|
Until you sign up you can't do much. Yes, it's free.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 | / / / Viewing Topic
|  |
|
|
Keep an eye on Merrill Lynch; it may not survive this subprime mess |
|
|
|
 Replies: 59 — Last Post Sep. 22, 2008 11:59pm by obvious child
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 LiveWire Humor
|
|
( yankeefan )
Executive
|
    
Quote: from obvious child
 How are they irrelevant? Please. Explain to me how the assets and how they are evaluated are irrelevant to the issue of balance sheets. Or are you just going to try to insult me again? I realize you have no idea what a L1, L2 or an L3 is, but please try. What exactly did I write that is irreverent? 
You specifically stated that you can tell a firm's solvency by its balance sheet. I already told you why this is not the case. Your failure to focus on relevant subjects proves that your "argument" is extremely weak.
Other then the income statement, what other F/S did it cite? Can you quote me talking about the statement of cash flows? How about the statement of retained earnings? And disclosures are on the balance sheet as well. For someone who criticizes another for their alleged lack of knowledge, you sure don't seem to understand the basics.
Irrelevant. You cited financial statements and disclosures that were IRRELEVANT to the discussion.
I take it you don't understand the relationship? Explain to me how liquidity issues are unrelated to insolvency. I'd love to see this.
I never said that liquidity issues are unrelated to insolvency. You stated that Merrill Lynch only needed short term liquidity; that is irrelevant. Solvency is the real issue here, not long term viability. You completely miss the point. Yet again.
That's funny coming from someone who doesn't know where disclosures are, doesn't know which financial statements are which, doesn't know what is on each statement and doesn't understand the relationship of liquidity to solvency. You're funny.
resorting to insults when you have no argument. THAT is funny. Try again when you get a decent education on financial statements. Post edited at 7:17 pm on Sep. 22, 2008 by yankeefan
|
|
|
obvious child
Guru
 Ad Free
|
Quote: from yankeefan at 4:13 pm on Sep. 22, 2008Quote: from obvious child You specifically stated that you can tell a firm's solvency by its balance sheet. I already told you why this is not the case. Your failure to focus on relevant subjects proves that your argument is extremely weak. Really? I said that? Care to quote me? And you didn't answer my question. What did I write that was irrelevant? Explain to me how the assets and how they are evaluated are irrelevant to the issue of balance sheets. Irrelevant. You cited financial statements and disclosures that were IRRELEVANT to the discussion. Come again? You claimed I cited other F/S. Where are they? Where are the quotes? Or are you lying again? Other then the income statement, what other F/S did it cite? Can you quote me talking about the statement of cash flows? How about the statement of retained earnings? Not going to answer those I see. When asked to back your statements up, you got nothing.
Furthermore, how are disclosures irrelevant? How? Give an argument for a change. And why is the income statement irrelevant? All you are saying is "irrelevant, irrelevant, irrelevant" and you have no proof of why they are irrelevant.
I never said that liquidity issues are unrelated to insolvency. Yet you called my discussion about liquidity that was specifically discussing solvency to be irrelevant. the topic is specifically on insolvency and yet you're talking about short term illiquidity vs. long term viability Hmmm....caught in your own web of lies. You stated that Merrill Lynch only needed short term liquidity; that is irrelevant. Solvency is the real issue here, not long term viability. How is that irrelevant? You clearly don't understand. Explain to me how increasing short term liquidity to pay off obligations is not related to solvency. You just claimed that short term liquidity was irrelevant. Explain to me how liquidity is irrelevant to solvency. Try for a change instead of one liners without an argument. You completely miss the point. Yet again. Well you don't seem to have any points, so sure I'll miss it. Try again when you get a decent education on financial statements. Did you just hear yourself? Again, that's funny coming from someone who doesn't know where disclosures are, doesn't know which financial statements are which, doesn't know what is on each statement and doesn't understand the relationship of liquidity to solvency.
-------
"I give the probability of this working at zero" - Dan DeMatteo
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
( yankeefan )
Executive
|
Quote: from obvious child at 10:29 pm on Sep. 22, 2008
And did Merill Lynch go bankrupt? Or do you not understand what "solvent" means? And I didn't expect you to answer any hard questions anyways. You clearly have no understanding of finance much less accounting.
will Merrill Lynch still exist by this time next year? By your logic, Bear Stearns still survived!! LOLOLOLOL I take it from your silence that you acknowledge you're a complete liar for failing to acknowledge your own arguments, yes? Post edited at 7:32 pm on Sep. 22, 2008 by yankeefan
|
|
|
|
|
( yankeefan )
Executive
|
Quote: from obvious child at 10:34 pm on Sep. 22, 2008
Quote: from yankeefan Notice the discussion was regarding insolvency. Not being bought out. By your logic, if a firm gets bought out, they are insolvent. I argued that ML would survive the crisis based on their balance sheet. I did not argue they wouldn't get bought out. The discussion was about whether or not they would survive in the context of bankruptcy. So you are again, dishonestly trying to change the context of the situation to make your argument correct when, if we honestly applied the real context, you are indeed lying.
By your logic, even if a firm doesn't exist anymore, it still survives. That is the kind of ridiculous arguments that you are using. I never mentioned bankruptcy. Again, according to you, Bear Stearns survived!
|
|
|
|
|
( yankeefan )
Executive
|
Quote: from obvious child at 10:39 pm on Sep. 22, 2008
Incorrect. And you are again engaging in serious dishonesty. I never argued your lies. How about you actually read what I wrote instead of fabricating lies and attacking me on things I never argued?
Your lies are endless. You said that Merrill Lynch WILL survive. You stand by that statement. Merrill Lynch will not exist by this time next year. Therefore, if something doesn't exist, it still survived! Bear Stearns survived!! Way to go.
Incorrect. According to you, Bear Stearns survived. I never made an argument. You fabricated one and attacked me on it. Therefore, the owner of that argument is yourself. Please send all discussions of that argument back to the person who made it. But thanks for admitting by your silence you got nothing to respond to my refutation of your garbage
You said that Merrill Lynch WILL survive. You stand by that statement. Merrill Lynch will not exist by this time next year. Therefore, if something doesn't exist, it still survived! Bear Stearns survived!! Way to go.
You just quoted four who went under or were taken over due to pending bankruptcy. I wonder!
Bear, Fannie and freddie never went bankrupt. It never went bankrupt. It was about to be bankrupt is irrelevant. It doesn't matter what WOULD have happened, the only thing matters is what happened. Post edited at 7:46 pm on Sep. 22, 2008 by yankeefan
|
|
|
obvious child
Guru
Ad Free
|
Quote: from yankeefan at 4:43 pm on Sep. 22, 2008
You said that Merrill Lynch WILL survive. You stand by that statement.
In the context of bankruptcy yes. How am I lying? Did ML go bankrupt? Apparently you never read this: Notice the discussion was regarding insolvency. Not being bought out. By your logic, if a firm gets bought out, they are insolvent. I argued that ML would survive the crisis based on their balance sheet. I did not argue they wouldn't get bought out. The discussion was about whether or not they would survive in the context of bankruptcy. So you are again, dishonestly trying to change the context of the situation to make your argument correct when, if we honestly applied the real context, you are indeed lying.
BEAR never declared bankruptcy. It never went bankrupt. It was about to be bankrupt is irrelevant. It doesn't matter what WOULD have happened, the only thing matters is what happened.
While that is true they never declared, they were on the verge. ML was not.
Without the JPMorgan backing, the filing says, "Bear Stearns would not be able to open for business on Monday, March 24, 2008, and would have no choice but to file for bankruptcy by that morning. Bear Stearns' bankruptcy advisors were instructed to be prepared for this contingency by the end of the weekend."
Bear Stearns second brush with bankruptcy
, Fannie and freddie never went bankrupt.
They came very close.
It never went bankrupt. It was about to be bankrupt is irrelevant. It doesn't matter what WOULD have happened, the only thing matters is what happened.
Actually it is relevant. Explain why it is not. lol. Good job on noticing that the mods will allow such massive lies. How about you stop lying and start reading? But thanks for admitting by your silence you got nothing to respond to my refutation of your garbage my last long post and you got nothing against it but lies. Post edited at 7:50 pm on Sep. 22, 2008 by obvious child
-------
"I give the probability of this working at zero" - Dan DeMatteo
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Looking for something else?
|
|
|
|
|
|
| / / / Viewing Topic | |
|
527 users online 
222895 members 
You have 1 new message.
