Humanities desk
< March 18	<< Feb \| March \| Apr >>	March 20 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

March 19

Share devalue to cover losses

http://www.duro-dakovic.com/company_profile/ownership_structure/default.aspx

To cover losses coming from previous time periods and to give real value to the company simple decrease of nominal capital was carried out, by decrease of the nominal value of one share from 200,00 kuna to 100,00 kuna.

Is there an article on this, or can someone explain the part about the share price devalue to cover previous operating losses - I assume this is a unilateral action by the board of the company - I sort of understand that this could make sense, but I don't really understand how losses are moved off the balance sheet etc. Can someone explain this simply. If they want they can modify Đuro_Đaković_(company)#Đuro Đaković Holding too ! Oranjblud (talk) 05:16, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The effect on the company's balance sheet of reducing the nominal value of issued shares is to transfer funds from shareholders' capital into reserves. If the company had negative reserves as a result of previous losses, this transfer will reduce those negative reserves, and may even leave the company with a positive reserve figure. In effect, shareholders are recognising that the company will not produce sufficient profits in the forseeable future to cover its previous losses, and so part of their capital has been lost. In UK company law, this transfer creates a non-distributable reserve known as a redeonimation reserve - see here. I know nothing about Croatian company law, but I doubt this type of action can be taken unilaterally by the board - a UK company would need to pass a special resolution, which must be agreed by at least 75% of shareholders. However, since the company in question is over 70% state owned, this agreement may have been a formality. Gandalf61 (talk) 16:06, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you - what you described is the sort of thing I was slowly grasping at as the rational .. "redenominantion reserve" [1] is something I had not heard of and would have never guessed. I guess the croatian case will be differenct but the basic principle the same.

If anyone does have a relevant explanatory link that could be inserted into the article please do so.Oranjblud (talk) 22:16, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bermondsey Palace

Apropos of a question on last week's Mastermind, I'm curious about Bermondsey Palace. When Eleanor of Aquitaine first came to England with Henry II Westminster Palace was unavailable, so they set up their court at Bermondsey Palace. Apparently Henry the Young King was born there in 1155. But it seems that the palace is THE ONLY THING IN THE WHOLE DAMN WORLD which we don't have an article about.^{[citation needed]} Google searching brings very little information. So, what can you tell me about the palace? Where was it, when was it, what is there left of it? All information gladly received. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 09:56, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The British History website has this section on Bermondsey palace and abbey. --TammyMoet (talk) 10:25, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We do have an article on Bermondsey Abbey; the building later described as "King John's Palace" appears to have been given to the Abbey by William Rufus. Only older sources seem to mention it as a Royal Palace, like this BERMONDSEY: Description and History from 1868 Gazetteer. Alansplodge (talk) 11:39, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

TammyMoet's link above says; "The quotation inserted in Aubrey's Antiquities of Surrey, as the only conjectural proof that the kings of England had a residence at this place after the grant above-mentioned (ie that of William Rufus), has been totally misunderstood, and proves nothing.". Alansplodge (talk) 14:14, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure about Henry II and Eleanor "holding court" at Bermondsey. This book, Lives of the Queens of England from the Norman Conquest By Agnes Strickland, Elizabeth Strickland, admittedly written in 1841, says: "...but directly the coronation was over, ther king conducted his queen to the palace of Bermondsey, where after remaining some weeks in retirement, she gave birth to her second son, the last day of February 1155." (p. 256) This is not inconsistent with here being packed off to a nearby abbey rather than a palace to give birth. So it looks as though Bermondsey Palace is more legend than fact, but we need to find a modern, reliable source. Alansplodge (talk) 13:58, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the lack of corroboration on that was what got me wondering. But I heard it on Mastermind, and they're usually quite scrupulous with their facts, so it must be out there somewhere. For completeness, the question was: "When Eleanor and Henry first arrived in London, Westminster Palace was uninhabitable, in which palace did they set up their court?" (A:) "Bermondsey". It's available on iPlayer (UK only) until the end of the week. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 14:49, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They do say that don't they. As you say, they're usually reliable. Alansplodge (talk) 16:30, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I found The natural history and antiquities of the county of Surrey: Begun in the year 1673 by John Aubrey Esq. F.R.S. and continued to the present time, Volume V (1719). It says: "Mr Aubrey tells us, that he was assured by one Mr Hawkins, that this Abbey of Bermondsey was King John's Palace, and converted into an abbey; but upon what Authority this information was grounded I cannot find." (p. 35). The author then goes on to quote some Latin texts that might support there having been a palace in the vicinity. This seems to have been written by Richard Rawlinson who is credited along with Aubrey on this page - but hardly a ringing endorsement. Alansplodge (talk) 18:12, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This article says that the questions for Mastermind are set by a company called 21st Century Quiz. You could drop them an email and see what they've got to say for themselves! Alansplodge (talk) 18:38, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is a job for an antiquary. If we're looking for a modern, reliable source I'll put forward the third volume of the Oxford History of England, Austin Lane Poole's From Domesday Book to Magna Carta, 1087-1216, 2nd edition (1955), p. 321: "The work [of putting the barons down] was begun immediately after the coronation [of Henry II] at the Christmas court at Bermondsey priory". That does seem to show that he owned something substantial at Bermondsey, so we might just as well call it a palace. --Antiquary (talk) 19:01, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Or maybe they had the use of part of the abbey as a temporary measure? The plot thickens. Alansplodge (talk) 19:09, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's worth remembering that this was a period when the king and his court traveled around the country, more or less at will, spending a period as one vassal's guest, then moving on to another. A priory is a convent or monastery, so the 1955 citation indicates that the king was holding court at the Abbey of Bermondsey. No doubt the abbot had a nice residence. If the king and his new bride showed up and wanted to stay there, the abbot was probably not in a position to refuse. I don't see anything to suggest that the king owned a palace at the abbey. Marco polo (talk) 19:38, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We should also bear in mind that 'palace' doesn't necessarily mean 'royal residence': see for example Fulham Palace - the former residence of the Bishop of London. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:48, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Winchester Palace is just down the road, but I'm certain that's not what was meant. Alansplodge (talk) 21:13, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the information so far everyone. And thanks Alan for the contact details for the question setters. I have emailed them and I hope that they'll be able to help out. I'll keep you posted. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 21:24, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've just had a reply from the very lovely question-master Ray, who says:

"The setter's source books for this subject were :

Marion Meade : Eleanor of Aquitaine Phoenix press 1977 reissued 2002 (p203-4) and

Alison Weir: Eleanor of Aquitaine by the Wrath of God Queen of England Vintage 2007 (p107)."

So, does anyone have access to either of these books, with the possibility to see what's mentioned on the subject of Bermondsey Palace? I'd love to know anything about it - I'm getting quite curious now! - Cucumber Mike (talk) 20:24, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Google Books has a snippet view of Weir's book, where she calls it "the old Saxon palace" on p. 107. There is a footnote but I can't see that part of the page. On p. 147, Bermondsey is mentioned as the location of the royal court during Christmas. On p. 150, Eleanor gives birth to Henry the Young King there in 1155. Unfortunately I can't view Meade's book at all. Adam Bishop (talk) 13:58, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a para to the Royal Connections section of our Bermondsey Abbey article about the Christmas court and the birth of Henry. I have also added a sub-section about the supposed "King John's Palace". Can someone check it for me please? Alansplodge (talk) 20:01, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looking for a book/story

I am looking for a book or story, but I don't know the title or author, and only remember it vaguely. It is about an author who is so utterly convincing in his roles because he goes and lives them for real before filming. Like if he has to play a bum, he lives on the street for a few months. In the end he has to play a cult leader that sacrifices a little girl, so... well, you can guess what happens. He ends up in an asylum, and I believe he starts shouting "Someone give me some light!" there. It's not that much information, but does anyone know what story this could be? Thanks 94.226.123.243 (talk) 20:23, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I asked around a bit more, and it's probably "All the Sounds of Fear" by Harlan Ellison. 94.226.123.243 (talk) 21:13, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's definitely the short story 'All the Sounds of Fear' (published in a collection of that title), which I've just reread to check. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.66.131 (talk) 04:08, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

is tim cook innovative

is tim cook (or is he considered / woujld he be considered) an innovative individual? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.122.21.225 (talk) 20:25, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Which Tim Cook in particular? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:05, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thinks he might mean – he of Apple - but yes, we need clarification--Aspro (talk) 23:10, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think clarification in other areas is perhaps even more important. Is/would he be considered innovative by whom? (Hopefully not us.) And do you mean people who have specifically called him innovative or else what do you mean by 'considered innovative'? Nil Einne (talk) 23:14, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If the OP means the new CEO of Apple Inc, then he seems to be pursuing a different cash strategy, at least, although it might not be on as a huge scale as it appears. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 23:12, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And for all we know, it could have been Jobs' idea, and maybe they are just now carrying out that plan. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:53, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OP here 1) obviously I mean Tim Cook of Apple 2) why did you guys switch to starting to talk about Apple's cash strategy? I mean, is the man, Tim Cook, current CEO of Apple, considered by anyone innovative or vice versa? (the other way around: i.e. not). 188.156.228.96 (talk) 04:21, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

People are worried that he may not be, as he doesn't seem to have much of a track record of innovation; Bloomberg Businessweek writes, "Cook is a talented engineer with a gift for optimizing operations", which hardly indicates confidence in his Job-like inventiveness. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:37, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is the problem with any organization which is focused on a "cult of personality". With Jobs now gone for good, whether anyone there is truly innovative, remains to be seen. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:22, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's really far too early to make any assessments of Tim Cook's innovativity (sic), either personal or as the leader of Apple. It takes years for a product to go from conception to release, and Apple is notoriously tight-lipped about future products. Anything that Apple puts out in the next year or two would have been designed primarily during Steve Jobs's tenure at Apple. (Which means in practice Jobs will get most of the credit and Cook will end up with any blame.) Even after we start seeing Cook-only products coming out, it won't lead to a fair assessment, as Cook will always be compared to Jobs, so even if Cook is above average in innovation, he'll come up short against Jobs. That said, everything I've read indicates Cook is satisfied with a caretaker-type CEO-ship. That is, he probably won't be the personal innovator and driver that Jobs was, but rather will curate the innovative talent of others at Apple. -- 71.217.13.130 (talk) 15:37, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure you can find at least one person in the world who consider him innovative and at least one person who does not. Even if you restrict your answers to notable opinions publish in RS, I'm still sure you can find one of either. So I think further clarification is still needed. Nil Einne (talk) 17:25, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for not answering the question directly. I don't think that there is any objective way to assess an individual's innovativeness. So we aren't going to be able to provide a well-sourced and authoritative answer. However, I would point out that Steve Jobs's penchant for innovation is relatively unusual in a CEO and that Apple's future does not necessarily depend on the CEO's ability to innovate. Typically, CEOs manage a company and hire others to innovate. Marco polo (talk) 20:06, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]