fitchjo

By law, any public company in the US (and most other countries) are required to have a financial statement audit. I am sure there are instances where it is not required, but substantially all private companies that have debt are required per their credit agreement to have a financial statement audit completed. I would be interested where you are getting your information that auditing a company is not a normal process.

I assume/hope the newer versions in hotels that are a little l bracket that flips are little harder to get open?

Or, most cynically, returned to owners in the form of dividends/distributions or stock buybacks

I think he is arguing the exact opposite.

Why do you feel so attacked about the subject of this article such that you have concluded this is part of a gender "war"?

If I understand your claim correctly, it is just that simply there weren't any reliable sources to verify the information because there are not any articles about these women; however, the article further examines (or at least considers) that exact fact as being part of the issue - that these women are not being written about at the same rate as men.

Am I being a bit naive to think that this has more to do with public safety? In theory, there is some increased level of regulation/review of the car and medical device manufacturers that limits the risk these repairs aren’t done to an appropriate standard? You can make a trade-off between standard of repair and price for your iPhone that only impacts the device, but cars and medical devices not properly repaired could impact a life.

NOL (net operating loss) carryforwards, which is what is being described above, would not make a difference in the situation you have laid out here - it sounds like your issue is the fact that we have a progressive tax for personal income (versus a flat tax for corporations)

I think I saw a documentary about that once... ;)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LP5kcUhMK1I

As a couple other replies have mentioned, determining insolvency and when to file bankruptcy is a bit more complicated than this simple comparison. A quick counterpoint - you start a company on Day 1 and put $1 into the company; on Day 2, you borrow $10, but with the costs associated with borrowing, you only net $8 cash; at that point, you have outstanding debt (liabilities) of $10, but cash (assets) of $9; your new company is not insolvent, however - you can take that $9 and generate additional cash flows that allow you to repay the $10 debt in the future. While certainly not common, there are plenty of companies operating that have negative equity - it certainly is an indicator of a company having some challenges, but not an absolute that the company should be dissolved.

You can definitely find certain items/dishes where it is cheaper to buy already made instead of making yourself - rotisserie chickens in the US are a perfect example of that. On the whole, though, cooking at home is less expensive than eating out.

So wait, hold on, is cooking more expensive or not? What are they eating that's supposedly healthier but significantly more expensive?

Cooking unprocessed meals is more expensive than cooking ultra-processed meals. Cooking at home, however, is less expensive than eating out, which appears to be the reference they are making in the second quote.

What major grocery chain doesn't carry everything needed to make dinner?

For those shopping on a budget, going to multiple stores may be necessary based on pricing differences between stores (including consideration of sales or coupons for different products).

He is mentioned here pretty regularly, so many may already be aware, but Matt Levine discusses this and its variants a lot in his newsletter, most of the time under the heading "Should index funds be illegal?"

Historically, the US used CPT, which was different than the rest of the world, but since they adopted ICD-10, they use the same billing/procedure codes as the rest of the world. The entire time, though, any provider in the US was using the same set of billing codes.

Are you implying that the bankers should go to jail for the misrepresentations made by the applicant because they didn’t exercise an “appropriate” level of diligence?

What evidence have you seen that tether is backed by real money? I haven't seen "definitive" proof/evidence either way, but it would seem there are certainly strong suspicions that tether is not backed by real money (e.g., never having completed an audit and being fired by their auditing firm).

They bloom later there because of the weather, but they still bloom.

Wouldn't that be an indication that the wages are at market?

Finding a use for the underlying technology supporting bitcoin is very different than saying bitcoin as a fiat currency is worth the value at which it is currently trading.

Not sure I follow your logic: 1. What are you calling the market in your first sentence? 2. Why/how is an index fund somehow less risky? What is the fund indexing and how does that compare to the market in your first sentence?

In your scenario, if the index fund is properly designed to capture the risk of the "market" as you have defined it, a monkey has equal chance of performing better or worse than the index fund and the average monkey (or an average of a large enough set of monkeys) will perform with the index fund. Certainly, though, if your index fund is not designed to be reflective of the market, but of some subset, then it will carry different risk, but not necessarily less risk. However, a monkey randomly picking stocks from a pool will not, on average, outperform the average return of that pool of stocks.

I would like to caveat by explanation by saying I am admittedly less versed in IFRS than US GAAP, so there may be some technical differences between the two, but the spirit should be the same - there is actually corresponding gross up of your assets, equal to the net present value of your minimum lease payments, when you put the lease obligation on your balance sheet.

So at the the time you sign a new lease, you will put an asset and liability of equivalent value on the books. Assuming the useful life of the asset extends past the lease term, general expectation is that the asset value would be amortized over the term of the lease, and at the same time, interest expense will be recorded on the lease obligation. Ultimately the same amount of expense will be recorded (equal to the minimum lease payments), but the timing of the expense is different as it front loads the expense (because of the interest accretion). So you have that and the balance sheet gross up that will be different. The change, in theory, provides greater transparency related to what can be a significant obligation for a company.

I play every once in awhile, when the jackpot gets to be large enough they start talking about it on TV. The $10 or $20 I spend is well worth daydreaming about the things I would if I won.

My comment was not to say that there are not situations where brand plays less of an influence, only to provide a counterpoint to the parent's comment that "brands provide no value." There are certainly industries or products where brands are less valuable, but that doesn't diminish those industries or products where brands do provide real value to both the buyers and sellers (although not always both each time and certainly not in equal amounts).

In the eyes of who?

To the company and its owners, if my brand allows me to sell an equivalent widget for a higher margin, how is that not value? Just because value can be created or destroyed by a single action doesn't mean that value is somehow less valuable.

To the user, if I derive greater pleasure because I believe I have bought a more valuable product (attributable only to the brand), just because there is an equivalent widget out there, does that somehow discount my pleasure?

What even, is the basis on which, in this hypothetical scenario, we have determined the widgets are equivalent? Surely there is some subjectivity that would be driven by people's opinions, influenced directly or indirectly by brands, in that decision.

So you want to make all advertising illegal?

My favorite statistical/probability paradox has always been the birthday paradox.

I do feel a bit for those individuals that bought a taxi medallion recently and are unlikely to be able to pay it off due to the change in dynamics; on the other hand, the only reason the price of the medallions were so high was that the market dynamics were being manipulated (by controlling the supply). The risk that those market dynamics could change should have been included in the price of the medallion - if someone did not properly consider whether that risk was appropriately priced when purchasing a medallion, that is their fault. The only real costs they talk about that are different for a taxi versus uber aren't significant (1,176 taxi fee and 1,000 every two years for the medallion renewal) and do provide them a competitive advantage (being able to pick up rides hailed on the street.

I know not exactly what the author is discussing in his post, but as someone that did two years in CS before switching (to accountancy), one of the main reasons I switched was the stark contrast in interest in the field between myself and (seemingly) everyone else. In hindsight, I think I would have made a good project manager (instead of a developer), but that path was not really communicated to me in a way that resonated with me. So I just saw a bunch of people with a much greater zeal for coding than I had and decided I should try something different. Maybe in another life...

Specially related to insider trading, the enforcement of the rules you mention is made more complicated by the fact that there are actually no laws (rules) on the books that make insider trading illegal (as well as there being no SEC rule against insider trading). When people get in trouble for insider trading, they normally point to it being securities fraud. That leaves the interpretation of what is insider trading up to the courts. I agree there are plenty of people in Wall Street that would do just about anything (including breaking a black and white rule of law) to make a buck, but there is also a pretty significant grey area for what constitutes insider trading. If you are interested, just google "Matt Levine insider trading" and a number of his daily columns with updates on various cases (and his much better explanations of the nuances of insider trading) will come up.

It is, insofar as it turns what could potentially be a civil suit into a criminal proceeding.

What is the equivalent for TV content producers that concerts are for musicians? Seems to me there can be some advantage to having your music available for streaming as you provide significantly more access to your music, which you can then monetize through concerts/apparel, but would think those producing the in-demand content would not want someone else to be able to capitalize on that.