Member Info for Gitfinger

So I will have lost value in relation to the fall in value of that share
ergo. I have lost money on that share, whether it's chryslaised or not

So the share will have lost some of it's value.......

Aim 27 pence
Ah, I get it now.
So if the value in the portfolio is less than it's cost, it is showing a loss.
agreed?

This is going nowhere as it's like shouting at the wall.......Do you agree that, even though you haven't (in your world) "made a loss" because you haven't sold, do you agree that there is nonetheless still a contingent loss?

So what you're saying is that if your pension fund had spunked £100,000,000 of your contributions, (that was due to pay for your retirement) on shares in a company and you saw that those shares were worth only £50,000,000, you would be quite happy for the pension fund to carry on showing the shares in their accounts at the higher value?
On that basis, no fund manager would ever sell a share, just simply say "nope we haven't made a loss because we haven't sold" absolutely bloody ridiculous logic!

So yet again, it's ignore the difficult question because it doesn't fit the narrative and try to skew reality to get it to fit the false narrative. If you want to believe you haven't made a loss then that's your perogative, but please don't force your wrong interpretations on others in order to support your own agenda.

Aim 27 pence
Are you stupid or what? You can lose money without chrystalising it. I note that you choose to not respond to my request for a link to the accounting treatment of a dimunition of value on an investment when reporting under GAAR and FRS102. Show me the evidence or just admit you're wrong and shut up.
By the way, what was the point of all of you uber confidents setting up your radical splinter group in the happy place if you still frequent this board and post (based on your understanding of the nature of a loss) utter *******s?

FFS!
You two cannot just let it rest, can you? Just accept each other’s position and move on…..Alt go to the happy place where you’ll be with like minded friends, then you won’t have to hear what you don’t want to hear, and Garonne, once all of the Uber positives are gone, you can stop your incessant moaning, because those left on the site will get the sentiment even if they don’t fully buy in.

All of this talk about professional rampers and bashers is utter nonsense. It’s just a bunch of different people all wanting the same thing, it’s just that we all have different views on whether / when / how the desired result will be achieved. We are all passengers on the same boat, and none of us really have any idea where the boat is headed, all we can do is sit and hope. If you are Uber positive, and are unable to accept any form of criticism of the company, maybe the new happy place is for you.
Converse,y, as a quid pro quo, how about the incessant moaners give it a break, because we’ve all got the message……rant over

And no, I’m not going to let it drop because you’re plain wrong…..apologise to Garonne for your disingenuous spin on economic reality to put him down in order to support you’re false narrative.

Aim 27
Still waiting for the link to the parallel universe accounting standards that you have adopted.

"You could argue your asset value is down. You cant though, say it is lost"
Nobody said it was lost, it's jus that the impairment needs to be recognised, and this is a debit to the profit and loss account, erg. the contingent loss is acknowledged.....

Aim
Do you understand the concept of double entry book keeping and accounting standards? If you do, then please enlighten me, if you don't, then please button it as you are speaking from a position of ignorance, which might work in the world of spin, but not where facts are concerned.

Please tell me where to read up on your parallel universe accounting policy....

Please explain Aim

Read the thing properly. In grown up world, when dealing with big boy numbers, when you are accountable, if an asset falls in value, you have to account for the impairment, not actually sell off the bloody asset and chrystalise the gain! You simply have to acknowledge the downward shift in value, which is the thing you seem unable to do because it is at odds with your narrative. Feel free to9 stick with your strategy, it's actually totally in line with mine, it's just that my acknowledgement of the fact that the share is sat in the portfolio at a loss accords with the correct treatment for corporate entities. I'm simply not a fan of spin being used to support a false narrative.

Aim 27 pence
Might possibly be relevant at your level, but in my world, the balance sheet value is key, and I'm not going to be deluded by carrying an asset at cost when it's value is significantly less.
You seem to have lost sight of the fact that the loss has been incurred, but simply not chrystalised. This misinterpretation of grown up economics does of course suit your narrative.....

Aim
Any comments on the imposition of FRS102?

But it won't matter, because you'll be in fluffy land only conversing with people who agree with you.....

Looks like the Aim 27 pence family balance sheet might need to be re stated to recognise the loss that he hasn't made.