Slashdot Mirror

Ask Bezos...Amazon did it for years!

Not true. https://www.gurufocus.com/fina...

> Not anymore they aren't.

Yea, they still are. I like how your cutoff for analysis is 2012 (a loss year for them), ignoring the billion dollar profit 2011 year, but I'll go into that later.

Their R+D is pretty big, and varies. When you spend 53 billion yen on just R+D and have a relatively small 7 billion yen profit, and the next year you spend 72 billion yen on R+D and have a 23 billion yen loss, what you are seeing is a company investing in the next few years, not a company that lacks sales or has huge internal expenses.
http://www.marketwatch.com/inv...

Meanwhile, they always keep bankrolls:
http://www.gurufocus.com/term/...

So if they do start screwing up, they have plenty of time to change course. Their conservative financials lets them take risks in the market, which they do pretty much constantly.

My point is this: they don't need to turn a huge profit to be happy. They don't require a Wii fad, they aren't counting on it.

Here's some companies that got into the video game hardware business, and then got out of it (or went out of business), all after Nintendo got into making video games:

3DO
Sega
Hudsonsoft / NEC
SNK ...basically stuff you was in the 80s and 90s that you don't see today. This list excludes guys who got in just a couple years before Nintendo and got blown out, of whom there were some (Mattel, Coleco, etc).

And here's some companies that have risen and fallen ENTIRELY within Nintendo's lifespan:

Pan Am
Atari
RCA
Compaq
Honeywell
Arthur Anderson (lasted a mere 89 years)

Hell, technically HP.

> Nintendo can't afford to keep losing money forever

They aren't losing money, though. Your link shows this:
2016: 136.99M
2015: +380.78M
2014: -232.22M
2013: +85.89M
2012: -548.7M
2011: +931.48M

Any analysis that tries to paint them in a shitty light needs to start at 2012. Start at 2013 and they are doing JUST fine. Start at 2011 and they are doing JUST fine. Even if you start at 2012, you are looking at a very small shortfall compared to their overall everything. They could screw up two more launches, if they really wanted to, and still be happy staying in business without hardware.

Your opinion and the facts don't seem to be very much aligned.... 10 Year IBM Financial Performance

Principle 1. Create something you own

Spend time and energy making something that: (1) you own fully (2) is of value to others (3) you can exchange for value
This is because you can only ever give what you own. Examples: a mobile app, personal skills, bookshelf. Even raising poultry/vegetables in your backyard counts - you exchange these with yourself for money (a.k.a. 'saving cash').

Note, 'Writing code for cash' fails on point (1), but 'Honing C++ skills' ticks all three points. A life devoted tohelping others is the best deal of all - you exchange your life for treasure in heaven.

Principle 2. If you cannot work for yourself, search for a workplace like how long term investors search for stock.

Consider the most famous one of them all - Warren Buffet. He uses 'intrinsic value' to value stock. Companies with price to intrinsic value ratio (lets call it 'P/V' for this post) lower than 1 are more likely well-managed but undervalued -- and hungry to be valued higher -- so Warren 'buys' those companies.

My pet theory: unlike Warren, you want to 'buy into' workplaces that are consistently profitable and whose P/V ratio is as close to 1 as possible. This is because such companies are typically profitable, well run and will treat you fairly -- leaving you enough time and energy for Principle 1.

Let take a look at Netflix (NFLX) -- a well regarded company with a demanding work environment -- their ratio 1.85
  http://www.gurufocus.com/term/...
(To check others, replace 'NFLX' in the URL with another stock ticker - remember, its the median ratio we're looking for)

NFLX (1.8) , AMZN (4), and EA (2.5) for instance, have high 'stock price/intrinsic value' ratios. So, while these are very successful companies, these are more likely high-pressure work environments with little time to yourself outside of work. Even GOOG (1.6) and APPL (1.5) are getting a bit up there.

Going lower: SPLS (1.3), MSFT, WMT (Walmart), BA (Boeing) (all 1.2), and INTL (1.1).

Now the magic unity figure -- BRK.A (Warren's Berkshire Hathaway itself), BAC (Bank of America), PFE (Pfizer) - all around 1. Strangely, so is ODP (Office Depot - 0.97).

Further down seems to be the domain of banks -- FNF (Fidelity National -- 0.9), PRU (Prudential - 0.28), MS (Morgan Stanley - 0.26), JPM (JP Morgan - 0.27)

Obama crony George Soros went on a rather interesting buying spree.... He invested heavily along three basic themes:

1. "Green Energy" firms within the USA - he bought into a dozen of these firms which then got handouts of $11 BILLION from the federal govt for "green energy"

2. Firms whose value would rise IF coal was de-valued. (cha-ching! Obama's making this one pay-off for the resident proud Hitler-era NAZI collaborator)

3. Fossil-fuel-based energy firms in the BRIC countries. The emissions rules being slapped onto western economies by their own gullible elites would have no direct negative effects in the BRICs, and actually have positive side-effects as the BRIC economies would automatically be made relatively more-productive (by the artificially-imposed inefficiencies in the non-BRICs Soros was pushing in Europe and the USA) Oh, and his Brazillian oil investment REALLY paid-off when the Obama admin pumped US tax dollars into its offshore deep-water oild drilling efforts while suppressing off-shore leases for US firms in the Gulf.

Soros bought lots of stuff that would benefit NOT from natural economic activity but rather from political interventions... and he poured lots of money into "progressive" news outlets and web sites to support the Obama agenda that he was betting on. Soros pours his money into these outlets via his "Open Society Institute" and the "Tides Foundation" which in-turn fund everybody from "MoveOn" to the quasi-religious "Sojourners"... EIGHT TIMES as much on 501c organizations as the Koch brothers. This has paid-off handsomely... why leave your "return on investment" to the "whims of the market" when you can put a jack-boot on the scale?

Ever since I read this article, I have been taking a closer look at AMD. What I find is that this is a company in trouble. When I visit computer shops, I do not see anything equivelent to AMD Inside!

Question is: Does AMD still matter?

http://www.gurufocus.com/StockBuy.php?GuruName=Bill+Gates

Their investment lists.

No Apple shares?

I am supprised at how little they invest in oil & gas, which pay a lot of dividends.

They're hardly difficult to find out:

First part:

Bill Gates initiated holdings in Monsanto Company. (...) His holdings were 500,000 shares as of 06/30/2010.

http://www.gurufocus.com/news/104835/gates-foundation-buys-ecolab-inc-goldman-sachs-monsanto-company-exxon-mobil-corp-sells-mt-bank

The second part, from their website:
http://www.gatesfoundation.org/hivaids/Pages/reducing-hiv-risk-through-circumcision.aspx

As I posted in response to another person claiming that the Foundation is a vehicle for private profit: when making such a serious allegation it behoves you to show your evidence.

One of your claims is demonstrably untrue. Audited accounts for the Gates Foundation show that it makes far greater charitable grants than it is required to: over three times the minimum.

Regarding your claim that it is a tax-avoidance scheme, could you please set out which tax(es) Mr Gates was attempting to avoid?

Regarding your claim that the cash "flows straight back in to Gates' considerable investments in major drug companies", could you please back up the two claims that:

• - Bill Gates has considerable investments in major drug companies, and
• - There is some reasonably plausible way that he could expect to recoup the sum (approaching $30bn) that he has donated to the Foundation

I have posted relatively extensively elsewhere on Gates' stock holdings, insofar as they are public. Forgive me for quoting myself:

[As far as I can tell, Bill Gates] holds his shares through Cascade Investment LLC, the filings of which are available at sec.gov. There's a digest of its current holdings at GuruFocus - I haven't checked its accuracy. What it appears to show, however, is a portfolio that is not in any way focused on big pharma. I wasn't able to find any pharmaceutical conflicts, either directly or indirectly, by comparing that list to the Foundation's grant history, although I admit that I haven't gone through everything - I simply don't have time. One holding that I imagine will be criticised is Monsanto. I don't know how large that holding is, and while you could find out by going through all the filings I'm not inclined to; if the strongest claim that can be made is that Mr Gates set up the Gates Foundation and gave away something approaching $30bn in the hope that he would somehow make it back on Monsanto stocks then I think the argument rather defeats itself.

It has been suggested that he acquired some shares in pharmaceutical companies outside his Cascade Investment portfolio in 2002. I suspect that that may be a reporting error; even if it is not, the investments were well under $1bn. It is implausible to suggest that they could ever regain the $30bn donated.

You have made serious allegations about an outwardly philanthropic activity. I would suggest that you should either back up those allegations or recant them.

Microsoft's business practices, and the extent to which Gates was personally responsible for them, is not the issue. What you said was that the Gates foundation exists to turn a personal profit and that its assets will not be distributed but instead given to wealthy individuals. You went so far as to hint that it might be some sort of extortion:

The first time is free. Just wait until the next health crisis, see what fucking happens.

Restating that he is "engaging in for-profit economic activity that benefits him directly" isn't evidence - it's just the same assertion that you made the first time. I've looked around on Google for information going either way and found nothing of note.There was an article pointing out that conflicts of interest are possible in foundations; the closest I could find to someone alleging that the Foundation is a front for Gates' private profit was an InfoWars article that creates an imagined conflict by confusing shares held by Gates and shares held by the Gates Foundation, before going on to claim that

Bill Gates, son of a top Planned Parenthood official , is in league with a group of wealthy eugencists working to reduce the world’s population,

a claim which, to my mind at least, does very little for the credibility of its author.

I thought previously that there was no information available on Bill Gates' personal shareholdings. However I now find that he holds his shares through Cascade Investment LLC, the filings of which are available at sec.gov. There's a digest of its current holdings at GuruFocus - I haven't checked its accuracy. What it appears to show, however, is a portfolio that is not in any way focused on big pharma. I wasn't able to find any pharmaceutical conflicts, either directly or indirectly, by comparing that list to the Foundation's grant history, although I admit that I haven't gone through everything - I simply don't have time. One holding that I imagine will be criticised is Monsanto. I don't know how large that holding is, and while you could find out by going through all the filings I'm not inclined to; if the strongest claim that can be made is that Mr Gates set up the Gates Foundation and gave away something approaching $30bn in the hope that he would somehow make it back on Monsanto stocks then I think the argument rather defeats itself.

As regards my "honourable" remark, it was a rough paraphrase of a comment made by our Prime Minister, David Cameron, in the House of Commons and which I thought was rather apposite. It wasn't meant to offend - and in any case, if you are concerned about your honour there is plenty of time for you to salvage it by providing evidence of your claim that the Gates Foundation is an attempt for Bill Gates to make a private profit.

Buffett was always interested in companies where he had inside information of some form, especially things that allowed him to push toward a "control situation" to improve the value of the stock once he owned enough of it. One of the major investments that built up his early trading cash pile was in GEICO. That came from personally interviewing someone at the company, rather than using the publicly available information about it.

If that happened today, it would have insider trading questions all around it, with the company principals involved compelled via Fair Disclosure to tell everyone the same information. in 1951, that idea wasn't fully formed yet, as well as being difficult to detect/enforce. By the time that sort of thing did get cracked down on, mainly through the 1984 through 1988 insider trading changes, Buffett had moved onto more complicated things.

Certainly most Buffett's wealth came from legitimate innovation in value estimation. It's mainly in the last ten years that's become shockingly blatant and abusive. But even from the beginning, it was clear Buffett didn't have a problem with using his private information or research as a competitive advantage--even though that sort of thing is discourged by public company Fair Disclosure rules.

Buffett was always interested in companies where he had inside information of some form, especially things that allowed him to push toward a "control situation" to improve the value of the stock once he owned enough of it. One of the major investments that built up his early trading cash pile was in GEICO. That came from personally interviewing someone at the company, rather than using the publicly available information about it.

If that happened today, it would have insider trading questions all around it, with the company principals involved compelled via Fair Disclosure to tell everyone the same information. in 1951, that idea wasn't fully formed yet, as well as being difficult to detect/enforce. By the time that sort of thing did get cracked down on, mainly through the 1984 through 1988 insider trading changes, Buffett had moved onto more complicated things.

Certainly most Buffett's wealth came from legitimate innovation in value estimation. It's mainly in the last ten years that's become shockingly blatant and abusive. But even from the beginning, it was clear Buffett didn't have a problem with using his private information or research as a competitive advantage--even though that sort of thing is discourged by public company Fair Disclosure rules.

Too right. This corruption has to stop or the country will go down. Self-made billionaire Carl Icahn cannot say enough on this subject.

Income stocks *were* a good place for your retirement money. They may be again- but for the near to mid term future, you risk losing 20 to 30% of your retirement money owning in come stocks. You risk losing just as much in bonds because once interest rates start rising they are going to lose a lot of value. And you can't get better than about 2% in CD's.

I cited 2 income stocks, both with better returns than those 2% CDs, the lower return being almost 4%. For more examples do what I did, Google income stocks. Right now the first result is the definition of "income stock" given by investopedia and the second Stocks For Income Investors In 2010. I didn't check it out but the third result is the Fool's 5 Stocks for Strong Income. Now while those links may be from people who have their own agendas, such as trying to have stocks they own rise in price before they're dumped so does Warren Buffet. I say that even though what I know about him I like. The same with George Soros. Now do you think they have the same outlook on investments? Here's the portfolio at Soros Fund Management LLC.

I'm using a mixture of approaches ... dividends as you suggest (I'm 17 years from retirement), some dollar cost averaging, a big pile of cash, and a big pile in overseas investements as a hedge. And I'm getting debt free-- no house debt, no car debt. I'm already free of debt other than those and both of those are now quite low (I might be out in 24 months).

While the rest sounds okay, why the "big pile of cash"? As you said yourself inflation could gobble it up. One year's living expenses should be enough. But not just cash. Have 3 months in saving for ready cash, then have the rest in 6 month CDs that mature every 3 months. Of if a money market account offers higher interest then use that instead of CDs. If and when it comes down to it cutting out non-essentials, taking out odd or temporary jobs, and growing some of your own food should stretch that year of emergency funds out further.

And yes, gardening. Just this week even though it's still early I picked some greens in my garden for salad, leaf lettuce and mustard. Now I did buy some carrot, onion, and radish because it's too early for those and I tossed some sliced ham and turkey and well as grated cheese I bought too. However within a few more weeks I should have enough in my garden for more salad and other dishes. I have Roma tomato plants to make tomato sauces, yellow tomatoes for salad, and more for soups and salsa. For salsa, and soup, I also have tomatillos. Though it won't be much I hoping I can at least can a few quarts of them.

Oh, lest I miss it, you say you have no house debt, did you pay off a mortgage early or on tyme? If early, was the interest high? If so then it may of been better to refinance to a lower rate. With the one year emergency fund even if you lose your job and become unemployed you could still make your payments. Of course, you may feel better being debt free and having less risks. If so and that's important to you then go for it. Personally I wouldn't, but then again I can handle higher risks. So long as I have that year of funding I can get by.

Get by? HAHA Because I'm on disability and it is being messed with, so far this year I've only got money 4 out of 6 months and not once was it the full amount of my disability, I'm living week to week. I am glad

Dark cloud over good works of Gates Foundation
In a contradiction between its grants and its endowment holdings, a Times investigation has found, the foundation reaps vast financial gains every year from investments that contravene its good works.

Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation Holdings Outperforming S&P 500 Handily
It is also overweight Healthcare, Consumer Staples and Industrials. The Foundation is underweight Telecom, Consumer Discretionary and Energy, and it has a 0% weight in Technology, Utilities and Materials.

The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation Owns Over 7 Million Shares of BP

Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation Buys CSX Corp., M&T Bank Corp., XTO Energy Inc. Mcdonald's, Devon Energy Corp., Sells Johnson & Johnson
These are the top 5 holdings of Bill Gates

      1. Berkshire Hathaway Inc. (BRK-B) - 1,251,250 shares, 48.36% of the total portfolio
      2. McDonald's Corp. (MCD) - 6,867,500 shares, 5.27% of the total portfolio
      3. Canadian National Railway Company Fully (CNI) - 8,399,653 shares, 4.82% of the total portfolio
      4. Exxon Mobil Corp. (XOM) - 4,285,000 shares, 4% of the total portfolio
      5. Costco Wholesale Corp. (COST) - 6,128,000 shares, 3.74% of the total portfolio

Is this a philanthropic venture or a tax evasion investment scheme?

I do commend Gates for what he is doing but I would not go so far as to slobber all over him for his philanthropic works considering his past illicit activity that played a significant role in providing him with the funds to become a philanthropist.

Source?

Cash depreciates over time relative to inflation, so almost no one holds significant amounts of cash but rather invest in securities, real estate, commodities, etc.

Here is Warren Buffett's portfolio, as an example.

http://www.gurufocus.com/holdings.php?GuruName=Warren+Buffett

In 2007 he was worth 60 billion, today he is worth 47 billion, which is a 'gain' of 10 billion over last year but is down from the 2007 number.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_Buffett#Path_to_wealth
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35799215/ns/business-forbescom/

Neither of the stories linked by Slashdot mentioned the underlying reasons for the split. The split was Carl Icahn's idea. One story: Carl Icahn Top Stocks: Yahoo! Inc., Motorola Inc., ...

Quote: "On March 24, 2008 Icahn sued Motorola as part of his efforts to gain 4 seats on Motorola's Board and force a sale of its mobile business."

It is interesting that the New York Times article linked by Slashdot doesn't discuss the reason for the split. The reason may be that the split would be profitable for Mr. Icahn.