teaklog2
teaklog2 t1_j8f0yt6 wrote
Reply to comment by chuckescobar in If you “lose” a citibike by ar1680
it’s how things are valued just in general…
and this isn’t an insurance company assessing claims, this is you making a contract with the company by using the product
teaklog2 t1_j8f0qya wrote
Reply to comment by NotThreeLeafCasaba in If you “lose” a citibike by ar1680
? is how many assets in general are valued
what exactly does this even have to do with accounting…lol
teaklog2 t1_j8en6y4 wrote
Reply to comment by chuckescobar in If you “lose” a citibike by ar1680
it’s probably based on expected revenue the bike would bring in
teaklog2 t1_j8en5ka wrote
Reply to comment by NotThreeLeafCasaba in If you “lose” a citibike by ar1680
probably based on the expected revenue that particular bike would bring in
teaklog2 t1_iyfdavu wrote
Reply to comment by Additional_Share_551 in Letter bomb explodes in Ukranian embassy in Madrid by The_Food_Scientist
that is literally just untrue lol
teaklog2 t1_iyfd6lv wrote
Reply to comment by wrosecrans in Letter bomb explodes in Ukranian embassy in Madrid by The_Food_Scientist
Going to jump in and argue the grammar here specifically, in an ‘or’ statement like that the ‘serious’ can also modify both things being listed.
‘i want to buy a red car or truck’ does not imply you want a red car or any colored truck
‘an accretive merger or acquisition’ - doesn’t imply you don’t care if the acquisition is accretive or not
unless you are saying if you want to say ‘I want to buy a red car, table, blanket, and shirt!’ you should instead say ‘i want to buy a red car, a red table, a red blanket, and a red shirt!’
if you want to remove that assumption from your sentence, you could instead say ‘a truck or a red car’ or ‘a red car or any colored truck.’
teaklog2 t1_j8ivjfq wrote
Reply to comment by chuckescobar in If you “lose” a citibike by ar1680
all future income...discounted to present value at a discount rate...
yes, quite literally
So if the house generated $100,000 in rental income annually forever...and the appropriate discount rate is 10%, then yeah they would be on the hook for $1m
In the same vein that in a wrongful termination lawsuit you can receive not just the income from the period you weren't working, but to be compensated for expected future income based on a number of factors.
This isn't some crazy concept dude, its the foundation for valuing literally anything. If I burned down someones rental property I would expect to be on the hook for the present value of future cash flows. Things can be worth more than their material cost my guy. In a similar vein, say you're at a store and you break a lamp costing $10,000. It doesn't matter if the lamp's materials costed $1000...the expected future revenue from selling that lamp was $10,000 which is what you owe. You can't go into a store and break $200 headphones and tell them 'oh well, the material cost of the headphones were only $20 so I'm giving you $20 and we're even'
its literally one of the fundamentals of how you set a price for anything that generates cash flows