Temasek selling Merrill Lynch at a loss
-
Originally posted by eagle:
His behaviour is like CSJ.
Quite similar, he's the P4P's equivalent.
I surmise that very soon he is going to attack you personally again.
-
Originally posted by maurizio13:
Nope.My module had elements of options in it.
Options tend to be very lucrative if the markets are very volatile.
I guess you have to have a strong acumen to technical analysis in addition to knowing fundamental analysis well.
I attended a free workshop by Adam Khoo and conducted by this guy called Ron Ianieri. The basics of options were explained very clearly, but the intricate details, they say, need months to teach/learn.
They did have an additional 3 nights online free webcast on him teaching more on trading, but then, I didn't hv time cuz it was my final exams.
-
Originally posted by eagle:
I guess you have to have a strong acumen to technical analysis in addition to knowing fundamental analysis well.
I attended a free workshop by Adam Khoo and conducted by this guy called Ron Ianieri. The basics of options were explained very clearly, but the intricate details, they say, need months to teach/learn.
They did have an additional 3 nights online free webcast on him teaching more on trading, but then, I didn't hv time cuz it was my final exams.
Shouldn't be a problem for you, since you have an affinity for mathematics. -
Originally posted by maurizio13:
Shouldn't be a problem for you, since you have an affinity for mathematics.Well, it's also not that easy cuz it is going to involve companies all the way at the US. And that's going to affect any fundamental analysis part.
Btw, what module is it that you are taking? Interesting that it has options included too
-
Originally posted by eagle:
Well, it's also not that easy cuz it is going to involve companies all the way at the US. And that's going to affect any fundamental analysis part.
Btw, what module is it that you are taking? Interesting that it has options included too
In the past, when I did my ACCA course, it was included in strategic financial management. Just the basic Black-Scholes.I did some further reading on my own also.
-
Originally posted by maurizio13:
1) Only SWF can invest in Merrill Lynch?
Bond rates are available from financial websites in the US.2) No. Actually laughing at your ignorance.
3) You said Temasek reap a profit of USD 600 million from an option to purchase from Merrill Lynch, I merely asked to cite your source. You don't understand how options work do you?
1) Since we all know that the world is going through some major credit crunch due to subprime and CDOs problem, you are now telling us that you have other alternatives to raise such huge amount of emergency funds within a short time. So Mr. CEO, can you tell us,
a) Beside SWF, where else will you go raise your billions of fresh capital?
b) What coupon rate will be recommend to ensure that you bonds are fully subscribed?
2) You claim that you predict that ML share price will fall from current level of US26 to US20 by Oct08 and under the condition of maintaining inflation level. So my question to you Mr. CEO is why you want to maintain inflation when you want banks share price to suffer? Isnt it better for inflation to rise and create havoc to the banking industry instead? Are you talking cock or what?
3) I believe I have stated clearly that those are paper gain which are inmaterial for Temasek and only important to fools like you who like to praise yourself with your silly prediction just like AndrewPKyap. And you claim that Temasek will be better off if they do what yuo said to buy ML stocks in the open market.
As it turn out, you are end up having to shallow your own bullshit isnt it?
If you are so good at diggin stupid article and make prediction, then how come you cant even find that article? periodic stupidity syndrome?
-
Originally posted by maurizio13:
In the past, when I did my ACCA course, it was included in strategic financial management. Just the basic Black-Scholes.I did some further reading on my own also.
I am surprise that someone who did ACCA can come out to this forum to claim that a company can reduce its taxable income by transfering share ownership from husband to wife.Where did you take your ACCA huh? hahaha?
-
Originally posted by O o O o:
1) Since we all know that the world is going through some major credit crunch due to subprime and CDOs problem, you are now telling us that you have other alternatives to raise such huge amount of emergency funds within a short time. So Mr. CEO, can you tell us,
a) Beside SWF, where else will you go raise your billions of fresh capital?
Warren Buffett, Bill Gates or any company who wants to swallow ML
b) What coupon rate will be recommend to ensure that you bonds are fully subscribed?
1000% interest p.a.? Or more if u can afford?
2) You claim that you predict that ML share price will fall from current level of US26 to US20 by Oct08 and under the condition of maintaining inflation level. So my question to you Mr. CEO is why you want to maintain inflation when you want banks share price to suffer? Isnt it better for inflation to rise and create havoc to the banking industry instead? Are you talking cock or what?
Since either event cause damage to banks, isn't it better to keep inflation constant at the bank's expense?
3) I believe I have stated clearly that those are paper gain which are inmaterial for Temasek and only important to fools like you who like to praise yourself with your silly prediction just like AndrewPKyap. And you claim that Temasek will be better off if they do what yuo said to buy ML stocks in the open market.
As it turn out, you are end up having to shallow your own bullshit isnt it?
If you are so good at diggin stupid article and make prediction, then how come you cant even find that article? periodic stupidity syndrome?
No prior knowledge of the earlier discussion so I just shut up on this.
-
A company can pay out share dividends to its shareholders. When the dividends are paid out, they are subject to an 18% corporate tax.
The dividends are still considered as income to shareholders. When declaring income tax, these dividends are included, and any extra that has been paid in tax will be refunded, because usually income tax rate is lower than corporate tax rate.
Thus, a company owner can decrease the total tax paid by transferring some shares to his wife, such that in total, less tax (due to dividends, etc) is paid.
Somehow, our resident troll has no idea how to calculate properly. Can't blame him since he had likely gotten an A2 for E maths and a B4 for his A maths; many O level students can calculate better than him.
-
Originally posted by O o O o:
I am surprise that someone who did ACCA can come out to this forum to claim that a company can reduce its taxable income by transfering share ownership from husband to wife.Where did you take your ACCA huh? hahaha?
Just keep repeating how stupid I am about the tax issue.
-
Originally posted by eagle:
A company can pay out share dividends to its shareholders. When the dividends are paid out, they are subject to an 18% corporate tax.
The dividends are still considered as income to shareholders. When declaring income tax, these dividends are included, and any extra that has been paid in tax will be refunded, because usually income tax rate is lower than corporate tax rate.
Thus, a company owner can decrease the total tax paid by transferring some shares to his wife, such that in total, less tax (due to dividends, etc) is paid.
Somehow, our resident troll has no idea how to calculate properly. Can't blame him since he had likely gotten an A2 for E maths and a B4 for his A maths; many O level students can calculate better than him.
what does "shallow your own bullshit" mean?engrish weally powderful.
i think i shan't say much, later tax invasion.
-
<Jim Rogers, who has traveled extensively in emerging markets and lives part of the year in Asia, says sovereign wealth funds in Abu Dhabi and Singapore that recently made large investments in failing US banks are likely to lose a lot of money on their ploys. "They're making a big mistake; these banks have many more problems still ahead. They should wait until these companies are really on the ropes a few years from now . . . and trading at $5 a share."
But aren't they supposed to be the smart money? Maybe not. "I know these people, and they have never given me the impression that they're smarter than anyone else," Rogers says. "They have gigantic amounts of money, but they've made a bad judgment in these cases.">
<When asked whether he would take a big stake in Merrill or UBS late last year, Warren Buffet replied: " I don't see any value in those companies">
Simply put, experts were saying " don't go, it's unsafe," bozos say " that's exactly the time to go in."
Another saying - fools rush in where angels fear to tread
-
The yelping has ceased?
-
Originally posted by eagle:
A company can pay out share dividends to its shareholders. When the dividends are paid out, they are subject to an 18% corporate tax.
The dividends are still considered as income to shareholders. When declaring income tax, these dividends are included, and any extra that has been paid in tax will be refunded, because usually income tax rate is lower than corporate tax rate.
Thus, a company owner can decrease the total tax paid by transferring some shares to his wife, such that in total, less tax (due to dividends, etc) is paid.
Somehow, our resident troll has no idea how to calculate properly. Can't blame him since he had likely gotten an A2 for E maths and a B4 for his A maths; many O level students can calculate better than him.
Eagle,I am not sure if you understand what I am saying or if you have been reading with your eyes or your mouth?
How on earth can a company reduce their TAXABLE INCOME by transferring shareholding from husband to wife?
I repeat, COMPANY. not personal income tax?
-
Hahaha.....
Frankly, I don't know who or what you are.
What started out as,
--------------------------------------
stupid,
Ask this of you, a businessman with a chargeable income of $80,000 for year of assessment 2007 and tax charge of $4,300, decides to keep away from paying tax by giving his wife a 50% of his sole proprietorship company shares, thereby reducing their total tax payable from $4,300 to $1,800. (My original figures for tax payable was wrong as pointed out by jojobeach in page 16, corrected figures in blue.)
The businessman effectively cheated IRAS by avoiding the difference of the two tax payable, which is $2,500.
Did he commit tax evasion?
http://politics.sgforums.com/forums/10/topics/324577?page=13
--------------------------------------
Became this,
How on earth can a company reduce their TAXABLE INCOME by transferring shareholding from husband to wife?
I repeat, COMPANY. not personal income tax?
I don't know you are idiotic, moron, imbecile or just plain schizo.
-
Originally posted by maurizio13:
Hahaha.....
Frankly, I don't know who or what you are.
What started out as,
--------------------------------------
stupid,
Ask this of you, a businessman with a chargeable income of $80,000 for year of assessment 2007 and tax charge of $4,300, decides to keep away from paying tax by giving his wife a 50% of his sole proprietorship company shares, thereby reducing their total tax payable from $4,300 to $1,800. (My original figures for tax payable was wrong as pointed out by jojobeach in page 16, corrected figures in blue.)
The businessman effectively cheated IRAS by avoiding the difference of the two tax payable, which is $2,500.
Did he commit tax evasion?
http://politics.sgforums.com/forums/10/topics/324577?page=13
--------------------------------------
Became this,
How on earth can a company reduce their TAXABLE INCOME by transferring shareholding from husband to wife?
I repeat, COMPANY. not personal income tax?
I don't know you are idiotic, moron, imbecile or just plain schizo.
Maurizio,
AFAIK, you cant be a sole proprietor of a company and yet have a partner in the same business? Are you sure you know what you are talking about? Why do you need to have shares and give dividends, when you are the sole owner of the company?
-
Originally posted by O o O o:
Maurizio,
AFAIK, you cant be a sole proprietor of a company and yet have a partner in the same business? Are you sure you know what you are talking about? Why do you need to have share when you are the sole owner of the company?
sighs.with the transfer of shares, sole proprietorship effectively becomes partnership, only need to go down RCB change.
http://www.acra.gov.sg/Services/Business/Changes_in_Business_Particulars.htm
-
a moron will go on and on asking questions to confirm his stupidity.
-
Please continue yelping, I need some entertainment.
-
Originally posted by maurizio13:
sighs.with the transfer of shares, sole proprietorship effectively becomes partnership, only need to go down RCB change.
http://www.acra.gov.sg/Services/Business/Changes_in_Business_Particulars.htm
AFAIK, this is the exact word you use to in your statement, which IMO is nonsense because there is not such thing as shares in the sole properitorship company.50% of his sole proprietorship company shares
-
you head is a square.
-
Originally posted by maurizio13:
you head is a square.
I am surprise that ACCA didnt teach you that there is no such thing as sole proprietorship company shares -
surprised at your rigid interpretation, alot like a robot.
you mean sole proprietor can't change his business vehicle from sole proprietorship into partnership?
sighs.
your disagreement was, it is not possible for sole proprietor to give his wife half his shares in his business, so that he can reduce his tax charge.
you really sound so pathetic now, arguing about the construction of the sentences, it's lame. when i wrote that statement i assumed that the company has been converted, that why i used company shares. the intention was to mean it was from a sole proprietorship converted to a partnership or company.
so the issue is still, can the sole proprietor give 50% of his company to his wife?
-
Originally posted by maurizio13:
you head is a square.
I guess we can add one more description to this trollextremely rigid
No need to teach him anymore la. The faster minded would already have caught on to what you have just said. It's either our resident troll is slow minded, or he's just opposing for the sake of opposing
-
Originally posted by O o O o:
F4, your behavior is actually the same as EAGLE, alot of big talk, big claim but no action. (aka empty vessel)Bird of same feather flock together huh?
first you ask me if i believe what eagle claim about logging into 10 accounts can be done.
i told you yes.
Next, i know you will ask me for proof and how he was able to do it therefore i teach you the method. and i even introduce you to this product call virtual PC which you can download for free and try it for yourself.
but you choose not to believe it and you even claim you could walk on air too.
So, i ask you to read up on what a virtual PC can do and now you saying i have a lot of big talk.
talk to you, you don't want to listen.
teach you, you don't want to learn.
ask you read up, you don't wan to believe.
so who is living in denial now? microsoft for giving people fake product?