Quote:
Originally Posted by

**BrianCPA**
You are changing the subject. I said you don't net together profits and losses when PRESENTING PROFIT PERCENTAGES. You cannot include losses in a calculation of share of profit percentage. It doesn't work. You can't have more than 100% of profit.

You're arguing in circles. "You can't have more than 100% profits because you can't have more than 100% profits".

In reality, a loss is simply a negative profit. When you total the profits (whether it's a conglomerate or a market, you add up the profits of all the components.

In case A, it's easy:

Business 1 $100

Business 2 $200

Business 3 $100

Total $400

In case B, it works exactly the same way, except that you're adding a negative number:

Business 1 $100

Business 2 $200

Business 3 -$100 (loss of $100)

Total $200

Percentages are calculated as "the part being considered divided by the total". If the part being considered is $200 and the total is $100, then it's 200%. Just the same as if you had sales of $100 in 2010 and $300 in 2011. The growth is greater than the previous total, so the sales grew by 200%.

Quote:
Originally Posted by

**jhende7**
Percentage is reflective of the relative about of something (between nothing 0 and everything 100). It doesn't matter which way you slice it, companies cannot have more then 100% of the profits. Doesn't matter if you exclude or include companies with losses either.

Another circular argument. "Companies can't have more than 100% because they can't have more than 100%". That's not a logical argument (well, technically, it's an argument, but contains a fallacy).

Do the math:

1. The total profits of a market is equal to the sum of all the components.

2. Profits can be either negative or positive

3. There's absolutely no rule in business or accounting or anywhere else that says you can ignore companies that lost money. You add up ALL the companies to get a total.

4. Percentage is the part being considered divided by the total times 100.

While it is uncommon for the percentage of profits from one or two companies to exceed 100%, it's not at all impossible. If you simply follow the math rules, it happens - as in this case.

Your method leads to some other serious problems. If you're going to ignore the profits of HTC, Motorola, etc, why not the sales? So the entire market sales volume is just Apple and Samsung? That's the logical outcome of your method - since calculating percentages doesn't depend on what you are calculating.

Quote:
Originally Posted by

**jhende7**
I waz tawt at schoo that percen can only go 2 hundred

You need to ask for a refund. If sales in 2010 were $100 and in 2011 sales were $300, then the sales increased by 200%. Percentages can easily go over 100%.

Quote:
Originally Posted by

**brlawyer**
Perhaps you should attend some Logic classes as well, since your fallacious argument doesn't make the slightest sense. You use false premises to incorrectly "prove" your point - first you talk of NET profits for an industry, and THEN you move on to refer to TOTAL profits of each company concerned. In other words, you mix apples and oranges in trying to justify your flawed reasoning.

Using the examples above, the simple answers would be:

NET profits for the whole industry are $200, while TOTAL profits for that same industry are $300;

TOTAL profits for company A make for 33% of the TOTAL profits for the industry;

TOTAL profits for company B make for 67% of the same.

Case closed.

ROTLFMAO. Try to tell the SEC that net profits are different than total profits.

How many multimillion dollar conglomerates have you run? I have - and the way I described it is exactly the way it works in the real world.