Originally Posted by
Hillbilly
Suppose I had been giving Carl and tsquare each $20 a week for lunch money for the last 15 years and then Carl negotiated a deal with me where he would now get $25 per week in return for facilitating me only having to give tsquare $15 a week. To me this is a cost neutral deal, since I'm still only out $40 per week, and I would feel comfortable stating that to anyone who asked, even on an investors call. To use my statement that it was a cost neutral deal to then imply that Carl gave up as much as he gained and therefore gained nothing in the deal overall would be inaccurate and completely false.
But if we had LGBP, no wait, wrong argument.
Didn't Carl used to get all $40 like 10 years ago?
Is this a form of weightwatchers?
If I was a bully, could I shakedown one of these guys for some DCA slots?
Yeah, I'm bored.