Earlier quoted context omitted.
Agree the sky is the limit for Google's future but there's always some risk that FB or Baidu or someone could come in and take 80% of Google's users. Aso by any reasonable measure Apple's market cap should be well over a trillion. Take away their $165 billion cash pile from their $465 billion market cap, give them 0% growth and you're left with the idea that Wall St's expects Apple to be turning out the lights in 4 o…
The big reason investors are skeptical with Apple is that there is no guarantee they can pull the same revenue without creating a hit product every two years. Once the revenue starts to shrink, things go downhill very quickly.
Google Passes Exxon to Become Second-Most Valuable U.S. Company
101–110 of 170 posts
Re: Google Passes Exxon to Become Second-Most Valuable U.S. Company
#102Re: Google Passes Exxon to Become Second-Most Valuable U.S. Company
#103Yet it's so small : XOM ('12) GOOG ('13) Revenue $453 B/a $60 B/a Profit $45 B/a $13 B/a Market cap $393 B $394 B https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ExxonMobil (101 for anyone who doesn't know this: revenue is how much you sell, profit is what's left over for shareholders, market cap is how much shareholders think that profit stream is worth). Relevant: check out wikipedia's rankings o…
Hm, applying a bit of my personal sense, I'd say Exxon's business is drying up in the foreseeable future (oil is running out, renewable energy is on the rise). Google is a software business with very strong network effects. I definitely see how there is more demand for software in 100 years than for oil (as a fuel). Economics is not a pure numbers game. They [edit: the numbers] just try abstract what the companies do…
Re: Google Passes Exxon to Become Second-Most Valuable U.S. Company
#104Earlier quoted context omitted.
The only market that Google has ever dominated profitably is search engine advertising. Despite, Glass, self driving cars, Android (free), Feedburner (dominated and shuttered) Gmail, Maps, etc... 96%[1] of their revenue is from selling ads. I love a lot of Google products, but the only one they make any money on, is one I despise. It pays for everything else. [1] http://venturebeat.com/2012/01/29/google-advertising/
I was thinking about it last time. And it's sad that it's 2014 and most tech companies that get tons of press and admiration make money with advertisement, something we all hate.
Doubtless there are some (perhaps even many, in certain circles) who would rather pay directly for services, but you're sorely mistaken if you think that it's anywhere near-universal (even on HN/in tech) that people hate ads more than they hate paying. What you actually mean is "something we all hate, given that we feel entitled to getting services completely for free".
Re: Google Passes Exxon to Become Second-Most Valuable U.S. Company
#105Yet it's so small : XOM ('12) GOOG ('13) Revenue $453 B/a $60 B/a Profit $45 B/a $13 B/a Market cap $393 B $394 B https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ExxonMobil (101 for anyone who doesn't know this: revenue is how much you sell, profit is what's left over for shareholders, market cap is how much shareholders think that profit stream is worth). Relevant: check out wikipedia's rankings o…
I believe one reason why Google and even Apple are able to surpass Exxon is because Exxon pays out a large portion of its profit in dividends while Google and Apple retain much of theirs in bank accounts as assets. If Exxon didn't pay a dividend they'd easily be the largest company in the world with regards to market cap.
Lastly, what happens if Exxon holds cash and grows a stockpile? If it's not earning money, the cash just makes a share more expensive, but the dividend as a percentage decreased. Well, the closer that percentage gets to interest rates, the less attractive the stock gets to those type of investors.
Re: Google Passes Exxon to Become Second-Most Valuable U.S. Company
#106*giving things away for free doesn't mean they are a success
Re: Google Passes Exxon to Become Second-Most Valuable U.S. Company
#107Earlier quoted context omitted.
A two-hit-wonder. 50% of their revenue comes from search and 50% from adsense.
So half from ads and the other half from ads?
Re: Google Passes Exxon to Become Second-Most Valuable U.S. Company
#108Earlier quoted context omitted.
By that analysis, Google "left the station" in what, 2005? Microsoft left the station in the late 80s. Apple left the station in 2005? And to the contrast, Warren Buffer invests in things like Conoco, WellsFargo, and, humorously, Exxon. Small doesn't mean growing. Large doesn't mean shrinking. Any analysis that assumes either is simply flawed. Buffet looks for companies with good fundamentals and returns, whether the…
> By that analysis, Google "left the station" in what, 2005? By that analysis, Google has most likely experienced the majority of its growth, and its current price reflects not only its actual value but the psychology of investors who try to buy into companies that are already successful, expecting that future returns will reflect past performance (the single most common investor mistake). > Buffet looks for companie…
Re: Google Passes Exxon to Become Second-Most Valuable U.S. Company
#109Earlier quoted context omitted.
By all means sell Google and buy Exxon. Check back with us in 10 years about how that went. > Exxon's better reflect the value of the underlying assets. That's like valuing a car based on the price of the steel it contains instead of where it can take you.
> By all means sell Google and buy Exxon. Check back with us in 10 years about how that went. I am actually going to try to track this (and I don't mean that in a bad way). I am honestly curious about this over the next 10 years.
If somehow google services go away and you don't get that event reminder, the question may be moot by then... not really, but an interesting thought anyways.
Re: Google Passes Exxon to Become Second-Most Valuable U.S. Company
#110Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not sure that is a correct line of logic. Often, companies pump their stock prices by handing over dividends. That's a sign of a mature company, which can't expect to grow much, but is still valuable to its shareholders if it can provide results in any other way.
No, if the company pays out dividends, its price ought to fall. For example if a stock is at $100, and then pays out $5 in dividends, afterward the price will be $95. The company is worth less after giving away a pile of its cash.
Dividends are just a portion of profits paid out to public investors. Companies that don't pay dividends on C class stock still pay dividends on other classes of stock.