Trump

[Sandydragon]

Note the difference between this Tweet:


and this one:

So one of his staff managed to grab the mobile he uses for Twitter and replaced the usual nonsense with something sensible. Pity it can't happen more often.

[Stones of granite]

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

This isn't a company I have any interest in, but the announcement is typical of the warning that the NYSE issues:
https://www.offshoreenergytoday.com/ano ... delisting/

and linked to the above, an actual de-listing
https://www.offshoreenergytoday.com/gul ... delisting/

[Sandydragon]

Just picked up this from the Telegraph.

FANG, FAAMA, GAFA - take your pick. Whichever acronym you choose, it’s been a horrible week for the world’s biggest technology companies, at least when it comes to their share prices.
Tuesday saw the biggest one-day fall in the combined share prices of Facebook, Amazon, Netflix and Google’s parent Alphabet. The Wall Street sell-off was compounded yesterday, with shares in Amazon, Netflix, and Tesla falling heavily again.
The data backlash around recent Facebook has so far been largely confined to the company itself. So what is the recent tech sell-off down to - the scandal spreading, a wider reckoning over data, or none of the above?

WHAT HAPPENED
On the face of it, the heavy drops in share prices yesterday were down to a string of one-offs. Amazon shares fell more than 4pc yesterday after Axios reported that Donald Trump is “obsessed” with the company.
Tesla was down almost 8pc after a US regulator said it was investigating a fatal crash that occurred last week. It is unclear if the driver engaged the car’s Autopilot mode. Shares in the chipmaker Nvidia, which supplies components for driverless cars, were also down after it halted trials of its driverless cars.
But beyond the one-offs there’s a slight sense these may all be linked, that maybe tech company valuations have been pushed too far.
IS THIS THE PEAK?
Some perspective: the current sell-off comes after a fairly astonishing rise. Netflix shares are still up 42pc since the start of the year, Amazon’s 22pc. Apple has been toying with trillion-dollar valuation territory for some time.
Warnings of a new tech bubble, which have been around for years, have been proven wrong before.
But this is undoubtedly a time of vulnerability for many tech companies. A brewing US trade war, Facebook’s troubles and a greater tech backlash will not be ignored by investors.

[Mellsblue]

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

Discussing your RR posts with your work colleagues and they find them amusing! It’s a slippery slope you are on...,

[Sandydragon]

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

Discussing your RR posts with your work colleagues and they find them amusing! It’s a slippery slope you are on...,

Amusing as in actually amusing or as in just being polite?

[Digby]

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

Discussing your RR posts with your work colleagues and they find them amusing! It’s a slippery slope you are on...,

Amusing as in actually amusing or as in just being polite?

I didn't discuss RR, merely my lack of basic knowledge about secondary markets, which amused colleagues but not in polite fashion.

Still it could be worse, I could have just appointed my doctor to a senior national cabinet role when said individual has no experience in running a huge administrative department. Then people really would laugh at me.

[Sandydragon]

Discussing your RR posts with your work colleagues and they find them amusing! It’s a slippery slope you are on...,

Amusing as in actually amusing or as in just being polite?

I didn't discuss RR, merely my lack of basic knowledge about secondary markets, which amused colleagues but not in polite fashion.

Still it could be worse, I could have just appointed my doctor to a senior national cabinet role when said individual has no experience in running a huge administrative department. Then people really would laugh at me.

To be fair, the bloke is a Rear Admiral with extensive military service who probably does care about and understand veteran needs. There may be better people qualified for the role, but its not the worst choice Trump has made, even if not for a reassuring reason.

[Digby]

Amusing as in actually amusing or as in just being polite?

I didn't discuss RR, merely my lack of basic knowledge about secondary markets, which amused colleagues but not in polite fashion.

Still it could be worse, I could have just appointed my doctor to a senior national cabinet role when said individual has no experience in running a huge administrative department. Then people really would laugh at me.

To be fair, the bloke is a Rear Admiral with extensive military service who probably does care about and understand veteran needs. There may be better people qualified for the role, but its not the worst choice Trump has made, even if not for a reassuring reason.

Senior executive experience should be a taken rather more seriously. He may or may not know about the needs of veterans, he's more likely to than the man on the street but I assume a lot of military types are largely ignorant of the issues and services at work, even a lot of veterans likely don't know about the wider picture of veterans needs.

So it's not the worst appointment he's made. But it's also a bit like putting Martin Johnson in charge of the England senior team and hoping his standing will allow him to circumvent some normal interim roles not having been held prior to the new office.

[Digby]

Of course he might have relevant executive experience and simply not want people to know about it - http://www.navy.mil/navydata/bios/bio.asp?bioID=953

[Digby]

Its getting more widely reported now why Trump was so keen to get a boost to the US military in his recent budget talks. The idiot thought he could simply then take that extra money out of the defence budget and have the military spend it as they constructed his wall along the border with Mexico. It turns out he's not impressed he doesn't have the authority to do that, and he's also not impressed with Congress and the military seemingly to want to pursue his aims in this area.

[Sandydragon]

I didn't discuss RR, merely my lack of basic knowledge about secondary markets, which amused colleagues but not in polite fashion.

Still it could be worse, I could have just appointed my doctor to a senior national cabinet role when said individual has no experience in running a huge administrative department. Then people really would laugh at me.

To be fair, the bloke is a Rear Admiral with extensive military service who probably does care about and understand veteran needs. There may be better people qualified for the role, but its not the worst choice Trump has made, even if not for a reassuring reason.

Senior executive experience should be a taken rather more seriously. He may or may not know about the needs of veterans, he's more likely to than the man on the street but I assume a lot of military types are largely ignorant of the issues and services at work, even a lot of veterans likely don't know about the wider picture of veterans needs.

So it's not the worst appointment he's made. But it's also a bit like putting Martin Johnson in charge of the England senior team and hoping his standing will allow him to circumvent some normal interim roles not having been held prior to the new office.

I see your point, but anyone in that position is a figurehead. If the team underneath him have the detail (big if) then his role is to sell the policy and reassure people. On that basis, there are worse appointments made, of which the list is getting longer with an utter lunatic as NSA.

[Sandydragon]

Of course he might have relevant executive experience and simply not want people to know about it - http://www.navy.mil/navydata/bios/bio.asp?bioID=953

23 years from entry to 2 star officer. Gotta love the speed of promotion for medical types.

[Digby]

To be fair, the bloke is a Rear Admiral with extensive military service who probably does care about and understand veteran needs. There may be better people qualified for the role, but its not the worst choice Trump has made, even if not for a reassuring reason.

Senior executive experience should be a taken rather more seriously. He may or may not know about the needs of veterans, he's more likely to than the man on the street but I assume a lot of military types are largely ignorant of the issues and services at work, even a lot of veterans likely don't know about the wider picture of veterans needs.

So it's not the worst appointment he's made. But it's also a bit like putting Martin Johnson in charge of the England senior team and hoping his standing will allow him to circumvent some normal interim roles not having been held prior to the new office.

I see your point, but anyone in that position is a figurehead. If the team underneath him have the detail (big if) then his role is to sell the policy and reassure people. On that basis, there are worse appointments made, of which the list is getting longer with an utter lunatic as NSA.

They're still the person in charge, and these aren't glamorous roles, they're long days of high level administrative boredom and frustration in no small measure. I suppose once you've given the big office to Trump the bar is lowered more than a little, but they really should be much more than a figurehead

Edit - Just seen on a BBC report the agency has a budget of $200 Billion. Which is a leap in staffing and budgetary responsibility for a glorified GP, and we'll just ignore administration strategy as that seems best

[morepork]

Is he the guy that gave that cringeworthy glowing appraisal of the Trumpet's state of health after his last medical exam?

[Digby]

The one who sang 'I'd suck on your orange salty balls'? Yes, yes he is

[kk67]

The one who sang 'I'd suck on your orange salty balls'? Yes, yes he is

You're so comfortable with the sarcasm.....

[kk67]

I'm not giving you one...

[morepork]

https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential ... ion-month/

"We must respond to sexual assault by identifying and holding perpetrators accountable. Too often, however, the victims of assault remain silent. They may fear retribution from their offender, lack faith in the justice system, or have difficulty confronting the pain associated with the traumatic experience. My Administration is committed to raising awareness about sexual assault and to empowering victims to identify perpetrators so that they can be held accountable. We must make it as easy as possible for those who have suffered from sexual assault to alert the authorities and to speak about the experience with their family and friends."

[Sandydragon]

https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential ... ion-month/

"We must respond to sexual assault by identifying and holding perpetrators accountable. Too often, however, the victims of assault remain silent. They may fear retribution from their offender, lack faith in the justice system, or have difficulty confronting the pain associated with the traumatic experience. My Administration is committed to raising awareness about sexual assault and to empowering victims to identify perpetrators so that they can be held accountable. We must make it as easy as possible for those who have suffered from sexual assault to alert the authorities and to speak about the experience with their family and friends."

Admirable statement for any other president. I wonder if mr ‘grab em by the pussy’ has even read that statement?

[Which Tyler]

Did he then say "ha ha, April Fools!; just grab them by the pussy."

[Mikey Brown]

https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential ... ion-month/

"We must respond to sexual assault by identifying and holding perpetrators accountable. Too often, however, the victims of assault remain silent. They may fear retribution from their offender, lack faith in the justice system, or have difficulty confronting the pain associated with the traumatic experience. My Administration is committed to raising awareness about sexual assault and to empowering victims to identify perpetrators so that they can be held accountable. We must make it as easy as possible for those who have suffered from sexual assault to alert the authorities and to speak about the experience with their family and friends."

Admirable statement for any other president. I wonder if mr ‘grab em by the pussy’ has even read that statement?

Aye. I was thinking that. I got most of the way through then you get “I. DONALD. J TRUMP, hitherto declare that whenceforth this glorious day, SEX ASSAULT IS NO GOOD” tacked on to it.

[kk67]

https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential ... ion-month/

"We must respond to sexual assault by identifying and holding perpetrators accountable. Too often, however, the victims of assault remain silent. They may fear retribution from their offender, lack faith in the justice system, or have difficulty confronting the pain associated with the traumatic experience. My Administration is committed to raising awareness about sexual assault and to empowering victims to identify perpetrators so that they can be held accountable. We must make it as easy as possible for those who have suffered from sexual assault to alert the authorities and to speak about the experience with their family and friends."

I've never heard that fat prick utilise a vocabulary of that extent, let alone the emotional sympatico.
He could have 30 years of taking university English Literature and the feck would still not be capable of constructing that prose.

[kk67]

A million monkeys would actually be an improvement on this bloody musical chairs.

[Digby]

Trump has given himself a problem with the number of cabinet roles he needs to fill in that he's only got a 50-49 majority in the Senate (and even if he got McCain back that might only hinder him further) so he's got a fight on his hands to get his nominees through who have been complicit with torture or who have sod all experience. It seems possible when it comes to Pompeo he will get his man as there could be 5-10 Democrats wanting to ensure they can't get tagged as the party who saw the USA go into North Korea talks with no Secretary of State

[Digby]

An ongoing query this one, given he's likely spending more on clothing than the average joe how is it possible his clothes fit this badly?