Phil Cook wrote:

>>> On that note does is say "shareholder's wealth" or "shareholders' 
>>> wealth" as the former would indicate that there was only shareholder.
>>
>> Yeah, but not a lot of people know that. I mean, heck, we're talking 
>> about people who can't pronounce "aluminium" correctly. ;-)
> 
> Yeah, but it would be good for a giggle wouldn't it, just 'correct' it 
> as "Continue to enhance the wealth of our shareholder" and see if anyone 
> notices.

I guarantee nobody will notice. ;-)

[98% certainty.]

>> One person? Perhaps. A large corporation? Well, you can say "new 
>> management" and stuff. Unlike people, companies can change. (Although 
>> it's still fairly rare.)
> 
> What I meant was in poker if everyone folds then your cards remain 
> hidden, if you've announced you're looking forward to a big profit and 
> you don't get one that's difficult (but not impossible) to hide.

Ah yes, but then you say "ah, we _would_ have made a profit but we 
forgot about X; this time we really WILL make a killing!" It works for a 
while...

>>>  People are highly sensible when it comes to stocks, just ignore the 
>>> South Sea Bubble, Wall Street Crash, Dot-com Bubble, Black Wednesday, 
>>> and the current Sub-Prime Scandal and you won't see a single instance 
>>> of laissez-faire capitialism being misused by them.
>>
>> Wow. That's advanced. I can't even tell if you're serious of not. LOL!
> 
> Heh to summarise they're cases where people thought they could make 
> quick and easy money with little or no risk. Like 99% of such cases they 
> were wrong. It's the 1% that makes the money and keeps people trying... 
> either that or having a huge wad invested in a diverse portfolio whereby 
> the overall long-term trend up-wards cancels out any short-term losses. 
> Or having the initials GWB and illegally selling all your shares just 
> before the announcements of how much money your company has lost is 
> reported. (I'd like to point out for the record that the SEC 
> investigated that instance and the man in charge of the investigation, 
> who was a really good friend of the defendent's father, didn't think 
> there was a case worth pursuing)

Riiiight. Erm, what were we talking about in the first place now? I 
forget? heh.

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message