Jauronimo Posted February 24, 2012 Share Posted February 24, 2012 (edited) How? I believe he's suggesting that decisions and announcements will be reflected in stock prices, which is predicated upon perfectly efficient markets where every company has strong analyst coverage and investors are fundamentally rational and businesses operate with total transparency and totally disregards privately held companies, and then makes the leap that stock prices are affecting P&L, which is false. Edited February 24, 2012 by Jauronimo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adams Posted February 24, 2012 Share Posted February 24, 2012 1. Thomas Jefferson 2. Franklin Roosevelt 3. Teddy Roosevelt 4. James Madison 5. Woodrow Wilson ... Where the hell did that list come from? Of those, only Woodrow Wilson was in academics before becoming president. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UConn James Posted February 24, 2012 Share Posted February 24, 2012 (edited) And something else, Juror.... this election is an exact copy of 2004? We haven't even got a nominee for one side and you're saying this? The 2004 election was about the liberal-left's (or for our purposes, a hard-core of the party ideology) influence in the primary, who nominated a guy who couldn't beat --- at the time --- the most unpopular president ever, according to polling. A Romney nomination, and this election has 1980 Redux written all over it. Santorum or Gingrich... might give you your 2004, but even then I doubt it just based on political realities of electoral college shift from the census and that there are states Obama has no prayer of winning again now that he has to run on a record. Edited February 24, 2012 by UConn James Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buftex Posted February 24, 2012 Share Posted February 24, 2012 And something else, Juror.... this election is an exact copy of 2004? We haven't even got a nominee for one side and you're saying this? The 2004 election was about the liberal-left's (or for our purposes, a hard-core of the party ideology) influence in the primary, who nominated a guy who couldn't beat --- at the time --- the most unpopular president ever, according to polling. A Romney nomination, and this election has 1980 Redux written all over it. Santorum or Gingrich... might give you your 2004, but even then I doubt it just based on political realities of electoral college shift from the census and that there are states Obama has no prayer of winning again now that he has to run on a record. You just made the OP's point, much more succinct than he did. The hard-core conservative-right influence on the Republican party will likely cause the party to nominate a candidate who can't beat an enourmously unpopular president. Even if it ends up being Romney, the always presumed nominee for the Republicans, it is hard to fathom how the ultra-conservative branding of the Republican primaries has not damaged his chances in the general election. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted February 24, 2012 Share Posted February 24, 2012 So if a CEO decides to make a business-related announcement about a matter, that won't affect profits and losses that day? Think this through... I'll take "Everything I Know About Business I Learned From Watching Movies" for $200, Alex. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted February 24, 2012 Share Posted February 24, 2012 it is hard to fathom how the ultra-conservative branding of the Republican primaries has not damaged his chances in the general election. You may end up being right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juror#8 Posted February 24, 2012 Author Share Posted February 24, 2012 Just going by what you'd wrote earlier in the OP and were discussing in several subsequent posts. People pointed out correctly, that your original statement is only rarely at most correct. It simply doesn't happen that a decision rolls through to immediately effect the bottom line. You've now adjusted from "decision" to "announcement" and continue on as if there is no distinction between the two. And for the record, a P&L statement is historical looking. A decision made at 9AM will not affect nor effect the P&L at 5PM that day in any materially significant way. An announcement made on a particular day can quite likely effect stock price that same day. Though where the stock goes in the long term will be dependent upon the implementation of that announced decision and not the announcement itself. Stock price is forward looking. And oddly enough, an "announcement" by the President will be treated similarly. Taro, A good summary. I'm not a business man, so your last paragraph is definitely instructive. Everyone else, I'm not saying that you're doing this, just that it's done here...and that is that one piece of a larger thought will be picked out and then the thread devolves into a discussion about that point. Someone separated out a superficial statement, that relates to something that Lee Iacocca said, which in no way encapsulates the thought in total, and in doing so missed the larger point that I was trying to make. Yes I agree with Iacocca's point. I think that he is correct. No matter if every board participant here - who also once moonlighted as a Fortune 50,000 business owner - tries to rationalize the point otherwise, I'll take it from the person who has ran several business which eclipse the scope of anyone's business background on this site. Tom, Jauromino, LA, Chef, UConn...wanna argue that? Good. Some semblance of agreement. Incidentally even without reliance on that singular quote, I would argue a cumulative/aggregate effect scenario wherein a decision made ON ONE DAY would affect the profit or loss ON THAT SAME DAY. It's the idea that all things financial exist on a continuum. And noone was conflating "announcement" with "decision." "Announcement" in that context was just one of a thousand different decisions that could have been used by way of example. Tom said a decision on one day couldn't affect such and such the same day. I countered by saying that if a CEO announced _______, that decision, that move, that activity could have profit and loss impact on that same day. But now that you know that you can't change my mind about whether or not a business decision made one day can change the profit and loss for that same day, any one else want to throw a few more thoughts, ideas, opinions, or insuls on THAT point so that we can re-direct back to the topic's full scope? And something else, Juror.... this election is an exact copy of 2004? We haven't even got a nominee for one side and you're saying this? The 2004 election was about the liberal-left's (or for our purposes, a hard-core of the party ideology) influence in the primary, who nominated a guy who couldn't beat --- at the time --- the most unpopular president ever, according to polling. A Romney nomination, and this election has 1980 Redux written all over it. Santorum or Gingrich... might give you your 2004, but even then I doubt it just based on political realities of electoral college shift from the census and that there are states Obama has no prayer of winning again now that he has to run on a record. The point that I was making about 2004 is that a guy who has many negatives on big issues is being insulated by the other side's quest to move so ideologically hard _____, such that they're putting themselves on an island, and the general election becomes a referendum on their hard_____ness, and the realities of the prior three years gets lost in a sea of complacency. This election is going to turn into Mitt Romney's comments about two social issues. And independents will choose the known quantity over that....despite the known quantities shortcomings. You can see it shaping up now... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted February 24, 2012 Share Posted February 24, 2012 Everyone else, I'm not saying that you're doing this, just that it's done here...and that is that one piece of a larger thought will be picked out and then the thread devolves into a discussion about that point. Someone separated out a superficial statement, that relates to something that Lee Iacocca said, which in no way encapsulates the thought in total, and in doing so missed the larger point that I was trying to make. This is our little world, we've created it and if you don't like it....piss off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juror#8 Posted February 24, 2012 Author Share Posted February 24, 2012 Where the hell did that list come from? Of those, only Woodrow Wilson was in academics before becoming president. They're all academics. You must think I mean that they were "professors." They were "academics" because they were scholarly, learned, well-educated, tended towards Ivy league, erudite, etc. Look at the definition of "academic," both noun and adjective if you're so inclined. Anyway - Neither Harding, Hoover, Carter, or W have stellar academic credentials. Hoover went to Stanford...the first year it opened. W, bucks the trend because of his alma maters but its really really really hard to call him an academic. In fact, I don't think that it's much of a reach to say that he benefitted from certain "institutional understandings." But they were all business men. And they were all horrible presidents. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted February 24, 2012 Share Posted February 24, 2012 However an "announcement" is a "decision." And that type of decision would affect profit and loss THAT DAY. Is it really possible that of all the people on this message board today, you're the only one who can't sense your argument spiraling out of control? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juror#8 Posted February 24, 2012 Author Share Posted February 24, 2012 This is our little world, we've created it and if you don't like it....piss off. Take a picture folks. At least you had enough umph to acknowledge it. Nothing much you can do with that. There is no amount of reason that can ever overcome that. It's a self-contained theory unto itself. It's solipsism. It must be bliss. Good day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wisconsin Bills Fan Posted February 24, 2012 Share Posted February 24, 2012 They're all academics. You must think I mean that they were "professors." They were "academics" because they were scholarly, learned, well-educated, tended towards Ivy league, erudite, etc. Look at the definition of "academic," both noun and adjective if you're so inclined. Anyway - Neither Harding, Hoover, Carter, or W have stellar academic credentials. Hoover went to Stanford...the first year it opened. W, bucks the trend because of his alma maters but its really really really hard to call him an academic. In fact, I don't think that it's much of a reach to say that he benefitted from certain "institutional understandings." But they were all business men. And they were all horrible presidents. Why is Romney not considered academic? Is he not scholarly, learned, well-educated? He has a law degree from Harvard as well as a MBA from Harvard. No doubt he is a business man, but I don't see how he is lacking in academics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted February 24, 2012 Share Posted February 24, 2012 Incidentally even without reliance on that singular quote, I would argue a cumulative/aggregate effect scenario wherein a decision made ON ONE DAY would affect the profit or loss ON THAT SAME DAY. It's the idea that all things financial exist on a continuum. Now you're talking about a continuum where executive decision affect things daily in near-real time? That doesn't even make any sense - you just described a discontinuous continuum. But now that you know that you can't change my mind about whether or not a business decision made one day can change the profit and loss for that same day, Again...how? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juror#8 Posted February 24, 2012 Author Share Posted February 24, 2012 Is it really possible that of all the people on this message board today, you're the only one who can't sense your argument spiraling out of control? Nope the argument is actually solid. And every time someone makes comments like yours, nothing but superficial declaratives and inexpert valuations, it let's me know even more that my argument is actually fine and holding up well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted February 24, 2012 Share Posted February 24, 2012 Nope the argument is actually solid. And every time someone makes comments like yours, nothing but superficial declaratives and inexpert valuations, it let's me know even more that my argument is actually fine and holding up well. Okay. Spiral away. I need the laugh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted February 24, 2012 Share Posted February 24, 2012 Nope the argument is actually solid. And every time someone makes comments like yours, nothing but superficial declaratives and inexpert valuations, it let's me know even more that my argument is actually fine and holding up well. Solid? How? Okay. Spiral away. I need the laugh. Careful. When a business executive laughs, it can adversely affect free cash flow for the next hour. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jauronimo Posted February 24, 2012 Share Posted February 24, 2012 Incidentally even without reliance on that singular quote, I would argue a cumulative/aggregate effect scenario wherein a decision made ON ONE DAY would affect the profit or loss ON THAT SAME DAY. It's the idea that all things financial exist on a continuum. And noone was conflating "announcement" with "decision." "Announcement" in that context was just one of a thousand different decisions that could have been used by way of example. Tom said a decision on one day couldn't affect such and such the same day. I countered by saying that if a CEO announced _______, that decision, that move, that activity could have profit and loss impact on that same day. But now that you know that you can't change my mind about whether or not a business decision made one day can change the profit and loss for that same day, any one else want to throw a few more thoughts, ideas, opinions, or insuls on THAT point so that we can re-direct back to the topic's full scope? So back to your original post, you present the position position that "businessmen", whatever the hell that means, make bad presidents. In support of that claim you: completely over simplified and mischaracterized the nature and challenges of business; for some reason you included some off the cuff comment from Iacocca which admittedly has no bearing and does not encapsulate your point (and confuses equity with P&L); cited several other "businessmen" who have been lack luster presidents as if all businessmen have similar abilities and characteristics; and then listed a few reasons (lack of a hometown) that might make it difficult for Romney to win in a general election; and all the while ignored his actual political experience. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taro T Posted February 24, 2012 Share Posted February 24, 2012 ... The point that I was making about 2004 is that a guy who has many negatives on big issues is being insulated by the other side's quest to move so ideologically hard _____, such that they're putting themselves on an island, and the general election becomes a referendum on their hard_____ness, and the realities of the prior three years gets lost in a sea of complacency. This election is going to turn into Mitt Romney's comments about two social issues. And independents will choose the known quantity over that....despite the known quantities shortcomings. You can see it shaping up now... It may work out that way, and if President Obama is reelected, that will have been a significant factor. I don't believe that we can know this far out that this election will be more about Romney's social views than about the President's record. What Romney proposed on Wednesday is far more likely to improve the economy than what the President came out with on Tuesday. If the economy is picking up in September and October, Romney (or whoever emerges from the convention in August) isn't going to win. If it's where it is today then, Romney has a very realistic chance. And if it swings back into recession, we're looking at 1980 all over again, possibly with '84ish EC totals. The President wants the election to be about anything but the economy of his 1st 3 years. (Eh, judging by his speeches recently, he might prefer that to health insurance reform, but that's about it.) The Republicans will not likely back from that narrative lightly. Remember, back in '80, Reagan was the scary right wing zealot that wanted to go to war with the Soviets. He got elected by asking 1 question: 'are you better off today than you were 4 years ago?' If the answer to that question is the same in October '12 as it was in October '80, the scary Morman wins. That his effectiveness as President is 'unknown' will be a very viable alternative to the known effectiveness of the current officeholder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted February 24, 2012 Share Posted February 24, 2012 Take a picture folks. At least you had enough umph to acknowledge it. Nothing much you can do with that. There is no amount of reason that can ever overcome that. It's a self-contained theory unto itself. It's solipsism. It must be bliss. Good day. Goodbye. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juror#8 Posted February 24, 2012 Author Share Posted February 24, 2012 (edited) Now you're talking about a continuum where executive decision affect things daily in near-real time? That doesn't even make any sense - you just described a discontinuous continuum. I didn't describe anything. I made mention of an agreggate effects doctrine though. Your mention is entirely the opposite of how an aggregate effects scenario would operate in the context of executive decision-making. Again...how? In short, a decision made today would absolutely affect the profit and loss on that day whether or not it was acknowledged on that day or not because of the frequency/method with which it's tabulated. The wheel's are in motion...so to speak. It's fine if you don't agree. I may be wrong; I'm not a business man. But I'm sticking with it because it makes sense conceptually. Fruitless discussion anyway. I'm not expecting any concessions from you - right or wrong. Chef Jim already explained how that works. Okay. Spiral away. I need the laugh. Trust me toots, I'm the one laughing. Edited February 24, 2012 by Juror#8 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts