Cyprus-Forum.com

[Maximus]

Asset stripping usually happens when a company is destined to fail and to extract whatever value is left in it.

Generally speaking, no one buys a cash cow with the intention to slaughter it. Just because the stock price is depressed, it doesnt mean that it is a true reflection of a companies ability to cash flow. In these cases, an investor will buy shares and wait for the price to realign with its true value. then sell them and profit that way.

But if anyone does buy a company to strip it of its assets, it is rightly or wrongly their right to do so.

[Lordo]

Asset stripping usually happens when a company is destined to fail and to extract whatever value is left in it.

Generally speaking, no one buys a cash cow with the intention to slaughter it. Just because the stock price is depressed, it doesnt mean that it is a true reflection of a companies ability to cash flow. In these cases, an investor will buy shares and wait for the price to realign with its true value. then sell them and profit that way.

But if anyone does buy a company to strip it of its assets, it is rightly or wrongly their right to do so.

So it is legalised robbery. It has nothing to do with not being viable. It is simply the difference in valus of the shares and the actuall assests of the company being worth much more. That is why asset strippers are called corporate raiders.

One particular example of where asset stripping cost a significant number of workers their jobs was in the Fontainebleau Las Vegas LLC case. After the takeover, 433 people lost their jobs when assets were sold off and the company was stripped.
Early innovators of asset stripping were Carl Icahn, Victor Posner, and Nelson Peltz; all of whom were investors in the 1970s and 1980s. Carl Icahn performed one of the most notorious and hostile takeovers when he acquired Trans World Airlines in 1985. These blood suckers are exactly that.

[Lordo]

What was haircut all about?

How the hell stealing money from people's bank account legal?

[Lordo]

I seem to remember there was a less punishing proposal from Troika which was thown out of parliament and yet there was a much more punishing solution implemented in the end.

Was there also a cut in peoples wages of 20% and if there was has it ever been returned.

[Maximus]

A proposal was made and Anas backed it in one of his firsts televised addresses to the nation as president.

If I recall correctly, the proposal was to levy all bank deposits to contribute to the bail-out.

It was something like, 6% on insured deposits (<100k) and 10% on uninsured deposits (>100k).

The proposal created uproar the world over and confidence in the banking system was seriously shaken.

Cypriot democracy eventually overturned that proposal because deposits less than 100k are supposed to be insured.

However, what seemed like a victory for the people and democracy was short lived. The country still needed a bail-out.

The cost of the bail-out went up between then and the second proposal being ratified..

The second proposal was to create a "good bank" and a "bad bank". All the good accounts from Laiki were transferred to Bank of Cyprus. All the bad accounts from bank of Cyprus were transferred to Laiki. Everything over 100K was taken from accounts in both banks and Laiki went under. Cyprus also received a bailout of about 10 billion euros but only about 8 of it was needed once it was all said and done.

Yes, there was austerity and people also lost their jobs and Cyprus quickly got back on track and returned to growth.

Also to leave you with a final thought, all the problems were created by the "working peoples" party that was in government. To complacent and incompetent to even fix it, they were voted out in the nick of time.

[Lordo]

Interesting conclusion there but I fear it is way off the mark.

How much of the problem rested with wealthy people evading tax?
How much of the problem was caused by investment of Russian black money invested in Cyprus which could not possibly be used by the Cypriot economy?
How much of it was created by buying back Greek bonds when it was obvious to everyone that they were worthless and were sold initially.
And of course the real wealthy people were clearly warned so they could get most of their money out.

So of course your first reaction is it was because Christofias. How can one person cause so much damage in one term? It takes at least 2 years for a president to get his feet under thw table and his policies to work into the system.

And of course our arch EOKA man Papadopoullos and his law firm helping wealthy Serbians and the Russians to launder their money?

Not that I am a fan of Mr X, he turned like six pence on a dime when it came to peace in Cyprus back in the days of Talat.

Was it not the Athens authorities who used a helicopter to find out who has a swimmingpool to charge the swimming pool tax because everybody avoided tax. I remeber reading about one dentist who actually declared about 80K turnoever in a year. No other company declared more than that?
Can you believe that figure for the highest decleration in a country for tax purposes?
With Onasis family and their shipping empire?

[Maximus]

it was what it was,

the country ran up a large debt, made some poor investment decisions and the banks were over exposed to non performing loans.

It was the "working peoples" party that was in government. They wanted a larger share of the profit, more "welfare" for the working people and ended up ripping a new one out of the country.

[Lordo]

it was what it was,

the country ran up a large debt, made some poor investment decisions and the banks were over exposed to non performing loans.

It was the "working peoples" party that was in government.

No doubt but I am sure the government did not control what the banks did. This happened in all countries at the time.

There was a of course the The Glass–Steagall legislation in the USA passed in 1933 by Roosovelt which eventually got repealed by Clinton. Of course by the time Clinton repealed it it was not worth the paper it was written on as the wealthy bypassed it every which way. The deregulation that follow from Reagan and Thatcher years is what caused the financial crisises. And of course Blair has his responsibilities for what was going on under his watch.

So who bailed these banks when shit hit the fan? Thr UK public loaned them 500 billion pounds with no gusrantees.

How about that?

[Maximus]

Listen Bordo and you listen good,

When leftists come to power and stay in power for too long, the people they claim to represent usually end up poorer.

Leftists are creative thinkers and they are open to receiving new ideas. They are also very good at entrepreneurship and starting businesses. However, if they stay in a managerial position and steer the company after that, they make mistakes, become very greedy and end up not giving a shit about the "working people" they employ.

Because, leftists dont make good managers. They dont grasp facts, logic or reason that well.

[Lordo]

Listen here toilet boooooy, it is not leftists who deregulated the banks and allowed them to gamble with investors money and bankrupted the economy that they had to go to the government cap in hand begging to be saved.

You are full of shit as per usual but why am I not surprised.