@Zayn is Bae thoughts on Neville Longbottom being The Chosen One in Harry Potter? I feel like JK never explored the duality of the prophecy enough.
Or ultimately was the message that we are all the chosen one, on the basis that love would have marked him as his equal, and no matter who he went after, it would have been the chosen one anyway?
@Zayn is Bae thoughts on Neville Longbottom being The Chosen One in Harry Potter? I feel like JK never explored the duality of the prophecy enough.
Or ultimately was the message that we are all the chosen one, on the basis that love would have marked him as his equal, and no matter who he went after, it would have been the chosen one anyway?
I think the second paragraph is correct. I feel that she was saying no matter who you are, where you've come from, that love is what matters above all, and love is the most powerful of all. Neville fulfilled his part of the prophecy by killing Nagini anyway.
The ending was too happy for me anyway. I would've liked Hermione and Harry to die to show that freedom has a hefty price, but that death meets us all, it's what you die for that distinguishes us.
I would've liked Hermione and Harry to die to show that freedom has a hefty price, but that death meets us all, it's what you die for that distinguishes us.
@swirly thoughts on what happened in Enron in 2001?
@Louis. thoughts on what happened with the Lehman brothers and their use of the so called ''repo 105'' in 2008?
Enron scandal was a key use of the so called "creative accounting". Their auditors Arthur Andersen who were part of the big five at the time, i.e PWC, KPMG, Deloitte and Ernst and Young. Even though it was effectively an agent, it was claiming it revenue and cost of sales as effectively as if he was an merchant. They were also doing other accounting errors such as incorrectly using mark-to-market accounting, which was not common at that time. It led to the Sarbanes-Oxley Act in 2002, which has tightened the industry and introduce tougher corporate governance.
Lehman Brothers Repo 105 refers to using a short term repurchase agreement as a sale. Now, there is an IFRS 15 which covers this element. Effectively what they were doing is by referring to it as a sale you are so call using this "cash" received to pay down your debt to make it look like the liabilities have fallen just until the balance sheets are submitted. Then when the balance sheet is submitted you use this "cash" to repurchase the asset so your company looks preferable at the year end.
Enron scandal was a key use of the so called "creative accounting". Their auditors Arthur Andersen who were part of the big five at the time, i.e PWC, KPMG, Deloitte and Ernst and Young. Even though it was effectively an agent, it was claiming it revenue and cost of sales as effectively as if he was an merchant. They were also doing other accounting errors such as incorrectly using mark-to-market accounting, which was not common at that time. It led to the Sarbanes-Oxley Act in 2002, which has tightened the industry and introduce tougher corporate governance.
Lehman Brothers Repo 105 refers to using a short term repurchase agreement as a sale. Now, there is an IFRS 15 which covers this element. Effectively what they were doing is by referring to it as a sale you are so call using this "cash" received to pay down your debt to make it look like the liabilities have fallen just until the balance sheets are submitted. Then when the balance sheet is submitted you use this "cash" to repurchase the asset so your company looks preferable at the year end.
I asked for thoughts, not a brief summary ffs, I already know what happened
Hmm not sure about that. Throughout the series the role of the Weasley twins was to provide comic relief, much like the way Shakespeare used the Porter in Macbeth. I definitely think they were designed to be the loveable characters, outside the main protagonists, and to kill the comic relief was surely a hallmark of the darker tones of the latter books as the series developed.
If we see them as unison, maybe by his death JK was trying to show that while bad stuff happens, the other part of you just has to pick yourself up and go on.
I asked for thoughts, not a brief summary ffs, I already know what happened
Well tbh, it was pretty clever of Enron for a while at least, as they introduced new measures and made their accounting purposely very complicated to mislead stakeholders. It obviously led to lots of capital being raised by Enron. However, how pissed would you be if you had bought some shares for $90 and falling to 12cents in around 1 year and 4 months and falling around $40 in a month. I would be furious if that happened now, especially as I probably would have bought Enron in those days and have similar companies in my portfolio currently, i.e BP and Shell.
Hmm not sure about that. Throughout the series the role of the Weasley twins was to provide comic relief, much like the way Shakespeare used the Porter in Macbeth. I definitely think they were designed to be the loveable characters, outside the main protagonists, and to kill the comic relief was surely a hallmark of the darker tones of the latter books as the series developed.
If we see them as unison, maybe by his death JK was trying to show that while bad stuff happens, the other part of you just has to pick yourself up and go on.
Yeah but the comic relief section of the film was over by the battle of Hogwarts, and at that point the comedy components of the film are expendable. You're right, maybe she was trying to say that life chucks setbacks at you that you have to quickly overcome, but there was no real mourning period after the battle ended on-screen to signify that it was anything other than a bump in the road so to speak.
Well tbh, it was pretty clever of Enron for a while at least, as they introduced new measures and made their accounting purposely very complicated to mislead stakeholders. It obviously led to lots of capital being raised by Enron. However, how pissed would you be if you had bought some shares for $90 and falling to 12cents in around 1 year and 4 months and falling around $40 in a month. I would be furious if that happened now, especially as I probably would have bought Enron in those days and have similar companies in my portfolio currently, i.e BP and Shell.
Isn't that the nature of the stock exchange though? Could you ever see something like that happening again involving the big 4 or would you say Sarbanes-Oxley/tightened professional scepticism laws have put paid to this kind of fraud?
Isn't that the nature of the stock exchange though? Could you ever see something like that happening again involving the big 4 or would you say Sarbanes-Oxley/tightened professional scepticism laws have put paid to this kind of fraud?
Of course, but there's risk reward ratios. Something similar happened recently with American Realty Capital Properties, which was a stable stock in many conservative REIT portfolios (although it was an accounting scandal of a smaller nature). Nevertheless for a REIT to fall by 25% is huge by the nature of the stock.