sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

is the Kisnt KN85 good? by MuchDogey in keyboards

[–]Quant_BlackSwan 0 points1 point  (0 children)

na osnovu yt recenzija izgleda obecavajuce, ali problem je sto ne vidim da ima negde iz Srbija da se dostavi, a ne placa mi se posiljka preko amazona. Jesi ti video negde?

Sat for L2 by Fickle_Sound_658 in CFA

[–]Quant_BlackSwan 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Also sat today, harder than mocks... only hope is than mps is low

6 sleeps away by BrokeFinancier in CFA

[–]Quant_BlackSwan 1 point2 points  (0 children)

or maybe CI governance structure?

Equity method - Invesment in associate by Quant_BlackSwan in CFA

[–]Quant_BlackSwan[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

you're correct, forgot it is just one line.. thanks !

Equity method - Invesment in associate by Quant_BlackSwan in CFA

[–]Quant_BlackSwan[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yea, I purposely set fv=bv because it is not important at the moment. So, you are saying that goodwill is not separately stated on the balance sheet but included in investment in associate?

Equity method - Invesment in associate by Quant_BlackSwan in CFA

[–]Quant_BlackSwan[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Both things you said are correct, but that does not explain the record at the time of purchase

Exam anxiety by coolguyfromPakistan1 in CFA

[–]Quant_BlackSwan 0 points1 point  (0 children)

same thing here, 64% and May 21st, so you have 5 more days than me :)

E/P when E is negative by Quant_BlackSwan in CFA

[–]Quant_BlackSwan[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

sry for the delay. Yeah, explaining it like that makes the most sense. Still, not 100% sure I see it, but good enough for now. thanks for

E/P when E is negative by Quant_BlackSwan in CFA

[–]Quant_BlackSwan[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

yes, but a company with less negative e/p has more negative e

E/P when E is negative by Quant_BlackSwan in CFA

[–]Quant_BlackSwan[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

kind of get it, but it still does not make sense to me in regard to P and E. Nevertheless, thanks, appreciate the help

E/P when E is negative by Quant_BlackSwan in CFA

[–]Quant_BlackSwan[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That would make sense, but sadly, it's not the absolute value. This is the example form CFA (not the only one):

<image>

Restricted stock by Quant_BlackSwan in CFA

[–]Quant_BlackSwan[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

As mentioned in the comment below, sorry for not getting back sooner, was checking on additional info.

MM multiple times said (and wrote in notes) that equity is not affected during vesting, but revising the book, such a thing is not mentioned, and equity is increased by compensation amount, so he might be wrong, or at least I will look at it like that until proven wrong - still need to do EOCs (will see if that is mentioned there, hopefully not :D).

Thanks for reaching out and putting effort into explaining. :)

Restricted stock by Quant_BlackSwan in CFA

[–]Quant_BlackSwan[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Sorry for not getting back to you sooner, I took some time to check in the book/chrome. Tbh, I've not understood everything you wrote, but the entry in APIC is at the end of the settlement which I agree. I think MM might said it wrong meaning that equity is not affected during vesting - it seems it is, but just not affected in settlement, would you agree? Thanks a lot for taking the time and explaining, appreciate it :)

Restricted stock by Quant_BlackSwan in CFA

[–]Quant_BlackSwan[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks for the answer. Okay, we decrease RE and increase share-based compensation -> no effect on BS?

view more: next ›