0
Andy9o8

Props to CVS; will end tobacco sales

Recommended Posts

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SkyDekker

Quote

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.



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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
weekender

***

Quote

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.



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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SkyDekker

******

Quote

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.



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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JerryBaumchen

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



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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
> 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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
>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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
airdvr

Lookout...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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Once 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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DanG

Quote

Once 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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Including 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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DanG

Quote

Including 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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

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.



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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

0