|
|
|
|
|
|
by lotsofpulp
1017 days ago
|
|
|
> Are you saying it wouldn't be advantageous to claim an easily recoverable loss which both makes your shareholders happy and reduces your tax burdens not only for the current year but future years (because you can defer losses)? What is a “recoverable loss”? >Hollywood accounting is orthogonal to the concept of a 10-k. The numbers are "real" but they are also VERY easy to manipulate (IE, doing a stock buyback). Orthogonal means unrelated. It seems like you are using orthogonal to mean “similar”, but I am not sure, since that does not make sense. Either way, how does a stock buyback manipulate anything? > I'd suggest considering the case study of sears. Where somehow a public company went bankrupt yet the owner ended up with billions of dollars and... the company.. again.. somehow. [1] Because the owner was not Lampert, but a company with limited liability that happened to own many of the shares. And Lampert has done very poorly with his Sears investment, he has most likely lost wealth over the last 15 years when a riskless SP500 investment would have gained a ton. https://www.institutionalinvestor.com/article/2bsxn8l0u5yr6z... |
|
|
Unrelated to the topic at hand. I'm not accusing ford of omissions to their 10-K. That's not what Hollywood accounting means.
> It seems like you are using orthogonal to mean “similar”,
No, I mean orthogonal. You simply do not know what "Hollywood accounting" is.
> And Lampert has done very poorly with his Sears investment, he has most likely lost wealth over the last 15 years when a riskless SP500 investment would have gained a ton.
Really hard to say, but he was able to leverage 4.6 billion dollars [1] to repurchase sears.
[1] https://www.cbsnews.com/news/sears-chairman-eddie-lampert-of...