Dear Janice, and to ALL. I am amazed at how anyone could have misread my post. While there was irony in much of it, it was not my intention to 'fool' anyone. That thought NEVER entered my head. There are many shades of all kinds of humour - even slapstick, and I deliberately used a VERY mild shade.
The point I was making, in simple terms, was to present two contrasting scenarios relating to IDS, and that if either were correct then I am surprised that the company's offer
hasn't caused even a greater stir than it it has.
This being because the offer, if it were legit, would be the greatest opportunity for a quick buck in a lifetime.
I then proceeded to illustrate mathematically what its return
on capital would be. Then, with tongue in cheek (which you couldn't see but should have deduced from the rest) indicated
that (if it were true) it would be worth taking out a large loan for, especially for such a short time)
Such an unbelievable offer from its 'too good to be true'aspect should, therefore, have caused a stir in the 'watchdog', even investigative financial journalist' camps
that would have exposed it for what it 'appears to be'- a scam, OR - revealed the back-up truth and closed any 'exit doors' for its CEO if he then, after the event, tried to wriggle out of the deal. (It would have helped to slam the prison doors on him afterwards)
Obviously, I would not have expected any such seasoned veterans as those who come here to have sold the family silver and mortgaged the country seat, even if the watchdogs
had said that the offer was viable. (And I expected all to be intelligent enough not to have seen that without further explanation).
Because, as we all know, there is always sod's law (as well as false promises and scams), and the only absolutely sure thiing in life is - that one day we will die.
(though Einstein believed that the continuing stupidity of man was a pretty sure thing)
That is an honest explanation to clear the air, and one that I had never, for one second, thought I would need to give.
