tacos

79 ms·

631.
by tacos 12y ago
I think we've finally run out of reply depth (and you've run out of excuses) but the answer is: whatever the market decides. I've decided I want to sell my share. I now have to find someone willing to buy it. The spread alone
632.
by tacos 12y ago
The company previously had $0 in cash and 10 shares outstanding. Price was $1 at market close. They issue 90 shares. In your world these magically sell for $1 and you can just reverse the transaction and everything's back where you sta
633.
by tacos 12y ago
At the moment of the transaction I've also lost control of my company. So, hardly neutral. You keep ignoring dilution. Also, you can't put the genie back in the bottle and buy back as you keep proposing. Because the market gets it
634.
by tacos 12y ago
You're confusing book value with market capitalization and shareholder's equity. In your magic company they're always identical. In the real world they never are. More germane to HN: I'm a founder. I own 50.01% of my com
635.
by tacos 12y ago
At the moment of the transaction the books said the company had $90 more. But this does not matter much because shares were issued. In your imagined impossibly-simple company where market cap always equals cash on hand you can ignore this.
636.
by tacos 12y ago
Is "Any individual developer can use Visual Studio Community to create their own free or paid apps" really that hard to understand? The other stuff reads as "if you have more than 250 PCs in your company, buy the damn thing.&
637.
by tacos 12y ago
Visual Studio express comes in different editions, so it's unlikely that Visual C# Express installed Visual BASIC, as that was what Visual BASIC Express is. And running the Express for Web 2013 installer says it will use less than 1GB
638.
by tacos 12y ago
pedrocr jumped all over this post for some reason and took it in a very, very weird direction. I'm amazed that a discussion on HN involves people talking about how issuing shares is a neutral, zero sum event for shareholders (AKA found
639.
by tacos 12y ago
You're mixing cash on hand and equity and still ignoring dilution. I don't know where this term "neutral transaction" came from but it's not true on the balance sheet in the dividend case and it's not true in t
640.
by tacos 12y ago
At the moment of the transaction there is a very specific change -- the number of shares changes! You keep ignoring this for some reason while you talk about meaningless balance sheet offsets. While it does not affect the line item "sh
641.
by tacos 12y ago
No. The market is saying one thing. You believe another. So you bet against the market and the end result is... no change that affects shareholders? If that were true, why would a corporation do this?
642.
by tacos 12y ago
No! OP is talking about shareholder dilution, not balance sheet shareholders' equity. Also, dividends reduce shareholder equity so even by your perverse definition they're certainly not "neutral."
643.
by tacos 12y ago
No. That's not how dilution works. Common sense: if issuing stock were neutral to shareholders, then buybacks would also be neutral to shareholders. (Splits are neutral to shareholders.)