 patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY | shareholders If you have no shareholders, you don't need profit, just breaking even.  | |
|
 | 
captain456
@gci.net
 from:
TK Junk Mail 
| Re: shareholders said by patcat88 :If you have no shareholders, you don't need profit, just breaking even. Are you willing to work for free? I didn't think so, so why would you expect somebody else to? Not only work for free but take on massive amounts of debt just for the ability to work for free? | |
|
| | 
tp0d
yabbazooie
Premium
join:2001-02-13
Carnegie, PA
clubs:
 ·Verizon FIOS
edit:
July 20th, @12:26PM
| Re: shareholders How does no profit == work for free?
Profit happens when there is excess money after paying ALL the bills, including your paycheck. Breaking even with no profit still pays employees.
Sprint, being a publicly held company, has shareholders that demand some kind of ROI for their services. Since it was said they weren't losing money, the profit margin just wasnt enough.
damn anon's
-j | |
|
| | |
captain456
@gci.net
| Re: shareholders said by tp0d :How does no profit == work for free? Are you serious? lets keep this simple. You open a business. You are making $100 per month worth of sales and your monthly expenses are exactly $100. You break even. You keep doing this month after month breaking even. You are basically working for free. Why is that hard to comprehend? And if you think it isn't the same when It is an evil corporation or someone else then you clearely don't understand the most basic high school level economics/finance/money/how the world works | |
|
| | | | EPS
join:2008-02-13
Hingham, MA | Re: shareholders Expenses include paychecks- you can have "no profits" if paying your salary wipes out your profit margin. | |
|
| | | | |
captain456
@gci.net
| Re: shareholders said by EPS :Expenses include paychecks- you can have "no profits" if paying your salary wipes out your profit margin. Umm you can't pay yourself salary. I'm sorry but you guys are ridiculously uneducated on the subject of business yet you love to throw out your uneducated opinions. If there are no shareholders than you cannot pay yourself a salary, that would be illegal since you cannot enter into a contract with yourself. If you are legally allowed to pay yourself a salary then that means there are shareholders. So your statement is null. | |
|
| | | | | | EPS
join:2008-02-13
Hingham, MA | Re: shareholders It depends on how the corporation is set up, I suppose. And I think the term "shareholder" is being used very loosely here to imply being publicly traded, though I could be wrong. | |
|
| | | | | | |
captain456
@gci.net
| Re: shareholders said by EPS :It depends on how the corporation is set up, I suppose. And I think the term "shareholder" is being used very loosely here to imply being publicly traded, though I could be wrong. If it's a corporation then theres at least 1 shareholder. And not it does not have to be publically traded. If there are no shareholders than it is not a corporation. | |
|
| | | | | | | | markopoleo
join:2003-04-02
Bonne Terre, MO | Re: shareholders You must never of worked in your life, most people work for free. If you work from paycheck to paycheck then you are working for free. If you miss one paycheck and are in financial problems it means each paycheck you get.. you are working for free. | |
|
| | | | | | | | |
captain456
@gci.net
| Re: shareholders said by markopoleo :You must never of worked in your life, most people work for free. If you work from paycheck to paycheck then you are working for free. If you miss one paycheck and are in financial problems it means each paycheck you get.. you are working for free. I really don't know where you are coming from. Just just because you work paycheck to paycheck does not mean you are working for free. That's your own mismanagement of life causing you to work paycheck to paycheck. | |
|
| | | |
tp0d
yabbazooie
Premium
join:2001-02-13
Carnegie, PA
clubs:
·Verizon FIOS
edit:
July 20th, @09:04PM
| said by captain456 :said by tp0d :How does no profit == work for free? Are you serious? lets keep this simple. You open a business. You are making $100 per month worth of sales and your monthly expenses are exactly $100. You break even. You keep doing this month after month breaking even. You are basically working for free. Why is that hard to comprehend? And if you think it isn't the same when It is an evil corporation or someone else then you clearely don't understand the most basic high school level economics/finance/money/how the world works You're using the wrong definition of 'break even'. Monthly expenses of keeping a business running -include- employees. The president of a 1-man business is -still- an employee. Even a non-profit has to have a payroll, but theyre not allowed to turn a profit. If a business can't be run without its employee or employees making a decent living, much less any profit, its not worth it.
Since when does the president of an LLC (single member even) not pull a paycheck? The article mentions an LLC, not a fullblown corp.
Yes I understand economics, I think you are lacking in some of the principals tho..
-j
--
if it aint broke, tweak it!!
currently on FiOS (kick aZZ!) | |
|
| | | | | pooker314
join:2005-04-12
Brush Prairie, WA
| Re: shareholders Non-profits have "profits" very frequently. If they didn't, they typically wouldn't survive. However, that profit (usually called "operating margin" to avoid confusion), cannot be distributed to the corporation's members (sort of like shareholders). Instead, the money must be used for tax exempt purposes. This usually involves plowing it back into the business somehow (including capital development, higher salaries, etc.).
In the for-profit world, certain smaller corporations (s corps) can get into very big trouble with the IRS if they retain all of their profits for shareholder distributions in lieu of paying their owner/employees a reasonable salary (because shareholder distributions can avoid employment taxes like FICA/FUTA). | |
|
| | | | |
captain456
@gci.net
| Since when does the president of an LLC (single member even) not pull a paycheck? The article mentions an LLC, not a fullblown corp.
That would be called a shareholder. Which then yes they can receive a paycheck. The whole point of this is the origanal poster said something along the lines of if there are no shareholders then there doesn't need to be profit. So let me repeat this simple fact. If there are no shareholders than you cannot apy yourself with a paycheck, that would be illegal. Therefore you would be working for free. | |
|
| | jc100
join:2002-04-10
 ·RoadRunner Cable
edit:
July 20th, @02:23PM
| Well all start ups are a financial loss. There are few companies that open their doors and hit the ground running into the black. It just takes time to build a customer base, market, etc. However, this company has the right idea. Right now, 150 isn't a lot but if they can expand, then I am sure they can make a good deal of money. If your service is say 40 dollars a month and you can net even 3,000 customers, thats 120,000 a *Month*. Figuring this is a small few man operation, then that isn't bad. Consider maybe 20,000 for taxes. 100,000 left. 4 Employees (20K each salary monthly if all are partners and even split). Then around 20K left for future investments (monthly). It's feasible if they can build their subscriber base anyway. The monthly assumes a constant. | |
|
| | | 
S_engineer
join:2007-05-16
Chicago, IL | Re: shareholders They need to leave 20k around just in case they need to close. Closing a business is very expensive too! | |
|
| | | | jc100
join:2002-04-10 | Re: shareholders That's what bankruptcy and an LLC is for. If you file bankruptcy then they can only settle with what you have left. Furthermore, if you are an LLC, they can only sue the company and not you. Presto. | |
|
| | |
doesnt matter
| check your math, customers pay every month. $1.4 million that sounds much better | |
|
| | | | jc100
join:2002-04-10
edit:
July 20th, @02:22PM
| Re: shareholders Well I broke it down on a monthly scale anyway. You can multiple that x 12 ONLY if it's assumed to be a constant. Either way, I think they will do OK.
P.S. I did type year instead of month. OOPS. Corrected. | |
|
|
| |
| | 
dvd536
as Mr. Pink as they come
Premium
join:2001-04-27
Phoenix, AZ
| Re: Info on RuralNet said by iansltx :Looks like they are using routed IPs, non-public :/ That would definately knock out servers, P2P or anything fun.
--
When I gez aju zavateh na nalechoo more new yonooz tonigh molinigh - Ken Lee | |
|
| | | |
| | | |
| |
dvd536
as Mr. Pink as they come
Premium
join:2001-04-27
Phoenix, AZ
| said by iansltx :Wonder what the biz speed SLA's are like, and what customer experiences have been so far... Three nines? guess they aren't reliable enough to offer five nines but they are good enough to gouge you on that activation fee!
--
When I gez aju zavateh na nalechoo more new yonooz tonigh molinigh - Ken Lee | |
|
| | | iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Fredericksburg, TX | Re: Info on RuralNet Meh, five nines is a dedicated connection; three nines is acceptable if they start giving you back an inordinate amount of money after that. Then again, WiSPs generally don't. | |
|
| jc100
join:2002-04-10
·RoadRunner Cable
| Ok, well assuming they get 2000 clients on there 60 dollar service, they can squeak by I think and build a customer base. It might not be the most profitable companies, but then again Mom and Pop places usually never are. Then again, I think these guys will succeed with the right marketing and pricing. People in rural areas want more than dialup and as long as this service is reliable, I think we found a winner. | |
|
KenTheCook
Premium
join:2005-10-26
Lahaina, HI | Startup/ Southwest Has anyone thought of the people who would love internet service at almost any cost- out in the middle of nowhere?
I'm sure it's worth it to them. | |
|
| benc
Premium
join:2007-06-17
Glen Carbon, IL
·Charter Pipeline
 ·Future Nine Corpor..
·Callcentric
 ·AT&T Midwest
| Re: Startup/ Southwest said by KenTheCook : Has anyone thought of the people who would love internet service at almost any cost- out in the middle of nowhere? I'm sure it's worth it to them. Fortunately this isn't me in that situation. But, in the absence of other options I'd totally jump on that 3Mb/1.5Mb for $110/mo. It's cheaper than a T1, and just barely more expensive than shotgun dial-up (assuming two dedicated POTS lines in addition to the home phone).
However, I'm really glad that I can get business cable instead. 10/1 for $110. | |
|
|
|
|
Startup Brings Faster Speeds to Rural Southwest
Info on RuralNet
·