weekender 0 #51 February 6, 2014 its very simple. if you change the topline in your model, and nothing else, you then can use basic math to adjust the bottom line. thats what the WSJ did. its what everyone does. insult me all you want. my argument is simple and sound and well within the financial industry standards for financial modeling. and yes, i am an equity trader at an investment bank. i have been for 20 years. i read earnings models as part of my work and i do not understand your point or why you feel you cannot simply get to the bottom line from adjusting the top. it makes no mathematical sense to me. im sorry, i can only assume you do not understand financial models."The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,123 #52 February 6, 2014 Quotei read earnings models as part of my work and i do not understand your point or why you feel you cannot simply get to the bottom line from adjusting the top. it makes no mathematical sense to me. Wow, ok. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
weekender 0 #53 February 6, 2014 SkyDekkerQuotei read earnings models as part of my work and i do not understand your point or why you feel you cannot simply get to the bottom line from adjusting the top. it makes no mathematical sense to me. Wow, ok. Wow what?? You want to insult me then disprove my math. Given you adjust the topline revenue number but change nothing else in your model. Explain how you cannot get the bottom line number? you cannot, because it cannot be done. its just addition."The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,123 #54 February 6, 2014 weekender***Quotei read earnings models as part of my work and i do not understand your point or why you feel you cannot simply get to the bottom line from adjusting the top. it makes no mathematical sense to me. Wow, ok. Wow what?? You want to insult me then disprove my math. Given you adjust the topline revenue number but change nothing else in your model. Explain how you cannot get the bottom line number? you cannot, because it cannot be done. its just addition. Of course it can be done. I do it in the example I give above. All I was doing was indicating how it can be misleading or downright false in a scenario with large differences in margin. That model is very usefull when there is a down or upturn in revenue, across the board. The same model is highly incorrect when used to calculate impact of discontinuance of a single produc line, as also provided in my example. If my extremely simple model above with extremely simple math makes no sense to you then I don't know what to say. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
weekender 0 #55 February 6, 2014 SkyDekker******Quotei read earnings models as part of my work and i do not understand your point or why you feel you cannot simply get to the bottom line from adjusting the top. it makes no mathematical sense to me. Wow, ok. Wow what?? You want to insult me then disprove my math. Given you adjust the topline revenue number but change nothing else in your model. Explain how you cannot get the bottom line number? you cannot, because it cannot be done. its just addition. Of course it can be done. I do it in the example I give above. All I was doing was indicating how it can be misleading or downright false in a scenario with large differences in margin. That model is very usefull when there is a down or upturn in revenue, across the board. The same model is highly incorrect when used to calculate impact of discontinuance of a single produc line, as also provided in my example. If my extremely simple model above with extremely simple math makes no sense to you then I don't know what to say. that is what the model is. it takes into account everything you are claiming. you are assuming they are not and they ignore those things. thats what the analyst do for a living. very intelligent people who spend their life modelling these things so you and i can just add them up. i just took it for granted that you understood that. i feel we are miss communicating. you are mentioning things that i have taken for granted. things that are in the models already. sorry you feel i am financialyl ignorant. i wish i could better explain i am not."The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JerryBaumchen 1,048 #56 February 6, 2014 Hi dav, Quote ...long as I don't have to pay for the consequences. Do you think that you are currently paying for the consequences or not? I think we all do. JerryBaumchen Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
davjohns 1 #57 February 7, 2014 JerryBaumchenHi dav, Quote ...long as I don't have to pay for the consequences. Do you think that you are currently paying for the consequences or not? I think we all do. JerryBaumchen Why doesn't anyone get that my name is David Johnson and just call me David or Dave? Ah well... Yes. I agree. We are clearly now at a point where I (we) pay for the mistakes of others. The problem is that we should put restraints on other things as well, but don't. Alcohol has no utilitarian purpose and enormous downside. If I didn't have to pay for your health insurance, I'd tell you to drink up / smoke up / etc. and endorse personal responsibility. We've given up personal responsibility at this point. Personal choice must follow. That's my point. We want to be free to drink, smoke dope, etc. but still villify people who want to smoke tobacco? A bit loopy to me.I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #58 February 7, 2014 Wierd. I assumed it was D. A. Vaginal Ohnsterhaus ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,400 #59 February 7, 2014 > Okay, what about removing wine and beer to fight alcoholism and drunk driving? There are health benefits to some kinds of drinking. People who drink red wine in moderation show improvements in cardiac health, and people who drink beer in moderation are less likely to get diabetes and hypertension. Soda (at least the kind made with lots of sweetener) - might have a good argument for that, since there are no so-far-apparent health benefits. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #60 February 7, 2014 billvon Soda (at least the kind made with lots of sweetener) - might have a good argument for that, since there are no so-far-apparent health benefits. caffeine increases performance. It also hydrates, even with caffeine, and more so for the non caffeine sodas. That's should be enough to get it ahead of beer and at least even with wine. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,400 #61 February 7, 2014 >caffeine increases performance. It also hydrates, even with caffeine Coke is a mild diuretic, which means you pee it all out very quickly. During Perris and Eloy bigways organizers remind people to NOT drink Coke/Pepsi because of its diuretic effects. However, you're right in that it might have some benefits to people. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
airdvr 197 #62 February 7, 2014 Lookout...before you know it someone will be pointing out that skydiving has no health benefits, only risks.Please don't dent the planet. Destinations by Roxanne Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
davjohns 1 #63 February 7, 2014 I wasn't bothered that Jerry didn't know my name is David. I find it lightly amusing that people have never caught on to it. Looking for benefits in alcoholic beverages and sodas is like looking for virtue among whores. Any benefits you find in these things are not due to the alcohol content and easily found in healthier drinks. And sodas hydrate? Well, yes...but water really does it better, don't you think? I'm not trying to vilify these drinks. I just don't understand attacking tobacco and ignoring other unhealthy products.I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #64 February 7, 2014 billvon>caffeine increases performance. It also hydrates, even with caffeine Coke is a mild diuretic, which means you pee it all out very quickly. During Perris and Eloy bigways organizers remind people to NOT drink Coke/Pepsi because of its diuretic effects. yes, it is a mild diuretic, but does not cause fluid loss in excess of the amount consumed. IOW, it is not dehydrating. The urge to pee right now, as oppose to later, is the reason why bigway orgs would discourage it. Though I wonder if the resulting lower fluid consumption rate ( I drink soda much faster, higher quantities, than water) is really a bigger concern in that hot Thai weather. Dehydration is a much bigger threat. The other option, sports drinks like gatorade, make me piss more than anything. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #65 February 7, 2014 davjohns And sodas hydrate? Well, yes...but water really does it better, don't you think? minimally better. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,257 #66 February 7, 2014 ryoder ***Right. While they continue to sell beer, wine, liquor, CHEEEEEP liquor and beer, snack foods, GMO food products, and homeopathic crap. That shit's dangerous! I had a cousin OD on it.He drowned?Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,123 #67 February 10, 2014 Latest on caffeine is a diuretic. Don't think it is much of an issue to be honest: http://running.competitor.com/2013/10/nutrition/caffeine-is-it-truly-dehydrating_50402 Flat coke is a staple on the ultra and long course triathlon circuit. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
davjohns 1 #68 February 10, 2014 airdvrLookout...before you know it someone will be pointing out that skydiving has no health benefits, only risks. Exactly. That's part of why I'm surprised there aren't more Libertarians around here. Once you start regulating what your neighbor can do, you can expect reciprocity. That's why I prefer an attitude of, "I'll stay out of your shit. You stay out of mine." as much as practicable.I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DanG 1 #69 February 10, 2014 QuoteOnce you start regulating what your neighbor can do, you can expect reciprocity. Which regulation caused CVS to stop selling tobacco? (For the record, I think smoking should be allowed on private property with the owner's permission.) - Dan G Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,123 #70 February 10, 2014 DanGQuoteOnce you start regulating what your neighbor can do, you can expect reciprocity. Which regulation caused CVS to stop selling tobacco? (For the record, I think smoking should be allowed on private property with the owner's permission.) Including bars and restaurants? I believe the right to an employees safe and healthy work environment trumps that. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
normiss 622 #71 February 10, 2014 As does choice. I don't eat nor drink at establishments that allow smoking. blech Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DanG 1 #72 February 10, 2014 QuoteIncluding bars and restaurants? I believe the right to an employees safe and healthy work environment trumps that. Yes, including bars and restaurants, assuming that the bar was a smoking bar when the employee was hired. - Dan G Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,123 #73 February 10, 2014 DanGQuoteIncluding bars and restaurants? I believe the right to an employees safe and healthy work environment trumps that. Yes, including bars and restaurants, assuming that the bar was a smoking bar when the employee was hired. I don't agree. That's like saying an asbestos mine doesn't have to worry about health and safety, cause it was an asbestos mine when the employee got hired. Iron workers don't need fall protection, cause well, they knew what they were getting into when they got hired. Some basic health and safety regulations should be in place. Not purposely being exposed to carcinogens is up there as a pretty basic health and safety workplace rule. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DanG 1 #74 February 10, 2014 QuoteThat's like saying an asbestos mine doesn't have to worry about health and safety, cause it was an asbestos mine when the employee got hired. I don't think that's a very good analogy. A better analogy would be if a worker hired onto an asbestos mine (with safety precautions in place), then later complained that asbestos is too dangerous to work around. Your line of thinking would result in the closure of all dropzones. TM: "You want me jump out of a plane?!? That's unsafe!" DZO: "But that's what you got hired to do." TM: "But my right to a safe and healthy workplace trumps all." - Dan G Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #75 February 10, 2014 DanGQuoteOnce you start regulating what your neighbor can do, you can expect reciprocity. Which regulation caused CVS to stop selling tobacco? In San Francisco, city law. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites