SkyDekker

I think you are the first person I know older than 16 who uses the term mad stacks.

Wow, you work in the financial field? OK, let's see if I can simplify this: Company A sells two products: Widget A sells for $100 and of that $50 is profit. They sell 100 of these, leading to $10,000 in revenue and $5,000 in profit Widget B sells for $10 and $1 is profit. They also sell $100 of these for $1,000 in revenue and $100 in profit. In total Company A has sales of $11,000 and profits of $5,100, which are the numbers they report. This gives an earnings ratio of 46.4%. Company A now announces that they will stop selling widget B, which they say accounts for $1,000 of revenue out of their total $11,000 of revenue. The WSJ now comes out and says this will affect their profits by $464 based on their current earnings ratio. Maybe now you understand how in retail different margins on different product lines have a drastically different impact on earnings and that using the overall earnings ratio (other word for overall being aggregate) is misleading. This is what I believe to be the case with the earnings impact reported by WSJ on the revenue numbers being provided by CVS.

That depends on what is done with the information. If it is used to now stop every single black male it is a waste of resources compared to doing actual police work generating more leads. The complaint tends to be that the racial description takes on more weight than other descriptors. Let's say the description is: Black Male fled in a white camry. The complaints tend to be around the issue that a black male in a green camry will also get stopped. But a white male in a white camry will not.

Yes it is. However, not everybody who drinks is an alcoholic.

No because it would mean that either there is a monster markup on tobacco, the company is extremely lowballing their tobacco revenue number, or tobacco is an intense traffic driver for them. Again, CVS didn't give an earnings indication other than to say they did not foresee an impact on their profits. WSJ provided the earnings per share number....which I said that without calculations is somewhat suspect. I never said it wasn't profitably. I did say it is in no way as profitable as their medication/pharmacy business. (Never mind the concept of loss leaders, but that doesn't apply here.)

The company didn't release a number on bottom line impact. Actually the company said that there would be little to no impact to the botom line. The WSJ came up with this number to the bottom line. The only numbers the company came up with are the revenue (sales) numbers. The actual margin numbers are not public. Aggragate ratio between earnings and revenue is, which in the case for CVS is 3.1%. Tobacco margins have been steadily increasing for tobacco companies, specially in markets with high duties. However, on the retail level margins on tobacco products have been steadily falling. Target decided 2 decades ago they couldn't make enough money on it and dropped the product. Anyways, well come back to this next year, when CVS' earnings ratio is unchanged, or has slightly improved and their profitability has gone up. Very good time to buy their stock.

Actually, that would make a hell of a lot of sense for people with certain types of alcohol fueled anger issues. Exactly. I've been assaulted by drunks. I've never been assaulted by a pot smoker. Of all the legal and illegal drugs I've been around, the most physically & mentally debilitating one is still alcohol. except that a beer doesn't make one intoxicated, one joint does tend to have that effect. Some people have a drink because they enjoy the taste. How many people smoke dope, not to get stoned, but for the refined taste of the substance? Apples and oranges. How many pot smokers lose their physical coordination? How many pot smokers become unpredictable and violent? How many pot smokers think it is suddenly a good idea to drive twice the speed limit? And if some drinkers are all about flavor and not getting a buzz, then why are non-alcoholic beer and wine sales nearly non-existent? Because the non-alcoholic version doesn't taste as good. You are comparing pot smokers to those who are drunk, then using that comparison to draw parallels to pot smokers and drinkers.

There was a time when people could distinguish between the taste of Columbian, Mexican, Jamaican, Blonde, Panama Red, etc. So I'm told. Yup and they would be able to tell which one they prefered to get stoned.

This all started with the question on margins on tobacco products. You originally claimed they were very low. You then claimed that you were wrong because CVS had $120 billion in revenues with $2 billion of those from tobacco. Those numbers say absolutely nothing about the margin on tobacco products. You then throw in the $0.17 per share as reported by the WSJ. However, without knowing how that was calculated, it still says nothing about the margin on cigarettes. For that number to be valid a 1.6% reduction in revenue would lead to 5.6% reduction in earnings per share. I still call bullshit (that stock being off 1% as an indicator would be based on the premise that the markets react logically. They don't, if they did, we would all be rich)

Actually, that would make a hell of a lot of sense for people with certain types of alcohol fueled anger issues. Exactly. I've been assaulted by drunks. I've never been assaulted by a pot smoker. Of all the legal and illegal drugs I've been around, the most physically & mentally debilitating one is still alcohol. except that a beer doesn't make one intoxicated, one joint does tend to have that effect. Some people have a drink because they enjoy the taste. How many people smoke dope, not to get stoned, but for the refined taste of the substance?

. I heard this morning that they do about 120 billion a year with 2 billion coming from tobacco. Yeah so I looked it up....those are sales numbers, not profit numbers. They say nothing about the actual margin on cigarettes. Being an x-smoker, I can tell you stores like CVS had rediculous prices for smokes, sometime 3 bucks a pack more than a gas station. I bet they made 20-40% Right...but the 120 billion and 2 billion mentioned above are still sales numbers and give absolutely no indication on the margin on cigarettes during that sales period. You couldn't even calculate it from those numbers....it doesn't even say anything about profits. it is easily calculable. below are the revenue and earnings cuts or topline and bottomline. or sales and profits, to you use your language. no matter what you call it, the math is there WSJ-The drugstore chain estimates it will lose $2 billion in annual revenue from tobacco and other sundries as a result, which amounts to about six to nine cents a share this year and about 17 cents annually from next year on. Without the caculation shows, those numbers don't mean anything.... Did they use the current 3.1% earnings to revenue ratio to calculate that, or did they have the actual margin for tobacco sales? current earning per share are $3.03. $0.17 would be 5.6% of that. And this due to a 1.6% drop in revenue.... I am calling bullshit.

. I heard this morning that they do about 120 billion a year with 2 billion coming from tobacco. Yeah so I looked it up....those are sales numbers, not profit numbers. They say nothing about the actual margin on cigarettes. yes those are the topline numbers, however, i already showed the bottom line numbers too. the cents per share. it was not a rounding error. it was a real number. Do you have any backup for this earnings per share number for tobacco products? Currently profits are running at 3.1% of revenues on the aggregate. The added expense of handling, storage, age restriction and high theft rate make tobacco products a high cost item. I doubt they are going to give up much, if any profitability....and certainly much less than 3.1% of $2 billion.

. I heard this morning that they do about 120 billion a year with 2 billion coming from tobacco. Yeah so I looked it up....those are sales numbers, not profit numbers. They say nothing about the actual margin on cigarettes. Being an x-smoker, I can tell you stores like CVS had rediculous prices for smokes, sometime 3 bucks a pack more than a gas station. I bet they made 20-40% Right...but the 120 billion and 2 billion mentioned above are still sales numbers and give absolutely no indication on the margin on cigarettes during that sales period. You couldn't even calculate it from those numbers....it doesn't even say anything about profits.

. I heard this morning that they do about 120 billion a year with 2 billion coming from tobacco. Yeah so I looked it up....those are sales numbers, not profit numbers. They say nothing about the actual margin on cigarettes.

I assume most conseravtives want to see successful corporate decisions driven by market forces. The interesting question now is why do you think you're anything other than stone dead wrong? Why do you assume that liberals want to see companies put profit ahead of their domestic employee's job security? You really won't get too many answers on this point. Problem is that you are asking a Republican to choose between two main talking point: 1 Free Market baby, it is all about the free market. 2 Made in the USA, America Fuck Yeah!

In Ontario their margin is significantly lower than those of prescription medication.

In Ontario it has been against the law for pharmacies or retailers containing a pharmacy within their walls to sell tobacco products. It is now also against the law in Ontario to openly display tobacco products. They have to be kept hidden. They cannot even been shown without being specifically asked for, by brand name. This last measure has been especially hard for cigar vendors, since they technically are not allow to show you their products after asking them for their selection of cigars.

And if he does admit it, he implicates to many others that those "blunders" aren't as bad and will be villified for that. How could the President possibly think that a blunder that delayed people in getting insurance is larger than the thousands of civilians dying in Syria. etc. etc.

I can understand some one saying: You know what, I didn't fully understand it. Jumped to conclusions based on information I got from people I normally agree with, but now that I have a better understanding, I see your point. What I don't understand is somebody clearly getting their ass handed to them. Getting absolutely no support from those who usually agree with him. Yet, still being completely unwilling to yield in any way. To me, this thread is the prime example of exactly what is wrong with politics today. Politicians behaving like rush in this thread are described as stead-fast and willing to fight for their convictions. It is almost seen as a sign of a strong character. More and more people end up emulating this behaviour, resulting in absolutely no ability to get to any compromise or resolution. It isn't about truth or fiction, it is about how strong and vervently you are willing to hold on to your opinion. Learning is seen as a weakness. Sad really.

This! Not using heroin is a very normal and healthy decision. But, who here can say that in a moment of weakness we haven't made a bad decision in our life? Now add phsychological, and in some case physical factors into the equasion. So easy to be "holier than thou".

I've never understood why they play the anthem before sporting events anyway. It always seems pretty Third Reich to me. Not everything is a political event. Same reason there always has to be some military display. You are simply unpatriotic if you don't.

There is no doubt that GB is in Europe. Trying to figure out if a turk is european is at least a bit more challenging. Geographically, only the ones living west of the Straits! Living? Was born? Or where ancestors were born? See, a bit more challenging

"Why wouldn't I know that....doesn't anybody with half an education know that?" Bet you didn't know it before you saw it on wikipedea People with "half" an education only know "half" of what the rest know. Which half do you know? Yes, you are correct. I never knew Canada had Japanese internment camps during WWII. Do you know if they ever got out, or that isn't in the "half" you know? Once again, how long have you been in Canada? Do I know if they ever got out? lol, no we are still keeping them Was born in Canada, raised in Europe, visited Canada every year, moved here permanently in 1998 after spending all of 1997 here.

Then what is it? Life The issue of abortion is life in nature? Sorry that sentence doesn't make sense. Want to try again? How life is valued by a society you have been very clear where you stand on it So those who oppose abortion value life more than those who are in favour of abortions? Yes I am clear where I stand. You seem to be struggling with where you stand.

Despite the fact that this is a very amusing article the premise is entirely wrong. God does not hate gays. People hate gays. God wants you to get sin our of your life and be in relationship with Him. Kind of gay for me to have relations with him. HA . . . Like you haven't exclaimed, "OH GOD! OH GOD!" during sex before. There are four kinds of orgasm: Divine: OH GOD, OH GOD, OH GOD Positive: OH YES, OH YES, OH YES Negative: OH NO, OH NO, OH NO Fake: OH CLINT, OH CLINT, OH CLINT