eisfeld

What would you say are the biggest differences between them? Do you mean the models Ducati is bringing or the vibe at the booth? For me a bunch of their bikes went backwards in terms of design, especially the Monster which now looks like a random japanese or chinese copy of its prior self. Scrambler also not as nice as before. But I think their V4 Granturismo engine is pretty interesting.

I've seen more new Royal Enfields on the streets of Phuket than Ducatis (same dealer) or Triumphs (lots of competing models). And with this model they'll steal chunks of market from Harley Davidson. Royal Enflied gets you something like 80% there at a fraction of the price. A very good business strategy.

Yes I think it's one way of trying to increase revenue through paying users which is fair. The feature regarding polls though I think is a result of his binding poll asking if he should be removed as CEO which got him essentially fired ???? He probably had someone make a breakdown what the poll result would have been if only paid verified users were counted and saw they'd have voted in his favor. I think there's even a slight chance that he'll re-run this poll later this year once the changes he wants are implemented.

And yet he went through with the deal after Twitter sued him on the matter. He knew he was about to lose the case and be forced to come through and finalize the purchase. He completely botched his chance of doing due diligence because he acted compulsively. Musk handled this Twitter saga very poorly on multiple fronts and it shows that he either has no one around him to give him proper backpressure or that he just doesn't listen to these people. That being said, I think there is a chance that he can recover the lost value and maybe push it to even higher valuations. There is also a chance he'll run it into the ground. One thing is for sure: anything he touches wont just sit around and do nothing. That's the one thing a guy like him really can't stand.

Musk is certainly not stupid. You can't be stupid and achieve as much as he did. It's also not all luck. But he was lucky with his start in life due to what he got from his parents. It was one of the prerequisites. The purchase of Twitter at that price was dumb. He played it really badly. I know a person who has what to me looks like very similar character traits as Musk shows. Having extremely high energy and a very keen sense for business. A high appetite for risk and drive to push limits. Very contact friendly and can behave compulsive at times. That person has also been extremely successful in a whole bunch of ventures but has made a few mistakes along the way. There is no binary "he's super smart" or "he's stupid" choice here. People are not that simple.

Elon Musk bought Twitter and took it private. The whole point of the article is that he overpaid. Twitter is not listed. If Twitter was still public then he wouldn't give stock grants at a $20B valuation. Doesn't make any sense whichever way you twist it.

What are you talking about? Twitter is a private company now. And even if it were public what you wrote makes no sense.

If you see it that way then I'd be happy to sell you a 1000 Baht note for 2000 Baht.

There is no "real" value. Valuation includes putting a value on future prices which is speculative in nature. Anyone can put a valuation on a company. When a company is public then people usually agree that their stock price times the number of stock is the valuation. When a company is private then whoever wants to buy or sell stock in it will come up with a number. It can be based on rigorous research or it can be pulled out of the backside. And it changes all the time. Now, stock trades in private companies are not that common and mostly happen during investment rounds. Here we are talking about stock grants which are benefits to employees. The company itself via its leadership puts a valuation on the company. Usually it also involves accountants or some kind of outside input like recent reasonable offers from buyers. A lower valuation means they can get a bigger chunk of the company for the same $10 than if the valuation was higher. It also means there is a bigger chance of gains because a lower valuation has a higher chance of becoming a bigger valuation later. The purpose of stock grants is the give benefits to employees while trying to bind them to the company for some time. The stock is usually somehow restricted and vests over a certain period like a year or longer. The receiver of the stock usually has to pay income tax on the total amount when the stock vests and then capital gains on the price difference whenever they sell them. There are a lot more finer details and variations but that is the general idea.

I asked you because it is very common for people to think "oh they lost valuation/money so that's a great tax deducation so nothing bad happened to them". But that doesn't really make sense. Most people don't really know how finances or taxes work. Even IF it resulted in a tax deduction it wouldn't be great for the person/company. If you can deduct $10 from your taxable income then you don't save $10 in taxes. You "save" however much you'd have to pay in taxes on $10, let's say $3 but you got $10 less income. So you still lost $7. Usually it's more complicated and you can't deduct all your loss but that's the high level gist. Now, for capital gains you have to actually realize losses. The stock price or valuation does not reflect in realized gains or losses, they are unrealized. In order to actually realize the loss Elon would have to sell his shares which I doubt he's doing right now.

Can you elaborate? I don't see how this results in a tax deduction.

Thanks for the clarification, the page made it look like it's just for the color. Seems like the base model has the riding modes and traction control. The SE gets the quickshifter and preload adjustment for forks. I'd definitely would want the QS but just preload adjustment on the forks doesn't really tickle me. And then there is this: I hate it when they release inferior versions in Thailand. Source: https://paultan.org/2023/03/23/2023-kawasaki-zx-4r-gets-bangkok-motor-show-reveal-priced-at-rm41500-in-thailand-rm46700-for-se/

Yup but I bet most people would prefer the high torque variant over the high revving one. I'd appreciate the bike for what it is and surely would have fun riding it on the odd weekend. But I wouldn't want it as a daily.

Good point, didn't consider that. I think Japan especially had some 400cc cut off regarding some regulations iirc. But I think with the advent of electric bikes all these laws will move away from cc because it just doesn't make sense - better to use kW. And insurance will also all move towards that.

320k THB is not cheap but 40k for green color? <deleted>? I'm sure it'll be a fun bike just missing torque. At this price it has to compete against the CBR650R and R7 which both kinda beat it imho. A bit too little too late from Kawa. Same regarding the Rebel copy eh competitor. ???? If it lands on the second hand market for 150-200k a few years down the line it'll be worth a look. These low-cc four cylinder bikes can be fun but are they selling? I really don't see any CBR250RR or the Kawa equivalent in the wild. Most people can only afford one bike so why go for these when the same money can buy you a bigger one?

Yea the whole premise doesn't make any sense whatsoever if one thinks about it for a few seconds. So I'm a CXO of SVB, take a triple digit million dollar loan from the bank, then park that money in a SVB account. Somehow the funds that are there need to then be "bailed out". Oh and the loan will be sold for pennies on the dollar to some collector by the FDIC who will then go to... uhm the FDIC to recover the funds because they are in the account? For the privilege of whitnessing that circlejerk I'll pay millions in interest because it's funny. Damn those evil VCs and celebrities!

The only recourse would be if OP had whitnesses that can testify that the deposit was refundable. Doesn't sound like it though.

Because he is claiming things that are not in the article. Like for example that the loans will be sold to collectors for pennies. Or that the funds from the loans were sitting in SVB accounts that "got bailed out" and insinuating that they got money out of thin air. None of this is in the article and factually not true. You also are making up for example "lot of people got loans". Or the fact they they ordinarily would not have gotten the loans. Again, none of that is in the article. You know what? Go read the government report and tell me how many people got loans. I challenge you, I have read the report and the exact number is in it.

What makes you think so? Do you have any basis for this claim whatsoever? The collector is the FDIC through their receiver bank. I am not saying the loans were not a problem or that SVB was a good bank. Just not for the reasons you stated. And that's why I say you are misleading people with your posts. They read like a Fox News report. There is plenty bad to say about SVB but let's keep it to the facts.

It says nowhere that these funds were sitting in SVB deposit accounts which wouldn't make any sense. Who takes out a loan on which interest is due and lets it sit in their account? Furthermore it wouldn't even be an issue if the asset was sitting with SVB to whom it is owed... Also, you do realize that the loans have to be paid back? They are not bonuses. It's not free money someone gets. In fact they have to pay the interest. You continue to mislead. Why? I also note you have not replied to the last comments posted regarding your previous misleading posts.

And here you are whining about whiners ????

I think there is confusion as to what immigration is doing here and I blame the journalists for not communicating it properly and instead trying to foster misunderstanding. Immigration didn't invent new offenses. They categorized existing offenses as stipulated in the law into yellow and red card groups in order to clarify to offenders how serious an offense is in the eyes of immigration. This is actually good. As before you didn't know if some offense was grounds for refusing entry next time someone tries to travel to Thailand.

You could use your phone to contact a lawyer. You have no right for a public wifi or phone in Thailand as far as I am aware. Nowhere does it say you should be able to appeal right at the airport. There is however, as Salerno said, the possibility of filing a TM11 at the airport. Yes I have also read these reports. I am not supporting this behavior. The issue though is that an immigration officer can refuse entry when they suspect for example that the person will work illegaly, they don't need to prove it. There is no absolute right to enter the country as a foreigner, even with a valid visa. None as there are no courts air-side at airports. I am not aware of any country that has courts there either. One can, however, contact the courts inside the country from outside.

You could appeal the denial of entry due to insufficient funds to the courts but no one will do that because it's utterly useless when the person trying to enter was not able to show the necessary cash. The rule might be applied arbitrarily, same like checking for a motorbike license. Doesn't mean that people that get caught can get a free pass. Is it arbitrary though? Seems like they are punishing for offenses that are indeed illegal. We are not told the details in these five cases. If the foreigners were renting houses long term they are considered the house master and then take on the responsibility of reporting themselves or any other foreigners staying at the property. I have not seen a single case where a foreigner was punished for a hotel failing o file a TM30 for them. If the foreigner is in the right? Yes. I've sued in Thai court. It wasn't a great experience but won. What's your experience with the courts?

I'm pretty sure any action by immigration can be appealed to the courts no matter what name they give the systems. Not sure why the journalist claims there is no way of appeal.