This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Finance & Investment, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Finance and Investment on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
In the "Real Estate equity" section, the sentence is not complete at the end of the paragraph. Can someone fix this please and then delete this discussion topic. Thanks.
Sky Apperley 07:08, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Seems to be complete now. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 15:03, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
I am curious about the last sentence in the "Real Estate Equity" section...
It is my understand that Equity = Assets - Liabilities. In real estate, the equation seems to be Equity = Market Price in home - Liabilities. In other words, in real estate, the equation looks like this: Equity = Assets (market price of your home) - Liabilities. The two equation seems to be very similar (the same?), not the exact opposite. Am I missing something? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 19:32, 5 December 2007 (talk) Venomous Pen
Ye I agree. How is it that this real estate equity is opposite from equity in accounting. Unless he is challenging using market price and not historical cost as a valuation of the property which still doesn't make sense. Whoever wrote that section must have no idea what he is talking about, and it got approved by wiki. OMG. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 00:41, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
I am no accountant, but the paragraph made no sense as it stood. I have removed the 'exact opposite' sentence. Thanks for pointing it out. Next time, be bold. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 14:59, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Shareholders' equity is a sub-topic of ownership equity. The overlap between the two concepts would be less confusing for both readers and editors, if both topics were discussed in full in the Ownership equity article. I am sorry that I don't have time to do this at the moment, but I think this is uncontroversial, so if you have time, I recommend that you act boldly and write shareholder's equity as a section of the ownership equity article. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 14:40, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
how ca u say that it is equity it is often said to be most convienient, most compilacted about the subject which is more relavant to it's subject of it's most computed structure and i don't agree it is an equity based subject as such u think and it is not possible such and it all is a rumour spread such as it is the most but you said that i would be the most exciting subject as such and i hava to think about it and u said the same thing last night
i thought i wasn't right to judge that it is the most relavent subject as such u think it would be the most uglyest part of it think twice about what u say but am sure of what i say is trhat u should have the right posture and attitude towards what u speak out as i " agree " with what u say is that am also the same as such what i thoght is that about the subject is that u will have to think accounts is not the easy subject as u think because it gives more statistic data to accomplish it further inform of it position as you thought.........The equation as follows
ASSETS = LIABLITIES - CAPITAL
THIS IS THE EQUATION OF IT SO THAT IT BECOMES EVEN MORE CONVINENT
AND uyou become even more stressed out with that
CAPITAL = ASSETS + LIABLITIES
THAT GIVES YOU THE SOLUTION FOR THE PROBLEM AND YOU CAN FIND IT VERY EASILY AS SUCH
Agree with above (including time constraint), but also book value might be included, and perhaps even Equity investment
AND you will getiing if not for sure or u can mail me @ firstname.lastname@example.org
you can send in me so that i can accept that the accounting system has changed..........
and i can't stress out further so that might not be that i won't forget
1. WHILE ENTERING IT INTO AN LEDGER YOU HAVE SUMMARISE SUM PIONTS INTO YOUR BRAIN SUCH THAT YOU WON'T FIND ANY MISTAKES WHILE ACCOUNTING
2. It is even more important keep it under accounting rules to find out the mistakes out carefully.......
3. you have to bare the rules in your mind so that it will be even more convinent for me to analyse it properly to gain access into it and u won't find problems
for more information u can find it on the internet so that you can gain access into it and you will find it easy so what's the problem in ti so find it damn easy to use it for the life time
and gain access into it but am not sure that how would you do it further into it and analyse the problems
Smallbones (talk) 16:18, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Agree with above. i think that most people who have to resort to the articles on wikipedia concerning "equity" in the first place will want to start broad and not narrow. i didn't even know there were more than one kind of "equity". i had no idea what it meant and wanted an easy definition. more confusing having to click around and find a good place to start. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 02:10, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
agree with above...am not an expert ...but by whatever i've leart finance course these two are parts of the same concept,complementing each other —Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 10:59, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Fully support a speedy merge. Honestly, this is the same thing. Explain possible differences in usage if you can find a source in the "new" article. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 12:58, 12 August 2008 (UTC)