I'll try posting an excerpt
"Mr. Lavrov dismissed suggestions that Russia would send its armed forces into eastern Ukraine, where
separatist tensions have also been running high in recent days.
"There has been and there cannot be any intrusion," he said. But he warned that Russia would not allow a
repeat of the bloodshed that happened in Kiev in late February, when a crowd composed of both peaceful
and violent protesters deposed President Viktor Yanukovych."
I think people who use the term SC@MBAG are low class. I did not use the term low IQ b/c you can have low IQ and not be low class. But like many (not all) of the bulls on this board, mashiach is low class. Strange name -- is it Jewish.
Wait a minute. FP has a hard time writing anything that’s coherent, so I’m having trouble following his price data. Of course ETE didn’t climb after dilution, it declined.
Was he saying that the price went from 1.83 to 9.85 or from 9.85 to 1.83. He wrote “1.8321 euro to a high of 9.853 euro,” so it looks like he’s saying it climbed five-fold, which is ridiculous. The price declined after dilution.
1, What date was the 1.83 price for and what is the source?
It can’t be the starting price b/c the current price is 3.77 and before dilution the price was higher than current. It can’t be the current price b/c that is 3.77. So what the hell is it?
2, What date was the 9.85 price for and what is the source?
Try to exert yourself for once, FP, and give the source and date of your price data.
But again, dilution ratio can't be calculated from price data ratio over time. But I am curious about where you got your price data.
You're still dodging my question about a distinction w/o a difference (share value dilution vs share numbers dilution). I posted a few minutes ago the reasons why your NBG share dilution calculations are beyond bizarre.
FP718 reply to my March 12 post:
Billiosi, Pizza108, FP718: "Agree or not on 20/1 NBG dilution (waiting 9 days)"
FP718: “Now regarding the 20/1 stock dilution you claimed happen to ETE over a year. Here is the 1 year price for ETE 1.8321 euro to a high of 9.853 euro which comes to a value dilution of 5/1 not 20/1 over a year. That's my answer to your question.”
As usual FP718 doesn’t give the source of his data. I have no idea where he gets “1 year price for ETE 1.8321 euro to a high of 9.853 euro.”
But it doesn’t matter b/c the dilution factor can’t be calced from the ratio of share prices over time. Share prices bounce around all the time – does that mean the dilution factor does also. Nonsense.
He is saying that a 5 to 1 dilution has caused the share price to climb 5 times higher. He’s got it bass ackwards. When shares are diluted, the price drops, it doesn’t climb (all else being equal).
Now it’s hard to believe that FP718 has so little common sense he didn’t spot how ridiculous his logic is. But that’s why I haven’t answered his questions in the past – b/c he seemed too dumb to discuss finance with.
The way to find the correct # of shares before and after 2013 dilution is to dnld the latest Qtr report from NBG website. But FP718 doesn’t have the intellectual energy to do that. But why don’t you give it a shot FP? Go to the NBG website and get the correct # of shares before and after dilution to calculate the dilution ratio. The Board eagerly awaits your results.
There is 1 NBG ADR per ETE share, so when ETE gets diluted by 20/1, so does NBG. You are trying to call it a value dilution instead of a stock dilution, but it is a distinction w/o a difference. Both ETE and NBG stock prices have been trashed the same percentage by the dilution. It's a desperate attempt on your part to correct me about something, anything, b/c you have been so wrong on everything in the past. When you admit it's a distinction w/o a difference, then we can proceed.
But you have answered my question about the size of the ETE-NBG share dilution and you are ridiculously wrong as usual, which I will explain in my next post.
I said I would answer you when you replied to my question, are you making a distinction w/o a difference.
I didn't forget to answer the 2nd part of your question, I want you to answer my objection to your first answer, about which came first, the chicken or the egg, dilution of ETE or NBG. I am asking you to answer before we proceed. Is that a distinction w/o a difference? When you answer that, yes or no, we can proceed.
“Now you have kept saying for as long as I been here that NBG stock has been diluted 20/1 just as you stated above. NBG has never had a stock dilution, its only had a value dilution yes value dilution is a term. Stock dilution is when they sell extra shares. NBG NEVER had extra shares being offered. Only ETE had stock dilution. Since NBG follows ETE and ETE was diluted with extra shares NBG saw value dilution, which technically is the same when we look at value only.”
Why are you wasting my time by getting bogged down in semantics about which came first, the chicken or the egg, or value dilution vs share dilution. Why are you wasting my time pettifogging the issue. It has no practical significance to anything. When ETE is diluted 20/1, NBG is diluted 20/1.
Now write me back and acknowledge it has no practical significance or I have no interest in wasting my time answering questions from a pettifogging sophist (that does not mean sophisticated).
Yo, Maria, it's a pleasant surprise to see someone on this not too bright board ask the bulls to give stats to back up their cheerleading. Attagirl.
But notice, nobody else on this board does that. Nobody. That tells you all you need to know about the quality of this board.
By calculated worth of NBG I assume you mean my Fair Value per share calculation.
If so, I posted the entire calculation in detail. on March 10 below. Did you miss it?
NBG Q3: Price vs Fair Value & Tangible Book Value
by buchanan_1 • Mar 10, 2014 10:19 PM
Billiosi, Pizza108, FP718: Do you agree or not that NBG stock has been diluted ~20/1 by the recapitalization last year?
I posted this question 9 days ago on March 3, but you guys don’t seem to want to address the question.
The rest of the bulls on this board should judge the most aggressive bulls on this board by their refusal to answer the question. Either they are too stupid to know the answer or too dishonest to admit a huge dilution problem for NBG.
Insider_Expert says no dilution from 2013 recapitalization.
Beyond dumb, but hey, he’s a bull, so what do you expect.
Beyond dumb, but hey, he’s a bull, so what do you expect.
"Under IFRS banks report the gross amount of derivative assets on their balance sheets, while U.S. GAAP standards say banks must report the net amount of derivative assets."
Derivative assets on Balance Sheets have nothing to do w/ income or fees on the Income Statement, which are treated the same by GAAP and IFRS. DA's affect mostly book value, but I'll look into this. I use the term GAAP loosely b/c most foreign banks issue reports in their own national accounting formats.
BtW, many European banks post 2 rpts -- one each for GAAP and IFRS. If I have a choice I use IFRS. But GAAP reports often have useful 5 yr tables while IFRS has only 2 yrs. I'm in process of getting skilled at comparing EPS results from the 2 methods. SBER uses both methods, so will compare and post my findings. I'll check out the Forbes article.