has to be spent on something with a PE of 200 while the company is in the RED. But... they're not in the RED. Just because they estimated a loss of $50 million for last year, doesn't mean that they're $50 million in the hole. It just means their costs exceeded their revenue by $50 million for the year. They still have the hundreds of millions in profit/assets from the previous years in which they were highly successful.

If I have $300 million dollars, and I lose $50 million dollars, I'm stil­l $250 million in the green.

They are still in the RED last year. It simply show they lost money last year. It has nothing to do with their net asset. Being in the red means you don't have enough money to cover the costs of operating. If you still have profit/assets that exceed your losses, you're not in the red, you simply lost money that year. You're still in the green.

Talking strictly in the sense of investment, IN THE RED simply means having a net loss.

31-Mar-2016 11:54:13

Quick find code: 294-295-346-65774421 Back to Top