6 ms·

More than that MoneyGram is a loss making entity with a negative equity. This is just an attempt by MoneyGram to pull a Kodak (last ditch attempt to stay afloat

More than that MoneyGram is a loss making entity with a negative equity. This is just an attempt by MoneyGram to pull a Kodak (last ditch attempt to stay afloat by attaching itself to "cypto" currency bandwagon)

mylons 9y ago
i hope this is the case. XRP is a joke.
- codecamper 9y ago
  You have been downvoted because you are not a crypto fanboy.
  - nimchimpsky 9y ago
    It has one major feature that causes the hate, it's a centralised crypto. All the transactions have to go via ripple.
- cheeseandpickle 9y ago
  I don’t understand - XRP is actually putting crypto currency to use by solving existing problems... right now! Either way you look at Fiat is going to be around for a few years yet - ripple are actually aiding the transition.
  - mylons 9y ago
    ripple is a contradiction of Satoshi's white paper. I don't support contradictions to it.
cududa 9y ago
What in in the world are you talking about? Moneygram is a successful business
GunlogAlm 9y ago
MoneyGram isn't loss-making, where did you get that idea from?
Cyph0n 9y ago
Got any numbers to back that up? Both WU and MoneyGram are extremely popular, especially in developing countries.
- thesimon 9y ago
  http://ir.moneygram.com/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=1046981 http://ir.moneygram.com/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=1046981 $900 million in debt. Assets minus liabilities is around -$184 million.
  - epanchin 9y ago
    Not loss making, however.
    - codecamper 9y ago
      Correct. Loss already made.
  - mkirklions 9y ago
    While Kodak is easily baiting, this is actually a payment company. That accepts money payments. This seems like the entire purpose crypto is designed for. Totally thought Kodak was BS, but I can't deny when money companies are working with money companies.
contrarian_ 9y ago
Same can be said of CryCash: https://crycash.io/ https://crycash.io/ CryTek was on the verge of bankruptcy a year ago when they were unable to pay their employees. The one-time payment from Amazon in exchange for the engine distribution rights is probably running out. https://www.reddit.com/r/gamedev/comments/7l640w/crytek_has_yet_to_pay_me_for_late_2016_work_help/ https://www.reddit.com/r/gamedev/comments/7l640w/crytek_has_... https://www.reddit.com/r/gamedev/comments/5wzlf2/crytek_employee_here_havent_been_paid_in_2017/ https://www.reddit.com/r/gamedev/comments/5wzlf2/crytek_empl... http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2016-12-20-crytek-breaks-silence-lets-go-of-multiple-studios http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2016-12-20-crytek-breaks-s...
protomyth 9y ago
Well, MoneyGram cannot be liking that Walmart now has Walmart2Walmart for transferring money as a cheaper service.
- hbcondo714 9y ago
  Yeah, especially since Walmart2Walmart is powered by Ria / Euronet [1], a direct competitor to MoneyGram. [1] https://corporate.walmart.com/_news_/news-archive/2014/04/17/walmart-introduces-exclusive-money-transfer-service-cuts-fees-by-up-to-50-percent-for-customers https://corporate.walmart.com/_news_/news-archive/2014/04/17...
  - jjeaff 9y ago
    In that case, I'm sure MoneyGram declined to provide their service at a lower rate.
    - protomyth 9y ago
      They did, and each Walmart has a big sign showing the difference in fees.
627467 9y ago
How long does it have to pass until whatever Kodak does is not its last ditch attempt at...?
desireco42 9y ago
First, I don't know for sure, but one of the reasons why they might show in their balance loss like that, is that they don't want to pay taxes ie. tax evasion strategy. Otherwise I can't see how else they can have loss while all migrant people are using them to send money home.
zjaffee 9y ago
Except moneygram has a huge place in the history of cryptocurrency, where as kodak doesn't even come close. If you purchased bitcoin in 2013 there was a very good chance that you transferred cash using moneygram from a local CVS or Walmart.
- ryen 9y ago
  +1. Moneygram was one of the few ways to fund a wallet almost completely anonymously in those days.
  - wyldfire 9y ago
    Didn't you need some kind of escrow?
JumpCrisscross 9y ago
> More than that MoneyGram is a loss making entity with a negative equity Their net income has been positive for each of the last five quarters and their operations and business produced net cash in the first three quarters of 2017 [1]. Their operations throw off substantially more cash than the $30 or so million in interest they pay each year, and their senior notes don't come due until 2020. Moody's and S&P rate them as highly-speculative, non-investment grade companies (B1) [2]. Not great, but not at risk of imminent default either. It's not a healthy company. But it's not one in the midst of its death throes, either. Given the amount of dumb money chasing anything that smells like Blockchain, it's not particularly dumb to let shareholders sell their shares at a premium to uninformed buyers. Book equity is a bad sole measure of the health of a business, particularly a financial business. [1] https://finance.google.com/finance?q=NASDAQ%3AMGI&fstype=ii&ei=PMBXWoCUI8ykmAHu_JaIAg https://finance.google.com/finance?q=NASDAQ%3AMGI&fstype=ii&... [2] https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1273931/000127393117000040/mgi-2017930x10q.htm https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1273931/000127393117... Disclaimer: This is not investment advice. Do not buy or sell any securities based on this Internet commentary.
- SahAssar 9y ago
  > Given the amount of dumb money chasing anything that smells like Blockchain, it's not particularly dumb to let shareholders sell their shares at a premium to uninformed buyers. Are you advocating companies exploiting uninformed investors or just saying that it's the "money-smart dickish move"?
  - exolymph 9y ago
    As long as buyers aren't actively being lied to, they're responsible for their own dumb decisions.
  - JumpCrisscross 9y ago
    > Are you advocating companies exploiting uninformed investors or just saying that it's the "money-smart dickish move"? I'm not advocating it. I'm saying there is a logic to it.
shafyy 9y ago
I think "pull a Kodak" is an awesome term. I checked if it was already published on Urban Dictionary. It wasn't, so I submitted it and it was published: https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=pull+a+Kodak https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=pull+a+Kodak I hope that's ok :-) If not, please let me know.
- tehlike 9y ago
  i used it as pull a riot, which started this nonsense.
- flycaliguy 9y ago
  Pulling a Kodak for me would be something else. It would be when a company that boomers love can no longer innovate and just starts licensing it’s image to the highest bidder. We’ve seen this many times with action cams and so on.
  - shafyy 9y ago
    Well, that's not what Urban Dictionary says.
- justboxing 9y ago
  It should really be "pull a RIOT" because RIOT Blockchain was 1 of the 1st companies to pull this off. Struggling medical equipment company. Acquires a "blockchain mining" company for a few mil, stock shoots up overnight like 500% or something, then their CEO dumps all his stocks. Related: http://www.businessinsider.com/riot-blockchain-citron-research-says-stock-reached-full-mania-2017-12 http://www.businessinsider.com/riot-blockchain-citron-resear...
quickthrower2 9y ago
Jeez I had a look at their share price. Tripled in 2 days and down 21% the next. It's price movement resembles a typical ponzi token. It is like the bubble thought pathogen has lept from token world to the traditional stock market. Who will be the last fool? Is it 1999?
- bdcravens 9y ago
  If it's 1999, that means we have at a year or two or additional irrational exuberance.
  - quickthrower2 9y ago
    Yes, I'm still 'in'
- whataretensors 9y ago
  I don't own ripple, but you don't need a ponzi scheme to see that kind of growth in speculative value. For example, you may have seen the same thing if Uber's valuation was liquid during it's early days. Of course Uber followed a traditional funding model that restricted access to the top 1% of wealthy Americans. All VC-backed startups do. And many of them follow this curve, it's just not visible to us.

mylons 9y ago

i hope this is the case. XRP is a joke.

codecamper 9y ago
You have been downvoted because you are not a crypto fanboy.
- nimchimpsky 9y ago
  It has one major feature that causes the hate, it's a centralised crypto. All the transactions have to go via ripple.
cheeseandpickle 9y ago
I don’t understand - XRP is actually putting crypto currency to use by solving existing problems... right now! Either way you look at Fiat is going to be around for a few years yet - ripple are actually aiding the transition.
- mylons 9y ago
  ripple is a contradiction of Satoshi's white paper. I don't support contradictions to it.

cududa 9y ago

What in in the world are you talking about? Moneygram is a successful business

GunlogAlm 9y ago

MoneyGram isn't loss-making, where did you get that idea from?

Cyph0n 9y ago

Got any numbers to back that up? Both WU and MoneyGram are extremely popular, especially in developing countries.

thesimon 9y ago
http://ir.moneygram.com/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=1046981 http://ir.moneygram.com/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=1046981 $900 million in debt. Assets minus liabilities is around -$184 million.
- epanchin 9y ago
  Not loss making, however.
  - codecamper 9y ago
    Correct. Loss already made.
- mkirklions 9y ago
  While Kodak is easily baiting, this is actually a payment company. That accepts money payments. This seems like the entire purpose crypto is designed for. Totally thought Kodak was BS, but I can't deny when money companies are working with money companies.

contrarian_ 9y ago

Same can be said of CryCash: https://crycash.io/ https://crycash.io/ CryTek was on the verge of bankruptcy a year ago when they were unable to pay their employees. The one-time payment from Amazon in exchange for the engine distribution rights is probably running out. https://www.reddit.com/r/gamedev/comments/7l640w/crytek_has_yet_to_pay_me_for_late_2016_work_help/ https://www.reddit.com/r/gamedev/comments/7l640w/crytek_has_... https://www.reddit.com/r/gamedev/comments/5wzlf2/crytek_employee_here_havent_been_paid_in_2017/ https://www.reddit.com/r/gamedev/comments/5wzlf2/crytek_empl... http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2016-12-20-crytek-breaks-silence-lets-go-of-multiple-studios http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2016-12-20-crytek-breaks-s...

protomyth 9y ago

Well, MoneyGram cannot be liking that Walmart now has Walmart2Walmart for transferring money as a cheaper service.

hbcondo714 9y ago
Yeah, especially since Walmart2Walmart is powered by Ria / Euronet [1], a direct competitor to MoneyGram. [1] https://corporate.walmart.com/_news_/news-archive/2014/04/17/walmart-introduces-exclusive-money-transfer-service-cuts-fees-by-up-to-50-percent-for-customers https://corporate.walmart.com/_news_/news-archive/2014/04/17...
- jjeaff 9y ago
  In that case, I'm sure MoneyGram declined to provide their service at a lower rate.
  - protomyth 9y ago
    They did, and each Walmart has a big sign showing the difference in fees.

627467 9y ago

How long does it have to pass until whatever Kodak does is not its last ditch attempt at...?

desireco42 9y ago

First, I don't know for sure, but one of the reasons why they might show in their balance loss like that, is that they don't want to pay taxes ie. tax evasion strategy. Otherwise I can't see how else they can have loss while all migrant people are using them to send money home.

zjaffee 9y ago

Except moneygram has a huge place in the history of cryptocurrency, where as kodak doesn't even come close. If you purchased bitcoin in 2013 there was a very good chance that you transferred cash using moneygram from a local CVS or Walmart.

ryen 9y ago
+1. Moneygram was one of the few ways to fund a wallet almost completely anonymously in those days.
- wyldfire 9y ago
  Didn't you need some kind of escrow?

JumpCrisscross 9y ago

> More than that MoneyGram is a loss making entity with a negative equity Their net income has been positive for each of the last five quarters and their operations and business produced net cash in the first three quarters of 2017 [1]. Their operations throw off substantially more cash than the $30 or so million in interest they pay each year, and their senior notes don't come due until 2020. Moody's and S&P rate them as highly-speculative, non-investment grade companies (B1) [2]. Not great, but not at risk of imminent default either. It's not a healthy company. But it's not one in the midst of its death throes, either. Given the amount of dumb money chasing anything that smells like Blockchain, it's not particularly dumb to let shareholders sell their shares at a premium to uninformed buyers. Book equity is a bad sole measure of the health of a business, particularly a financial business. [1] https://finance.google.com/finance?q=NASDAQ%3AMGI&fstype=ii&ei=PMBXWoCUI8ykmAHu_JaIAg https://finance.google.com/finance?q=NASDAQ%3AMGI&fstype=ii&... [2] https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1273931/000127393117000040/mgi-2017930x10q.htm https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1273931/000127393117... Disclaimer: This is not investment advice. Do not buy or sell any securities based on this Internet commentary.

SahAssar 9y ago
> Given the amount of dumb money chasing anything that smells like Blockchain, it's not particularly dumb to let shareholders sell their shares at a premium to uninformed buyers. Are you advocating companies exploiting uninformed investors or just saying that it's the "money-smart dickish move"?
- exolymph 9y ago
  As long as buyers aren't actively being lied to, they're responsible for their own dumb decisions.
- JumpCrisscross 9y ago
  > Are you advocating companies exploiting uninformed investors or just saying that it's the "money-smart dickish move"? I'm not advocating it. I'm saying there is a logic to it.

shafyy 9y ago

I think "pull a Kodak" is an awesome term. I checked if it was already published on Urban Dictionary. It wasn't, so I submitted it and it was published: https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=pull+a+Kodak https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=pull+a+Kodak I hope that's ok :-) If not, please let me know.

tehlike 9y ago
i used it as pull a riot, which started this nonsense.
flycaliguy 9y ago
Pulling a Kodak for me would be something else. It would be when a company that boomers love can no longer innovate and just starts licensing it’s image to the highest bidder. We’ve seen this many times with action cams and so on.
- shafyy 9y ago
  Well, that's not what Urban Dictionary says.
justboxing 9y ago
It should really be "pull a RIOT" because RIOT Blockchain was 1 of the 1st companies to pull this off. Struggling medical equipment company. Acquires a "blockchain mining" company for a few mil, stock shoots up overnight like 500% or something, then their CEO dumps all his stocks. Related: http://www.businessinsider.com/riot-blockchain-citron-research-says-stock-reached-full-mania-2017-12 http://www.businessinsider.com/riot-blockchain-citron-resear...

quickthrower2 9y ago

Jeez I had a look at their share price. Tripled in 2 days and down 21% the next. It's price movement resembles a typical ponzi token. It is like the bubble thought pathogen has lept from token world to the traditional stock market. Who will be the last fool? Is it 1999?

bdcravens 9y ago
If it's 1999, that means we have at a year or two or additional irrational exuberance.
- quickthrower2 9y ago
  Yes, I'm still 'in'
whataretensors 9y ago
I don't own ripple, but you don't need a ponzi scheme to see that kind of growth in speculative value. For example, you may have seen the same thing if Uber's valuation was liquid during it's early days. Of course Uber followed a traditional funding model that restricted access to the top 1% of wealthy Americans. All VC-backed startups do. And many of them follow this curve, it's just not visible to us.