theHotHead wrote:Luzh 22 wrote:I don't understand why somebody has to 100% out right own something to invest money in something. That doesn't make sense to me.
Why don't those crazy people called (funnily enough) investors realise this? EK should school them.
Have you heard of Return on Investment ? According to Wiki, " is a ratio between the net profit and cost of investment resulting from an investment of some resources."
If you don't know what it means, its indicates how much money you make on how much you invested. Tell me, if you invest £100m over 5 years to make £10m, is that a good investment ? Bearing in mind you are NEVER guaranteed to make a profit on any investment. What about investing £100m to make £15m over 12 years ? There are numerous reasons some investments are not attractive to investors, risk is too high, the ROI is too low, the period of the return is too long.
Now, hopefully, you understand why some people don't make investments. If you are going to invest and you want maximum returns owning the majority of shares might make the ROI a more attractive proposition. I know you are clever enough to know all of this, so I don't understand why you are asking the question why someone might want to have a healthy majority before they invest.
Do you understand the difference between a passive and aggressive investor? Do you understand how having a passive investor as an owner is bad news for fans of a football club? Do you understand investment strategy during a boom in a specific sector? Do you understand anything at all?
No you f***ing don't. You're a simpleton. Now get out.