Saturday, November 13, 2010

Shareholder

HELLLOOOOO... Blogsville, hope y’all have missed me as much as I have.

Thing is, my roommate and I have embarked on the project to hook up our girlfriend. Her specifications are very simple and direct_ she wants a separate legal entity with limited liability, no encumbrances whatsoever lol

Fortunately or unfortunately, candidate number one pops up onto the scene.

Problem is; dude’s liabilities are way... unlimited. When she points out this fact, he draws her attention to the theory:

“It’s better to be a 10% shareholder in an Elephant than a 100% shareholder in an ant”

What is that suppose to mean?

3 comments:

  1. I guess he meant an elephant is bigger than an ant. But what if I don't want the elephant at all? Skewed logic if you ask me.

    How are you dear?

    ReplyDelete
  2. I agree with Myne.

    First, that he thinks he's an elephant may be far from the truth. WTF!

    Second, what's 10% of an elephant? It could well be elephant dung or the tip of a tusk or something like that.

    Third, I guess this 'elephant' has huge, enormous elephantine liabilities, as you say, 10% of that could hardly trump owning 100% of an ant.

    Finally, who does he think he is to call (clearly your friend's bf) somebody else an ant? What, because he's bigger, older or richer? Tides change soon enough.

    I'm out. ;-)

    ReplyDelete