Your point is noted. I didn't want to come off as arrogant and it is understandable why it was downvoted based on that.
I added a framework for valuation and accounting which is a much more accurate than what was written in the article and in a fraction of the space.
The point I am making is very valid and extremely important for people to read after reading that article which is completely wrong in almost all ways.
I'd write it again anytime and gladly be downvoted in the off chance one person reads it and is saved from making huge errors later. (I will skip the "no, no, no" part and adjust tone to keep from seeming arrogant.)
I added a framework for valuation and accounting which is a much more accurate than what was written in the article and in a fraction of the space.
The point I am making is very valid and extremely important for people to read after reading that article which is completely wrong in almost all ways.
I'd write it again anytime and gladly be downvoted in the off chance one person reads it and is saved from making huge errors later. (I will skip the "no, no, no" part and adjust tone to keep from seeming arrogant.)