101–110 of 142 posts
So, when did Microsoft surpass Apple in market cap? 1992? 1988?
Good question. I couldn't find out since I can't get either google finance or yahoo finance to plot market cap, but I did get this: http://ycharts.com/search?q=MSFT%20vs%20AAPL&c=market_ca... It only goes back ten years but it at least shows that MSFT was vastly bigger than AAPL back in 1999.
Consider that Apple's P/E is 24.5 and Microsoft's P/E is 13.4. Basically, while Apple may be in demand right now, Microsoft is earning almost twice as much. Also, Microsoft pays a (albeit small) dividend, whereas Apple does not.
Is it just me that thinks it's insane that companies can permanently plan to not pay (or pay small) dividends? If market trading is solely based on the ability to resell stock at a higher price how is the market expected to select companies that deliver real value to the economy? Surely the ability of a company to consistently and stably deliver dividends to the stock holders would be the best measure of success, re-…
In companies that can't do much R&D, you see much more dividend action, for example, natural resource stocks are high dividend, since there's near nothing they can do to reinvest, at least not with everything they pull in.
Consider that Apple's P/E is 24.5 and Microsoft's P/E is 13.4. Basically, while Apple may be in demand right now, Microsoft is earning almost twice as much. Also, Microsoft pays a (albeit small) dividend, whereas Apple does not.
Is it just me that thinks it's insane that companies can permanently plan to not pay (or pay small) dividends? If market trading is solely based on the ability to resell stock at a higher price how is the market expected to select companies that deliver real value to the economy? Surely the ability of a company to consistently and stably deliver dividends to the stock holders would be the best measure of success, re-…
Buybacks can work just as well if you are buying back at the right price. A lot of management teams are bad at capital allocation and buyback stock at 52 week highs - that is almost always incredibly stupid.
But sometimes the business is trading at irrationally low levels and it makes a lot of sense to just buyback stock, especially if the fundamentals are in tact. I saw a company doing this and it is a great decision, their business earns a 50% return on invested capital and they have an earnings yield around 20%. It is a slam dunk strategy. When it is overvalued, you can issue stock and use it for acquisitions.
Look at Henry Singleton who ran Teledyne and used that strategy. Teledyne went from $100,000 in profits in 1960 to $238 million in 1986. Shareholders’ equity grew from $2.5 million to over $1.6 billion. Teledyne trounced the market by 4x over that period.
Using excess capital to fund accretive acquisitions, internal growth, or to invest outside of the company can work if you are disciplined in the process (most aren't). Warren Buffett became one of the richest people in the world, simply by doing this (it sure wasn't his $100K salary).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is kind of pedantic, but I think the word valuable might be better here than largest . Apple is relatively small when compared to companies like Walmart, which has 2.1 million employees and almost 8x revenue.
Where is the value in Apple? Its ability to trick Americans into buying very expensive, yet very restrictive, products that most of the time they really don't need? That's actually a very harmful thing, from an economic perspective.
Sure, the Macs are expensive, but the hardware is very high quality, and when you compare them to Thinkpads and Vaios--other high-end computers--it's pretty reasonable.
I'm no Apple fanboy (as of now, the only money I've ever given Apple is 30% of app purchases I've made for my hand-me-down iPhone 2G), but in a couple of days, I'm buying a MacBook Pro because it's a high quality unix system that Just Works. Given that I'm a programmer who will use it constantly, the time it will save me should cover the extra few hundred dollars by the end of summer.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is it just me that thinks it's insane that companies can permanently plan to not pay (or pay small) dividends? If market trading is solely based on the ability to resell stock at a higher price how is the market expected to select companies that deliver real value to the economy? Surely the ability of a company to consistently and stably deliver dividends to the stock holders would be the best measure of success, re-…
You don't need to pay dividends to increase shareholder value. It just depends on how good management is with allocating capital. Buybacks can work just as well if you are buying back at the right price. A lot of management teams are bad at capital allocation and buyback stock at 52 week highs - that is almost always incredibly stupid. But sometimes the business is trading at irrationally low levels and it makes a lo…
The stock price for buybacks doesn't matter, if you only care about getting money back into investors' hands.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are SEC laws that easy to violate? Hey everybody, I think Apple stock is going to continue to increase! I may or may not own Apple stock.
It makes sense. Without a law like that, people with circulation/influence could manipulate the markets by buying, boosting and selling.
(Or do you have to reveal your net position, with shorts netted against longs?)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I disagree. For me, the only way Facebook helps me socially is as a sort of phone book and with events. Catching up over Facebook seems a useless event compared to conversing IRL. Besides, an inordinate amount of people use it as a game system with a leaderboard. Facebook's value isn't really social at all. It's pseudosocial.
Facebook will get you laid. Having an iPod.... nope. An iphone might have done it about 2 years ago.
How does Facebook accomplish that? I'd rather count sitting behind your computer as a counterproductive.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You don't need to pay dividends to increase shareholder value. It just depends on how good management is with allocating capital. Buybacks can work just as well if you are buying back at the right price. A lot of management teams are bad at capital allocation and buyback stock at 52 week highs - that is almost always incredibly stupid. But sometimes the business is trading at irrationally low levels and it makes a lo…
> Buybacks can work just as well if you are buying back at the right price. A lot of management teams are bad at capital allocation and buyback stock at 52 week highs - that is almost always incredibly stupid. The stock price for buybacks doesn't matter, if you only care about getting money back into investors' hands.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, I think so. People have been forced to settle with the SEC for comments made on forums for example. http://news.cnet.com/SEC,-teen-settle-Net-stock-scheme-case/...
I own a fund that owns shares of every public company on the market (VTI). Does that mean I have to say "I own this" any time I talk about stock?