http://sports.yahoo.com/pga/news?slug=reu-woodsshareholders&prov=reuters&type=lgns

What?

I find that hard to believe. I don't think all of the Tiger drama has really cost $12Billion.

Ouch.

First of all, you dont have to debate this with me, as I have no idea. The study was conducted by 2 UC Davis Economic Advisors though. Id think they may be more knowledgable on these matters than most of us huddlers would be.

The article said 5-12 billion.

That's pretty stupid, but the markets aren't always rational and I could see how something like this could fluctuate the stocks of these companies, whether for the right or wrong.

september63 wrote: First of all, you dont have to debate this with me, as I have no idea. The study was conducted by 2 UC Davis Economic Advisors though. Id think they may be more knowledgable on these matters than most of us huddlers would be.

I don't see where anyone specifically called you out..so how are they debating with you? They are just commenting on the article..if you don't want them to comment on your article..don't start a thread about it. Pretty logical. As for the ARTICLE..I seen this a couple days ago..that's what I thought too..BS..how the hell can they say what this is/isn't going to cost anyone? A man cheated on his wife..big deal..I don't see where that will cost ANYONE (except Tiger) a lot of money.

You can make numbers look anyway you want

LOL..........Who knew? freehuddle members that understand wallstreet and stock market trends better than 2 UC Davis economic professors.

World leaders and religous leaders should read this forum. All answers are here.

In all honesty, there are some really intelligent people here.

GoChiefs wrote:

september63 wrote: First of all, you dont have to debate this with me, as I have no idea. The study was conducted by 2 UC Davis Economic Advisors though. Id think they may be more knowledgable on these matters than most of us huddlers would be.

I don't see where anyone specifically called you out..so how are they debating with you? They are just commenting on the article..if you don't want them to comment on your article..don't start a thread about it. Pretty logical. As for the ARTICLE..I seen this a couple days ago..that's what I thought too..BS..how the hell can they say what this is/isn't going to cost anyone? A man cheated on his wife..big deal..I don't see where that will cost ANYONE (except Tiger) a lot of money.

People own shares of stock in companies that Tiger used to advertise for, and when you have a figurehead like Tiger who's no longer seen as a "good guy", it can affect a person's perception of that company. Like I said, it may not be justified, but it certainly can have affect on a lot of people other than just Tiger Woods.

I think those numbers are seriously bloated. I hear old Tiger is still shackin up with one of his ho's. Sounds like he was a serious bum behind the scenes.

september63 wrote: First of all, you dont have to debate this with me, as [size=xx-large]I have no idea. [/size]The study was conducted by 2 UC Davis Economic Advisors though. Id think they may be more knowledgable on these matters than most of us huddlers would be.

You and I finally agree on something, you have no idea.

Make the world a better place...punch skank in the face!!

Maybe we could sign a two year deal, oh, sorry, you're from Dover, one year deal it is.

5-12 billion. Thats quite the range in numbers.

Tiger will be "pinch'in pennies" in 2010.