Re: Miley5.net - How will the IASB Forum affect its valuation

On Mon, 24 Nov 2008 20:58:14 -0800, economies.deloiyer wrote:

- quote -

> On Nov 25, 2:39Â*pm, ny.negotiati...[at]gmail.com wrote:
> > The IASB is very much dedicated to an increasing reliance on fair
> > value. Obviously, one of the issues backdating to Roosevelt's "New
> > Deal" was overvaluation of assets and revenues (and undervaluation of
> > liabilities and expenses) because of the focus on fair value. This
> > caused a reversion to Historic Cost.
> > > One analyst noted, for instance, whereas Miley5's physical assets would
> > only account to less than $1m (it would predominantly be capitalized
> > expenditure) - its intangibles far outweigh its physical assets; thus
> > any valuation discounting internally generated goodwill will vastly
> > affect its valuation.
> > > This is particularly an issue when the Company considers floating on
> > the Stock Exchange as we have seen recently. If there is an overbuy of
> > shares, allocation becomes difficult, and new ledger accounts and
> > reserves must be created to counter this effect.
> In all different Economies, Governments are trying to do what Roosevelt
> did - that is, push more and more expenditure, in hope of reviving the
> Economy. Free markets (Laissez Faire) was shown by Milton Friedmon
> (University of Chicago) to be what is required. Like George W. Bush
> said, the problem is going to be overcorrection - not undercorrection of
> the Economy.

I think that Bush and Friedman are correct on this one. The "financial
sector" should melt to nothing (crash). It is worthless as tits on a
boar hog anyway. We need the commercial banks. We need insurance
companies that actually insure tangible assets (this function is probably
done much better by government). We need brokers that actually manage
the markets for commercial paper and this phrase includes stocks and
bonds. And all of these need to be distinctly separate enterprises. You
can have it that way or you can have the whole damned mess taken over by
government. The other option is to have the "financial sector" totally
full of regulators. These enterprises cannot be allowed to repeat what
they have done. It is simply to big of a pain in the ass. In any case
"Credit Swaps" need to be managed in an exchange like the futures markets
where "contracts" are balanced and proper margin is required. That form
of "insurance" is a market in itself like oil or pork bellies.

On Nov 25, 2:39*pm, ny.negotiati...[at]gmail.com wrote:
- quote -

> The IASB is very much dedicated to an increasing reliance on fair
> value. Obviously, one of the issues backdating to Roosevelt's "New
> Deal" was overvaluation of assets and revenues (and undervaluation of
> liabilities and expenses) because of the focus on fair value. This
> caused a reversion to Historic Cost.
> One analyst noted, for instance, whereas Miley5's physical assets
> would only account to less than $1m (it would predominantly be
> capitalized expenditure) - its intangibles far outweigh its physical
> assets; thus any valuation discounting internally generated goodwill
> will vastly affect its valuation.
> This is particularly an issue when the Company considers floating on
> the Stock Exchange as we have seen recently. If there is an overbuy of
> shares, allocation becomes difficult, and new ledger accounts and
> reserves must be created to counter this effect.

In all different Economies, Governments are trying to do what
Roosevelt did - that is, push more and more expenditure, in hope of
reviving the Economy. Free markets (Laissez Faire) was shown by Milton
Friedmon (University of Chicago) to be what is required. Like George
W. Bush said, the problem is going to be overcorrection - not
undercorrection of the Economy.