41–50 of 82 posts
Actually to really compare the weight the company had in its days it is more meaningful to compare its market cap to GDP. Wolfram Alpha gives me 852 billion for 1967 so IBMs market cap was approx. 22.5% of that. 2012's estimated GPD is 15.6 trillion thus Apple has a mere 4.2% of that. That was how big IBM really felt back then.
>.... [Apple] would have a value of more than $3 trillion by 2020. As the Times points out, that is bigger than the 2011 gross domestic product of France or Brazil. Comparing an outlandish guess for a 2020 market cap versus a 2012 gross domestic product (a flow of money, not a store) is hand waving, not analysis.
The article has wrong facts. The columbia journalism review author double counted inflation. The NYTimes piece he cites has already adjusted for inflation in the 1967 IBM Market cap.
CORRECTION: Let me rap myself on the knuckles here for the above update, which was flat incorrect. As commenter JD points out, IBM’s 1967 market cap was not $1.3 trillion in real dollars, it was $192.3 billion. The NYT’s data was already adjusted for inflation.
http://www.cjr.org/the_audit/misleading_and_incomplete_cove....
Or, $28 billion nominal.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
When you see people BUYING t-shirts which are blatant advertising of popular brands, then you reach that point where people identify themselves to a brand before all. That has been the case for a LONG time already.
Some people buying branded t-shirts may simply prefer the fit and price of a shirt, and don't care what it says on it.
Most valuable publicly traded company perhaps, see Saudi Aramco: http://blogs.mccombs.utexas.edu/titman/2010/03/01/more-thoug...
>.... [Apple] would have a value of more than $3 trillion by 2020. As the Times points out, that is bigger than the 2011 gross domestic product of France or Brazil. Comparing an outlandish guess for a 2020 market cap versus a 2012 gross domestic product (a flow of money, not a store) is hand waving, not analysis.
Also, extrapolating without much explanation means squat. http://xkcd.com/605/
I should write about the dancing monkey problem sometime.
Why do people even care? Has consumer culture so overtaken our minds that we identify personally with the things that we buy?
Can you actually tell me why identifying personally with the things we buy is a bad thing?
Let me get this out right now: Valuations mean jack shit (companies/houses/startups/humans - whatever). Especially "market caps". Understand this: 21.91 million shares of Apple were traded yesterday. That is $14,460,600,000 moving around. [1] Now you must adjust down for HFT traders, market makers, option hedgers, futures guys and anyone else who trades massive amounts of stock each and every day. My rule of thumb is…
It's like saying: I can jump on the field at a Yankee game and "control" 50k spectators and 50m viewers. You may influence them for about a second, but the farther you try to bring the situation from the market's desire, the quicker you'll be corrected.
Sinking 1b into selling apple short would make a small, temporary dent in their market cap.
If you think something is overvalued, you should sell it short. If you think ycombinator companies are overvalued, you should contact the investors and give them odds against the ycombinator startups successes, and it would be in their best interest to take you up on it as a hedge.
In general terms, if you claim to have knowledge of a mispriced asset, there always is an implied economic action you should take to make money off of your unique knowledge.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Some people buying branded t-shirts may simply prefer the fit and price of a shirt, and don't care what it says on it.
Somehow I find it very hard to believe. Remove the logo on the lacoste polo shirt and the Nike shoes and see if they would buy it still.
Now if you meant those ridiculous Airs with the spring shocks in them then yes, but brands that endure aren't built on nothing.