RugbyRebels

Donny osmond wrote:

kk67 wrote:I seem to remember when I was a kid that there were two rules of international diplomacy.

I.) Don't get involved in the Middle East.
ii.) Don't poke the Bear.

You may be misremembering. If you grew up in the cold war it would have been largely about how much bear poking was deemed necessary.

Sent from my HUAWEI VNS-L31 using Tapatalk

Also when did a policy of don't get involved in the Middle East prevail? If one even just had an idiots guide to the history of the middle east one would realise such a claim was bollocks.

Note to self: Use "misremembered" more often in conversation.

morepork wrote:Note to self: Use "misremembered" more often in conversation.

You should tweet it to Trump. He’s going to need a word like that for when he is interviewed in the near future, apparently.

Powerful, moving rallies held across the country organised by students held across the country in support of gun control. President fat bitch is, of course, at a golf resort. Tone deaf orange mutha fucker.

morepork wrote:Powerful, moving rallies held across the country organised by students held across the country in support of gun control. President fat bitch is, of course, at a golf resort. Tone deaf orange mutha fucker.

Well, at least he had time to Tweet about the terrorist incident in France.

But the coherent words clearly did not come from Trump himself as there was no use of the words 'Islamic' and 'wall'.

As Tweets go, it seemed a decent response to a tragedy from a world leader...more proof that it didn't come from the man himself.

Note the difference between this Tweet:


and this one:

morepork wrote:Powerful, moving rallies held across the country organised by students held across the country in support of gun control. President fat bitch is, of course, at a golf resort. Tone deaf orange mutha fucker.

Remington Outdoor have filed for bankruptcy today. I wonder if like Facebook, the share price could prove a bigger weapon than industry, government or legislation. Let them all fail anthropologically.

kk67 wrote:

morepork wrote:Powerful, moving rallies held across the country organised by students held across the country in support of gun control. President fat bitch is, of course, at a golf resort. Tone deaf orange mutha fucker.

Remington Outdoor have filed for bankruptcy today. I wonder if like Facebook, the share price could prove a bigger weapon than industry, government or legislation. Let them all fail anthropologically.

Good ol’ capitalism

kk67 wrote:

morepork wrote:Powerful, moving rallies held across the country organised by students held across the country in support of gun control. President fat bitch is, of course, at a golf resort. Tone deaf orange mutha fucker.

Remington Outdoor have filed for bankruptcy today. I wonder if like Facebook, the share price could prove a bigger weapon than industry, government or legislation. Let them all fail anthropologically.

According to analysts it's Trumps fault. gun owners where buying loads of more guns before the 2016 election thinking Hilary
would win & then clamp down on gun ownership but with Trump winning they aren't worried anymore

kk67 wrote:

morepork wrote:Powerful, moving rallies held across the country organised by students held across the country in support of gun control. President fat bitch is, of course, at a golf resort. Tone deaf orange mutha fucker.

Remington Outdoor have filed for bankruptcy today. I wonder if like Facebook, the share price could prove a bigger weapon than industry, government or legislation. Let them all fail anthropologically.

Before you reach for the champagne, it's worth pointing out that Remington have filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection. This isn't quite the same think as filing for bankruptcy, which would be Chapter 7, but it does indicate that the company has more debt than it can reasonably handle. Chapter 11 protects creditors from forcing bankruptcy and liquidation, buying time in order for the company to restructure debt. In the case of Remington, it will probably mean that creditors will be strongly encouraged to swap debt for equity, and the company will continue trading and eventually re-emerge with a difference equity structure.

It always amazes me that the UK media report Chapter 11 filings as "filing for bankruptcy", when it is no such thing.

Stones of granite wrote:

kk67 wrote:

morepork wrote:Powerful, moving rallies held across the country organised by students held across the country in support of gun control. President fat bitch is, of course, at a golf resort. Tone deaf orange mutha fucker.

Remington Outdoor have filed for bankruptcy today. I wonder if like Facebook, the share price could prove a bigger weapon than industry, government or legislation. Let them all fail anthropologically.

Before you reach for the champagne, it's worth pointing out that Remington have filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection. This isn't quite the same think as filing for bankruptcy, which would be Chapter 7, but it does indicate that the company has more debt than it can reasonably handle. Chapter 11 protects creditors from forcing bankruptcy and liquidation, buying time in order for the company to restructure debt. In the case of Remington, it will probably mean that creditors will be strongly encouraged to swap debt for equity, and the company will continue trading and eventually re-emerge with a difference equity structure.

It always amazes me that the UK media report Chapter 11 filings as "filing for bankruptcy", when it is no such thing.

airlines do it continually, as did Donald Trump

Banquo wrote:

Stones of granite wrote:

kk67 wrote:
Remington Outdoor have filed for bankruptcy today. I wonder if like Facebook, the share price could prove a bigger weapon than industry, government or legislation. Let them all fail anthropologically.

Before you reach for the champagne, it's worth pointing out that Remington have filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection. This isn't quite the same think as filing for bankruptcy, which would be Chapter 7, but it does indicate that the company has more debt than it can reasonably handle. Chapter 11 protects creditors from forcing bankruptcy and liquidation, buying time in order for the company to restructure debt. In the case of Remington, it will probably mean that creditors will be strongly encouraged to swap debt for equity, and the company will continue trading and eventually re-emerge with a difference equity structure.

It always amazes me that the UK media report Chapter 11 filings as "filing for bankruptcy", when it is no such thing.

airlines do it continually, as did Donald Trump

People say in Boston even beans do it.

(and many popular brands of beans make their beans as orange as Trump as an aside)

Digby wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Stones of granite wrote: Before you reach for the champagne, it's worth pointing out that Remington have filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection. This isn't quite the same think as filing for bankruptcy, which would be Chapter 7, but it does indicate that the company has more debt than it can reasonably handle. Chapter 11 protects creditors from forcing bankruptcy and liquidation, buying time in order for the company to restructure debt. In the case of Remington, it will probably mean that creditors will be strongly encouraged to swap debt for equity, and the company will continue trading and eventually re-emerge with a difference equity structure.

It always amazes me that the UK media report Chapter 11 filings as "filing for bankruptcy", when it is no such thing.

airlines do it continually, as did Donald Trump

People say in Boston even beans do it.

(and many popular brands of beans make their beans as orange as Trump as an aside)

The company I work for has just come out of it - both Chapter 11 in the US and Sauvegarde (which is similar to Ch11 and was based on US practice) in France.

Stones of granite wrote:

Digby wrote:

Banquo wrote: airlines do it continually, as did Donald Trump

People say in Boston even beans do it.

(and many popular brands of beans make their beans as orange as Trump as an aside)

The company I work for has just come out of it - both Chapter 11 in the US and Sauvegarde (which is similar to Ch11 and was based on US practice) in France.

ah yes, think I read about that!

belgarion wrote:

kk67 wrote:

morepork wrote:Powerful, moving rallies held across the country organised by students held across the country in support of gun control. President fat bitch is, of course, at a golf resort. Tone deaf orange mutha fucker.

Remington Outdoor have filed for bankruptcy today. I wonder if like Facebook, the share price could prove a bigger weapon than industry, government or legislation. Let them all fail anthropologically.

According to analysts it's Trumps fault. gun owners where buying loads of more guns before the 2016 election thinking Hilary
would win & then clamp down on gun ownership but with Trump winning they aren't worried anymore

I heard a surprising statistic on the news...I wasn't really concentrating but it was something like:
the ratio of guns to gun owners in the US suggested that each gun owner individually has over 100 firearms.

Stones of granite wrote:

kk67 wrote:

morepork wrote:Powerful, moving rallies held across the country organised by students held across the country in support of gun control. President fat bitch is, of course, at a golf resort. Tone deaf orange mutha fucker.

Remington Outdoor have filed for bankruptcy today. I wonder if like Facebook, the share price could prove a bigger weapon than industry, government or legislation. Let them all fail anthropologically.

Before you reach for the champagne, it's worth pointing out that Remington have filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection. This isn't quite the same think as filing for bankruptcy, which would be Chapter 7, but it does indicate that the company has more debt than it can reasonably handle. Chapter 11 protects creditors from forcing bankruptcy and liquidation, buying time in order for the company to restructure debt. In the case of Remington, it will probably mean that creditors will be strongly encouraged to swap debt for equity, and the company will continue trading and eventually re-emerge with a difference equity structure.

It always amazes me that the UK media report Chapter 11 filings as "filing for bankruptcy", when it is no such thing.

Good point, well made.
Can Facebook survive a $60bn share write-off...?.

kk67 wrote:

Stones of granite wrote:

kk67 wrote:
Remington Outdoor have filed for bankruptcy today. I wonder if like Facebook, the share price could prove a bigger weapon than industry, government or legislation. Let them all fail anthropologically.

Before you reach for the champagne, it's worth pointing out that Remington have filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection. This isn't quite the same think as filing for bankruptcy, which would be Chapter 7, but it does indicate that the company has more debt than it can reasonably handle. Chapter 11 protects creditors from forcing bankruptcy and liquidation, buying time in order for the company to restructure debt. In the case of Remington, it will probably mean that creditors will be strongly encouraged to swap debt for equity, and the company will continue trading and eventually re-emerge with a difference equity structure.

It always amazes me that the UK media report Chapter 11 filings as "filing for bankruptcy", when it is no such thing.

Good point, well made.
Can Facebook survive a $60bn share write-off...?.

I’m not familiar with Facebook’s accounts. Do they have a large debt?

Stones of granite wrote: I’m not familiar with Facebook’s accounts. Do they have a large debt?

I doubt it. Most of their value is probably based on trust. Didn't do much for Saab.
Or Lehmans.

kk67 wrote:

Stones of granite wrote: I’m not familiar with Facebook’s accounts. Do they have a large debt?

I doubt it. Most of their value is probably based on trust. Didn't do much for Saab.
Or Lehmans.

Share value is of limited relevance when it comes to whether a company can continue trading or not, and even then it is normally related to warranties related to loans or other debt instruments. The Saab collapse is fairly typical, the company had more debt than they could service from their turnover. I don’t know much about Lehman’s, but I imagine that, as you say, their value is based on how much they were trusted - again nothing to do with share price.

All of the stock exchanges (at least all as far as I know) have a lower limit on share price for trading purposes, so it is not unusual for a company to have to restructure its equity when its share price drops too low, but that doesn’t necessarily force it into bankruptcy. It might, of course, if there is no faith in a future turnaround, but it doesn’t have to.

Stones of granite wrote: All of the stock exchanges (at least all as far as I know) have a lower limit on share price for trading purposes, so it is not unusual for a company to have to restructure its equity when its share price drops too low, but that doesn’t necessarily force it into bankruptcy. It might, of course, if there is no faith in a future turnaround, but it doesn’t have to.

Some fat stock market prick has fooled you.
Like I said.....we all met a stupid fat bald prick that had justifications. We are all growing up.

kk67 wrote:

Stones of granite wrote: All of the stock exchanges (at least all as far as I know) have a lower limit on share price for trading purposes, so it is not unusual for a company to have to restructure its equity when its share price drops too low, but that doesn’t necessarily force it into bankruptcy. It might, of course, if there is no faith in a future turnaround, but it doesn’t have to.

Some fat stock market prick has fooled you.
Like I said.....we all met a stupid fat bald prick that had justifications. We are all growing up.

Aye, if you say so. Don’t let me keep you from your Special Brew.

Stones of granite wrote:

kk67 wrote:

Stones of granite wrote: I’m not familiar with Facebook’s accounts. Do they have a large debt?

I doubt it. Most of their value is probably based on trust. Didn't do much for Saab.
Or Lehmans.

Share value is of limited relevance when it comes to whether a company can continue trading or not,

Nope.

Stones of granite wrote: All of the stock exchanges (at least all as far as I know) have a lower limit on share price for trading purposes, so it is not unusual for a company to have to restructure its equity when its share price drops too low, but that doesn’t necessarily force it into bankruptcy. It might, of course, if there is no faith in a future turnaround, but it doesn’t have to.

I can't think of any rules about stock exchanges setting minimal share prices, though often companies try to keep a share price withing a certain range that is seen as a norm for their company and/or a given exchange, and they manage this by having consolidations/stock splits, which change the number of shares in issue an' thus the price per share but not the overall company value. Maybe companies also act in such fashion owing to listings rules and I've just never realised.

There is the nominal share price, but you can trade on a secondary exchange below that, you just can't issue new capital below that price.

I warn however that whilst I'm not yet fat I am less hirsute than once was the case, so take heed of KK's warning at least in part.


Edit - Just been told I am an idiot, and many exchanges have just such a rule about delisting companies which see their share price drop below a certain level. Don't think I've ever seen it, but I suppose they normally consolidate ahead of it happening anyway.

Digby wrote:

Stones of granite wrote: All of the stock exchanges (at least all as far as I know) have a lower limit on share price for trading purposes, so it is not unusual for a company to have to restructure its equity when its share price drops too low, but that doesn’t necessarily force it into bankruptcy. It might, of course, if there is no faith in a future turnaround, but it doesn’t have to.

I can't think of any rules about stock exchanges setting minimal share prices, though often companies try to keep a share price withing a certain range that is seen as a norm for their company and/or a given exchange, and they manage this by having consolidations/stock splits, which change the number of shares in issue an' thus the price per share but not the overall company value. Maybe companies also act in such fashion owing to listings rules and I've just never realised.

There is the nominal share price, but you can trade on a secondary exchange below that, you just can't issue new capital below that price.

I warn however that whilst I'm not yet fat I am less hirsute than once was the case, so take heed of KK's warning at least in part.


Edit - Just been told I am an idiot, and many exchanges have just such a rule about delisting companies which see their share price drop below a certain level. Don't think I've ever seen it, but I suppose they normally consolidate ahead of it happening anyway.

What happens is that when the share price drops below the minimu value (NYSE: $1) the company receives 6 months notice of delisting if certain criteria related to average share price over a certain period (details are vague in my recollection) are not met. In most cases, the company then performs some equity restructuring to get the technical value back above the threshold, but one company I was involved with was too weak to manage this and was delisted from AIM. It kept trading for about another year and was bought out by a competitor for a couple of washers.

Stones of granite wrote:

Digby wrote:

Stones of granite wrote: All of the stock exchanges (at least all as far as I know) have a lower limit on share price for trading purposes, so it is not unusual for a company to have to restructure its equity when its share price drops too low, but that doesn’t necessarily force it into bankruptcy. It might, of course, if there is no faith in a future turnaround, but it doesn’t have to.

I can't think of any rules about stock exchanges setting minimal share prices, though often companies try to keep a share price withing a certain range that is seen as a norm for their company and/or a given exchange, and they manage this by having consolidations/stock splits, which change the number of shares in issue an' thus the price per share but not the overall company value. Maybe companies also act in such fashion owing to listings rules and I've just never realised.

There is the nominal share price, but you can trade on a secondary exchange below that, you just can't issue new capital below that price.

I warn however that whilst I'm not yet fat I am less hirsute than once was the case, so take heed of KK's warning at least in part.


Edit - Just been told I am an idiot, and many exchanges have just such a rule about delisting companies which see their share price drop below a certain level. Don't think I've ever seen it, but I suppose they normally consolidate ahead of it happening anyway.

What happens is that when the share price drops below the minimu value (NYSE: $1) the company receives 6 months notice of delisting if certain criteria related to average share price over a certain period (details are vague in my recollection) are not met. In most cases, the company then performs some equity restructuring to get the technical value back above the threshold, but one company I was involved with was too weak to manage this and was delisted from AIM. It kept trading for about another year and was bought out by a competitor for a couple of washers.

I've seen plenty of companies de-list. I'd just never seen a reason for the that as being the share price, or maybe I'm just oblivious to this.

It's amusing my colleagues though I didn't know this, there's already a nice email chain building on things I don't know