The article implied it was the depreciation driving (you see what I did there?) the decision to sell. It's more complicated that that. Of course a good sale price would be nice, all things being equal. It's just that it's not a binary choice.
I've been hearing ads to buy a Tesla from Hertz soon after they added them to their fleet. I suspect they have many other reasons why they're going this route and this isn't a short term play.
I get that it rhymes.
It's just when a business makes an "investment" aka cost, depending on the type of cost, they can use all or part of it (depending on classification) to offset "revenue" aka income, the more they offset then allows more income to be untaxed.
If you have a situation where a business has an asset (Teslas here) where the real life value (market value) suddenly drops, that business has to report additional depreciation, which does hurt the asset side of the balance sheet, but improves the income side
I don't have any insight into lender agreements, so it could be something else entirely, like the lenders would want the rental company to add additional collateral if the value of the cars drops.
I'm just saying that it's likely those other reasons driving the Tesla sell off.
It's all politically motivated judges who try to appear above the fray, but they're not. It's an inherently political position as a judge and we'd be better off seeing things how they are.
My moment was looking back to how the federal government passed a law to strip highway funding if states didn't raise their drinking age to 21. The same logic was used to force states to expand the ACA in each state, where other federal medical funding would be cut if states didn't take advantage of the ACA in their state. Ooopsies, as we know now, Republican judges struck that down and we have a half-baked medical solution. It's still better than before though, albeit hobbled.
I use AliExpress for all the little items in my life that can fail without any real problem.
I need a comb and get 2/$1 to my door. $3/4/5 each in a physical store for the same. I don't think you're appreciating how often these are literally the same products.
The retail sector has long ago entered enshittification. I'm not blind to the real people working in the field, but paying more for a product does not increase the chance of any positive environmental or social outcome. Feeding the beast, feeds their investors.
There is no ethical consumption.
A high depreciation cost is a benefit to the company, since it can otherwise offset income earned elsewhere in the company, thereby increasing profits over what they would have otherwise been.
They're selling these for another reason than depreciation, but the comments here already seem to get that.
DNC tried to rally any sane Republicans, I think the results showed they reached all 3 million of them.
It's just that they needed to rally their base and present a plan on how they could make their lives better. They needed to remind the electorate, all that they've done. This all seems so familiar...
"It was the best of times, it was the blurst of times"
You got me, it seems I have not educated myself thoroughly enough.
Really though, if only the enlightened can see the light then it seems like it's just an academic exercise or trolling people to advocate for ineffectual fringe theory.
You may be right, but also powerless.
Sounds like a theoretical Libertarian trying to raise an army. Do you hand a copy of the NAP to just the volunteers or also to those you fight?
Thanks for sharing, it looks very peaceful. Did the newly dropped leaves let you see anything that you've missed before?
I think I'm about to step up my signoff game. Who wouldn't want kingly regards?
King Regards,
xoxoxoxo
She was cueing the audience in that there is more going on, so dummie's like me can know to look for more. I still needed a kind commenter to explain it to me.
I guess she wanted a larger audience to be able to experience her work, than you would have preferred.