Slashdot Mirror

You're not trying to "pump and dump" GE stock shares?

General Electric Company Stock Is Ugly, But It Has Potential for the Gambler
https://investorplace.com/2018/03/general-electric-company-ge-stock-ugly-potential-gambler/

How can a taxi company with literally no expenses except for keeping a few servers running run a loss in the billions?

Uber CEO Travis Kalanick is worth over $6 billion. The loss belongs strictly to the investors. The company's doing fine, otherwise.

This is why Uber is not a public company. It's a money laundering operation.

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/03/28...

http://investorplace.com/ipo-p...

There are many commercial entities that would be overjoyed to finance Tesla some billions based on the outstanding pre-order book.

And even more commercial entities that would be overjoyed if Tesla crashed and burned.

Analysts are falling over themselves trying to paint Tesla in a bad light. Usually this is done by "black-box analytics" without taking the context into account. We're seeing this in the original article: massive public demand is bad for Tesla because it will hurt them in the long run.

For example, Tesla has had little or no profit for the last couple of quarters because they're putting everything into the gigafactory. Looked at as a black box, Tesla is a company with little or no revenue.

...but this doesn't account for the gigafactory, or that Tesla will pretty-much corner the market in cars *and* lithium batteries in a couple of years.

The price point of Tesla is all over the map, analysts put it anywhere from $100 to $1900 .

It's insane. There's a subtext among certain analysts and pundits that they are *only* dissing Tesla because they want to bolster their GM stock. Then there's the analysts and pundits who put sterile figures into an algorithm and come up with a "buy", "sell", or "hold" outcome and then justify that outcome (any outcome, it doesn't matter) from whatever is going on at the time.

There's literally(*) no source of reliable information about stocks that a common person can access.

So far as I can tell, the best you can hope for is to have an engineer's understanding of the context and make an educated guess. Company is working on an implantable insulin delivery device? If you think the concept is feasible, it's probably a good bet. Can a company makes a razor that cuts hair with a laser? Probably not a good bet.

Reading analysts predictions about stocks is worthless. You can get just as good information by plotting a stocks' astrology chart.

(*) I'm using the term "literal" by it's dictionary definition.

...how can a publicly traded company possibly justify such investments to stockholders?

Most of google voting stock is owned by company insiders. I hear 3 people basically control the voting rights to the company. Modern stock issues are a scam.

The new Class C shares have no voting rights. The Class A shares have one vote each, but collectively those votes are dwarfed by the 10-votes-per-share Class B shares. Those shares, which do not trade in the public market, are owned by Google insiders, who will also get Class C shares in the distribution ...----... The split was first proposed nearly two years ago as part of a plan to "preserve the corporate structure that has allowed Google to remain focused on the long term." ...---.... As originally proposed by the company, the move would have made it easy for Google’s founders, Larry Page and Sergey Brin, and the chairman, Eric E. Schmidt, to cash in a large part of their holdings without giving up their voting control. But that ability has been limited after the company settled a class action suit filed by angry (Class A) shareholders, and reached agreements with the three top officials to limit their sales.

Basically they want the benefits of a public corp without the responsibilities. So yeah, they don't have to justify jack to stock holders. Remember, if you don't know who the sucker in the room is after 5 hands, the sucker is you.

http://money.cnn.com/2014/04/03/investing/google-stock-split/ http://economix.blogs.nytimes.... http://www.businessweek.com/ar... http://investorplace.com/2014/...

Alibaba is doing the IPO in the US because US exchanges will go along with the "sell majority of stock but retain complete control over operations" setup the Alibaba owners wanted to use.

So you mean like Google?

http://investorplace.com/2014/...

While I can't possibly see it as being legitimately profitable to Microsoft to provide 3x processing power in Azure for every X1 sold, I will at least say that Microsoft at least owns the datacenters and the software stacks for Azure as opposed to EA or Ubisoft. It's possible that MS will be better able to handle the processing and bandwidth for this reason.

To be fair, Microsoft didn't says how long they'd provide 3x processing in the cloud for each console... For example, didn't Apple's Siri get dumb or dumber sometime after launch? Not trolling, just asking - siriously :-)

In other words: Past Performance is No Guarantee of Future Results

For the first time - and I'm saying this from the perspective of having used Windows from before it could network - I think you're right. The GUI change of Windows 8 is dramatic enough that a user retraining effort/cost will be incurred, plus there will be a hardware cost, plus licensing costs. If you're running a shop with more than a dozen systems...no, scratch that: Everybody should seriously look at whether they're willing to continue on the path of buying new Windows stuff because Microsoft says they have to.

The big question: Is the U.S. economy going to provide us with the income to meet Microsoft's demands for expenditures? I don't see anybody doing anything about the inequitable nature of free trade; that is, I still see other countries rigging their currency exchange rates to ensure that the United States is not competitive, and I still see U.S. corporations - to include Microsoft - prioritizing "shareholder value" and the CEO's pay over the longevity of the corporation itself and America herself. Further, I still see the banks and America's HNWIs using the oil and gasoline commodities markets as the vehicle from which they can levy their own private taxes - which means the cost of living in America will continue to rise. And as America's jobs continue to go offshore, that means the ability of offshore nations to outbid America for food raised and grown in America will continue to increase.

Finally, there are plenty of efforts underway to export U.S. shale gas as well as refined fuels such as gasoline and diesel...and there are moves underway to export U.S. crude oil. What does that mean? That means we will not be able to bring manufacturing back to America by using our own cheaper energy to offset the offshore labor made cheaper by rigged currency exchange rates.

My point is stupid policies - forced oil addiction, voodoo economics, inequitable free trade, and deregulation - have decimated our manufacturing and service sectors...savaging the bottom of our tax base while cutting taxes at the top. That means we're becoming third-world; we need to - as individuals, and as businesses - look at cutting costs.

One way is getting off of the Microsoft permanent upgrade cycle. Our leaders won't save us...they're owned by the 0.01% who are getting fatter and wealthier by destroying America. You and I - Main Street - must look to saving ourselves.

Zuckerberg beat Wall Street at their own game, and they can't stand it.

That's correct. Zuckerberg doesn't have a problem. Morgan Staley has a problem. UBS has a problem. Knight Capital Group has a problem. Goldman Sachs, Bain Capital, the Carlyle Group, and the NASDAQ have a problem.

Everybody with a clue knew the Facebook IPO was way overpriced. But the underwriters thought that retail investors and pension funds, not themselves,would end up holding the bag.

MC and Visa are a duopoly and they have quite a bit of power over their merchants including their fee structure which Congress has looked into : http://www.investorplace.com/2011/06/visa-stock-credit-cards-congress/

FirstData is a monopoly (75% of the market at least) but that fact doesn't imply that MC and VISA are not also at the same time a duopoly with the power to distort the market in their own right.

If Nokia had been able to abandon it's own failed software and adopt android I have no doubt the company would be in much better shape than it is today.

Wasn't Nokia already in massive decline, long before any hint of Windows came on the scene? They were selling feature phones, which are low profit-per-unit, and releasing dud after dud in the smartphone space while Apple & Android exploded.

They had Maemo/MeeGo and those phones sold quite well without any marketing behind them - 3:1 compared to the heavily marketed Lumias in the same markets.

They could have gone with Android, but then they would have been "just another Android maker," fighting tooth and claw with Motorola, Samsung, HTC, and the rest over the small portion of industry *profits* being earned by Android smartphones. (Remember, 50-75% of the *profits* are being earned by Apple in this space).

They could have gone with Android and just done what Amazon or B&N did - both sell Android, but heavily customized UIs so that they have a very big differentiation. Put it together with top-of-the-line hardware (or even a variety of hardware lines) and you've got something that can at least stack up to the rest of the market.

Instead, they decided to go with a third alternative - WP7, and bet that they could duplicate the iPhone model, with a different OS than anybody else is offering running on their hardware. It's a massive bet, but Microsoft and Nokia might have the marketing & financial clout to pull it off - but that very much remains to be seen. If they're able to push WP7 as a viable third alternative, they could be in a similar position as Apple: a hardware AND software package that are differentiated from the competition in some way other than "it's a different color."

Instead, Ex-Microsoftie Steven Elop, who is also one of the biggest Microsoft shareholders, took the company down a Windows-only path, and is losing everything in the process. (All Hail Bill Gates!)

Nokia has viable alternatives to using Windows, but Elop won't let them - his biggest COI is his loyalty to and ownership in Microsoft.

If Nokia had been able to abandon it's own failed software and adopt android I have no doubt the company would be in much better shape than it is today.

Wasn't Nokia already in massive decline, long before any hint of Windows came on the scene? They were selling feature phones, which are low profit-per-unit, and releasing dud after dud in the smartphone space while Apple & Android exploded.

They could have gone with Android, but then they would have been "just another Android maker," fighting tooth and claw with Motorola, Samsung, HTC, and the rest over the small portion of industry *profits* being earned by Android smartphones. (Remember, 50-75% of the *profits* are being earned by Apple in this space).

Instead, they decided to go with a third alternative - WP7, and bet that they could duplicate the iPhone model, with a different OS than anybody else is offering running on their hardware. It's a massive bet, but Microsoft and Nokia might have the marketing & financial clout to pull it off - but that very much remains to be seen. If they're able to push WP7 as a viable third alternative, they could be in a similar position as Apple: a hardware AND software package that are differentiated from the competition in some way other than "it's a different color."

I wish all phones were sold unlocked, and I wish all carrier subsidies were illegal.
The price of phones rises to absorb all the subsidy they can extract from the carriers.

The iPhone was a huge siphon, emptying AT&Ts pockets into Apples, making Apple the
richest company in sight on a phone that really does not cost that much to produce.
Now Apple are doing the same thing to the other carriers.

If people had to buy their own phones the net effect would be lower prices, or they would be buying other phones. Greece, like India doesn't allow subsidies. Apple isn't selling well there. If Apple cut its profit margin in half, they would open up vast new markets.

Some of the lower-to-mid level Android phones do well in those same markets.

Nonsense. Both are losing ground to more open Android devices.

http://www.investorplace.com/2012/02/apples-smartphone-profit-juggernaut-4q-2011-aapl-t-vz-goog/

Apple (NASDAQ:AAPL) claimed a stunning 75% of the profits earned from smartphone sales during the fourth quarter of 2011. That’s right, 75%. The Cupertino, Calif.-based technology giant did it with a global market share of only 9% during the period, according to research by Asymco and IDC.

Where does this psychopathic idea that corporate efficiency must be maintained at all cost come from?

From the amoral, out of touch psycopaths who run corporations. Money is their god. They worship it. It matters more to them than anything, more even than their families and children. There isn't a CEO of any big multinational that wouldn't let you rape his mother if you gave him enough money for it.

These are evil people. They do not care about the environment, they do not care care about right and wrong, they do not care whether anyone lives or dies as long as their pile keeps growing.

These people are pathetic.

Just FYI, a recent business IT survey shows interest in iPads stomping all other tablets: about four fifths of companies planning to buy tablets next quarter plan on buying iPads. And it shows satisfaction with iPads vastly outstripping other companies' offerings. (It's also extremely interesting to note that 38% of IT respondants using iPads say they are using them for laptop replacement.)

In other relevant iPad news, holiday sales numbers seem to show iPads squashing competitors in the consumer channel.

This independent survey of iPhone 3GS users and iPhone 4 users show that the version 4 users have fewer dropped calls and less complaints about reception.

What high prices? It's $10 more for AT&T service that is at least top two in the country.

Actually, AT&T is the bottom 1 service in the country.

Except that the iPhone has a 30% market share. http://www.investorplace.com/changewave-alliance/articles/smart-phone-market-aapl-palm-rimm.html/

But quite likely if cap and trade becomes law. He also has stakes in several "green" energy companies.

Depends on your definition of quite likely. Not a single stock in the decade has posted that kind of return. http://www.investorplace.com/experts/louis_navellier/articles/top-stocks-of-decade-clh-swn-gmcr-byi-hans.html

So you're saying you don't have an understanding of basic economics? Or that you refuse to understand it because it violates your simplistic world view? Both are sad.

No because what you said makes no sense.

Incorrect. The cost of doing business in the developed world is more expensive than in the undeveloped world.

Not in any meaningful way. The labor may be more expensive, but if people don't have money to buy the products or services the companies are offering then it doesn't matter how cheap they can make the stuff.

The western factories are steadily losing ground to the Daewoos and Tatas of the world. Their profits (adjusted for inflation) are shrinking.

Yes, manufacturing in the states has been on the decline for a long time.

They have a few choices: compete from a position that is inferior in the long term

What exactly does this mean?

level the playing field by getting rid of wealth destroying laws like western income taxes

Again what are you trying to say. That's such a loaded statement it's going to explode in my face if I even try to decipher it. You do realize that income taxes are nearly the lowest they've been since the introduction of income taxes nearly 100 years ago. Manufacturing in the US boomed in a period when income taxes for the wealthy were above 60% and even near 90%. You also realize that before there was an income tax we received virtually all of our national income through tariffs.

and minimum wages (which the economically ignorant would never let happen)

Enlighten us about what's so bad about minimum wages since Nobel laureates Paul Krugman and Joseph Stieglitz are too ignorant for you.

or use the fear of the scientifically ignorant to pressure the developing nations to level the playing field the other way.

Exactly, like telling you that going green will wreck the global economy and we'll all be out of jobs. With all this talk of ignorance you sound very insecure in your positions.

These are the same mega-corps that promote ideas like mandatory worker health benefits, minimum wage, and complicated tax accounting rules. Sure it costs them money, but it costs their small scale competitors a greater amount (in relative terms), so they win.

40 years ago there were far fewer mega corporations than there are today. The amount of wealth and control these companies have on our economy is practically unprecedented in a generation. Yet 40 years ago wages were higher, families could live on a single income (many provided by a small business) and these pesky things like minimum wages did not cause all the problems you espouse. I agree large companies love the idea about mandatory health coverage, but it's because it enslaves the workers. Once you have health care you can basically never leave your job without fear you won't be able to enroll again, or that it will be so expensive it will bankrupt you.

If the American corporations didn't want greater regulation and global environmental treaties, why did they give record amounts of money to the Obama campaign? It certainly wasn't because he wanted to make the US a capitalist country again.

We live in one of the most laisse-faire capitalist periods in nearly 80 years. There is virtually unfettered free trade. Taxes are practicall

The market is still not fully mature with 40% of Americans owning Smartphones but over the next year or two there will be many more people replacing their current smart phones than entering the smart phone market. Those unsatisfied with their current offering are the ones most likely to move to something new. Therefore, it seems the Android is much more likely to kill off market share from everyone except iPhone. Since most smartphone manufacturers need to use someone else's software (I mean the # of manufacturers since they only have 23% market share between them), I suspect this means Window Mobile.

This is of course a US View and the market is much more open in most of the World. The key to maintaining market share is customer satisfaction. How many sidekicks would be sold now even if T-Mobile had them up for sale?

Source of data

You can calm down. They're studying cheap ways to extract oil from the tar sands reserves in Alberta. It's going to happen. And there's more salvagable oil there than there is in all liquid oil in the entire planet. So it isn't going to be a problem for a long time, definitely not in the next decade.

Actually, the companies making oil from the Canadian tar sands make a decent profit at $25 per barrel already. Their big problem/concern is price stability; because of the huge capital investment required to get production going in the tar sands they would have to pack up and shut down (and lose their whole investment) if the long term price of oil dropped below $25/barrel. However, due to increased demand from the developing world it looks like the long term price of oil will stay at least $40/barrel. You can read about it here:

http://www.investorplace.com/free/navl73.htm

In short, there is no worry about running out of oil anytime soon - there is something like 70 years of reserves if you count Canada, and that is including projected increases in demand. In addition, as the years go on new supplies of oil WILL be discovered, they will just be more expensive to get at (things like deep sea oil rigs like in the sci-fi movie Abyss etc.) which will mean the days of cheap oil are over, but there will be a ready supply if you're willing to pay.