tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7141615629701321642.post1612736784131414043..comments2024-01-07T08:41:13.864-05:00Comments on C A I T I - O N L I N E: The MORAL HAZARD to all 308 MPs of not adopting the Marshall PlanBrent Fullardhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08515599756822506137noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7141615629701321642.post-86307711091354340082010-01-28T01:19:52.403-05:002010-01-28T01:19:52.403-05:00Bo didly:
Re-read the question, as it called upon...Bo didly:<br /><br />Re-read the question, as it called upon you to provide your reasoning. It wasn't a mere multiple choice.<br /><br />Whether the alternative deal was viable in the marketplace at the time is not relevant to the question I asked you, as we are dealing with concepts here.<br /><br />Meanwhile the BCE deal did not die for the reasons you cite, as the SCC sided with BCE and allowed them to oppress the bondholders. I should know, as I intervened before he Supreme Court of Canada in opposing the LBO of BCE. Only person to do so.<br /><br />As for the "fancy report". Google this: "tax revenue implications of income trusts"Filliblusterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06563618107971013947noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7141615629701321642.post-25101712507953715602010-01-28T01:04:30.179-05:002010-01-28T01:04:30.179-05:00A) BCE with 9 b in debt becoming an income trust ...A) BCE with 9 b in debt becoming an income trust creates the BOC that I refer to.<br /><br />B) You refer to a Wall street/ Bay street sham a thon deal that never was going to happen. You just cant treat bond holders like poo baby.<br /><br /><br />Your fancy reports with the nice titles are no where to be found on the net if the titles are entered into google<br /><br />Everyones interest mean win win win solutions in the long term.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7141615629701321642.post-64252440225961733912010-01-28T00:26:50.126-05:002010-01-28T00:26:50.126-05:00Dear Bo Didly:
Given that we are sharing secrets,...Dear Bo Didly:<br /><br />Given that we are sharing secrets, here's a little secret for you:<br /><br />You know not what you speak of.<br /><br />This concept of yours referred to so eloquently of as a so called "bleed out corporation (BOC)", is most interesting.<br /><br />Never having heard of such a concept before, let me ask you a skill testing question. Which is the more BOC-like company, and why:<br /><br />(a) BCE had it become a income trust with $9 billion of the existing debt on its books, or<br /><br />(b) BCE had it become the leveraged buyout that ensued after BCE had been prevented from becoming (1) above and which would mean that it would have $35 billion more in debt on top of the existing $9 billion in debt for a total of $44 billion in debt for a capital structure that was 95% debt?<br /><br />Meanwhile these "fancy reports" that you seem willing to reject on the basis of their covers alone, do you consider them (a) more, or (b) less authoritative than Jim Flaherty's 18 pages of blacked out documents as his alleged "proof" of tax leakage?<br /><br />Also how exactly do you go about measuring "anyone's long term best interests" or are you a big subscriber to interventionist big brother type government?<br /><br />PS: These are all rhetorical questions, so don't puzzle over them for too long.Filliblusterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06563618107971013947noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7141615629701321642.post-79181300158043250072010-01-27T23:31:06.151-05:002010-01-27T23:31:06.151-05:00As soon as you start attacking the life insurance ...As soon as you start attacking the life insurance industry with sweeping non sensical statements I turn the channel.<br /><br /> I have a little secret I will share with you.<br /><br />It is not about the tax leakage. It is about creating "bleed out corporations" that are not in anyones long term interests.<br /><br />You can quote the titles of fancy reports paid for by your group that denies tax leakage but that means Bo Didly.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com