Slashdot Mirror

Why the hell wasn't this the case before?

...

I assume they're talking about the sensor behind the pitot hole here. Making that the only sensor, and non-redundant, is particularly questionable.

I would assume you're correct here, but it still begs the question as to why this sensor was non-redundant, and how that SPOF design ultimately got approved.

I am baffled as to why, if the problem had been identified, the planes weren't grounded until the software fix was implemented.

Alternate source:
https://www.morningstar.com/ne...

Is this a bug or a feature? Adobe has been doing pretty well, thankyouverymuch. Personally, I can't stand it and have plans to migrate off of the 'cloud' but it has been embraced by most (non Slashdot) users.

The effective yield on TSLA bonds is 5.5%, this is nowhere near any sort of panic level. And "wiping out their yield" doesn't make sense either- the yield is the yield and based on what you purchased the bond for. If you are saying that the bonds lost 5% of their value according to their resale price, that is still only one years worth of yield, but otherwise this is just a blip in the market for buy and hold purchasers of bonds.

In less than 3 months the loss of principal on TSLA's unsecured bonds have wiped out a year's worth of yield. I would not be happy if I was a holder. http://finra-markets.morningst...

There are a lot of criticisms around Tesla as a company, or at least a for-profit company, but having bonds trade at "95 cents on the dollar" is not one of them. Bond prices fluctuate all the time just like the stock market, and frequently go above and below par (IE 100 cents on the dollar). Bond prices are based around risk for a given level of yield. GM's bonds have gone well above and below par as well: http://finra-markets.morningst...

The effective yield on TSLA bonds is 5.5%, this is nowhere near any sort of panic level. And "wiping out their yield" doesn't make sense either- the yield is the yield and based on what you purchased the bond for. If you are saying that the bonds lost 5% of their value according to their resale price, that is still only one years worth of yield, but otherwise this is just a blip in the market for buy and hold purchasers of bonds.

Even if it was in Japanese Yen which is ~ 7 billion, as their TOTAL asset is ~ $220 million USD, they'd have an extremely difficult time to raise even a billion. http://financials.morningstar....

Most CEOs get paid mostly in stocks as the capital gains is less than their income tax would be. I would think they owned more than that.

Exactly. The raw data is here. In sum:

John Gamble (CFO) sold 6,500 out of 48,578 shares (~13%) for a total of ~$950k. Total comp in 2016 (source here) was ~$3.1 million, including ~$1.2 million in stock.
Rodolfo Ploder (President) sold 1,179 out of 44,827 shares (~2.5%) for a total of $170k. Total comp in 2016 was ~$2.8 million, including $785k in stock.
Joseph Loughran (President) sold 4,000 out of 42,723 shares (~9%) for a total of ~$485k. Couldn't find his total comp, but reasonable to believe it's in the same range and Nasdaq shows him receiving at least $1 million in stock this year at a glance.

So they all sold well less than a year's worth of stock given their compensation packages. And they all made much larger sales earlier this year. Gamble's transaction in particular is a fraction of the ~48,000 shares he sold in May to the tune of $6.5 million. Ploder sold 8k shares in February for ~$1 million, and Loughran sold 7k shares in February for ~$900k.

Given all that, the early August trades don't strike me as a smoking gun at all.

Dillards corporate headquarters only hires H1-B visa workers for their IT dept. CEO salary last year was $500,000,000.

One would think he could have gotten by on only$498,000,000 and kept the American jobs, but nooooooo. Somebody like that has no conscience.

Did you just go all Donald on us? 500 million US dollars?

Yes, he makes more than the rest of us combined, but give the hyperbole a break, shall we?

This is a company that has yet to show a profit from 200+ million regular users.

http://financials.morningstar....

Just in the last month.

As unsophisticated people who have dealt with him in the past have concluded, with Trump, you need to read the fine print.

Having Donald J Trump, his wife and business executives raving that great things will happen if you throw in your lot with him; sorry, that isn't the fine print. You're gonna go down.

Intuit top management got a huge pay raise in 2014. That money's gotta come from somewhere.

False, the effect is not very great. Plus, do you not know what an index fund is (per GP)? The fund management takes care of that for you.

For example, the Vanguard 500 Index fund is indeed up 48% in that time period. If you'd invested $10,000 in the fund on 12/1/2012, then the value in your account would today be $14,843.15, with zero additional work on your part.

http://quotes.morningstar.com/fund/VFINX/f?t=VFINX

Because if I use a firm who charges 0.05% and gives me a 3% return, that's better than a firm that charges 1% and gives me a 10% return.

Funds that charge higher fees DO NOT give better returns.

Higher Fees Don't Mean Higher Returns, Study Finds 24% of Active Mutual Fund Managers Outperform the Market In every single time period and data point tested, low-cost funds beat high-cost funds Morningstar Study Says High Fees Are Bad for Investment Performance

Anybody that thinks that high fees are buying high performance is delusional.

A reasonable point. Often (as is evidenced by the links you provided), higher fees are associated with organizations which maximize their profits at their customers' expense. My point was most certainly not "you should find a money manager who charges you more! They're the ones who will make you the most money!" My point was that money managers who charge a percentage of money under management (regardless of what that percentage might be) have a strong incentive to maximize your returns, as it maximizes their profits as well.

That said, my point about returns is still valid. If (and, as you correctly point out, that's a big if) you are being charged a certain percentage and are receiving a certain return, that doesn't necessarily mean that it's impossible for someone to pay a higher fee and get an even higher return. How does that disclaimer go again? "Past performance is no guarantee of future performance."

The truth is that regardless of how someone manages (or pays someone else to manage) their assets, they should keep a close eye on them and make sure they are maximizing their returns. Making the point that, in the aggregate, higher fees don't necessarily translate into higher returns, is useful and should be factored into investment decisions.

However, each person needs to make their own decisions and those decisions may or may not track with the graph. It's in that decision space that the aphorism generally (and incorrectly) attributed to PT Barnum is proven correct every single day.

Because if I use a firm who charges 0.05% and gives me a 3% return, that's better than a firm that charges 1% and gives me a 10% return.

Funds that charge higher fees DO NOT give better returns.

Higher Fees Don't Mean Higher Returns, Study Finds
24% of Active Mutual Fund Managers Outperform the Market
In every single time period and data point tested, low-cost funds beat high-cost funds
Morningstar Study Says High Fees Are Bad for Investment Performance

Anybody that thinks that high fees are buying high performance is delusional.

It would be nice to know how many of these super electric cars have to be sold for the manufacturer to break even. With and without the tax credits.

Tesla lost $74 million on sales just short of $2 billion in 2013. Cumulative losses from 2009 through 2013 were about $935 million.
http://quote.morningstar.com/s...

Total Return (annualized %), over the past 5,10,15 years:

MSFT: 18.8, 5.0, 0.25
SP500: 18.5, 6.8, 4.1

Slightly lower performance that the standard benchmark, and with higher volatility to boot (as a tech/software company during 1998-2001, the starting date matters A LOT). Yes, the law of large numbers applies, but still, not a great reflection on Ballmer.

Source: http://performance.morningstar...

You can't beat the averages. People who try always finish behind the averages because their costs are higher or they take on more risk.

There are a few things I disagree with here (YYMV). First, it's quite possible to beat the averages over time, but it take a lot of study and discipline, a little time, and probably some aptitude. But most folks are lacking one or more of those things, and for those folks, I agree that a low-cost index fund probably is the best option.

Second, regarding cost, investing in individual stocks is actually the lowest cost option available for buy-and-hold investors. Most online brokerages now will do a trade of any size for less than $10. (I paid $8 for one today.) So, for example, if you buy $10,000 worth of a stock for $10 and hold it for 5 years, your cost is 0.02%. Compare that to the expense ratio of 0.17% for Vanguard's S&P 500 Fund. Even if you hold for only one year, your cost is 0.1%, which is still less than spending a year in an index fund. Of course, for investors who trade regularly (not recommmended), the cost is much higher than the index fund. So, the cost comparison between the two really depends on the habits of the investor.

Third, individual investors who follow a disciplined, value-based approach actually take on less risk than the market indexes. Basically, buying a small set of highly selected excellent companies for less than they're worth is less risky than buying a broad basket of stocks via an index fund. Just ask Warren Buffett.

Bank Americorp owns Visa and MasterCard

False. Both are publicly owned and publicly traded corporations.

Feel free to point out where BankAmericorp appears, or for that matter where anyone holds an ownership stake in excess of 10%.

Bank Americorp owns Visa and MasterCard

False. Both are publicly owned and publicly traded corporations.

Feel free to point out where BankAmericorp appears, or for that matter where anyone holds an ownership stake in excess of 10%.

Morningstar has had "growth of $10,000" for a long time. I used to get frustrated with their charts being too small, but it seems much better now. I don't know if they changed things, or if I just didn't poke around enough when I used it before. Here is an example. To get that chart, I entered the symbol in the "Quote" input, and then clicked the "More..." link in the upper right corner of the small graph. Maybe I should just give up completely on Yahoo! Finance now...

Morningstar has had "growth of $10,000" for a long time. I used to get frustrated with their charts being too small, but it seems much better now. I don't know if they changed things, or if I just didn't poke around enough when I used it before. Here is an example. To get that chart, I entered the symbol in the "Quote" input, and then clicked the "More..." link in the upper right corner of the small graph. Maybe I should just give up completely on Yahoo! Finance now...

GM is losing money again

What?

Daniel F. Akerson - Chairman and CEO: Thanks, Randy. In summary, we had a solid quarter. Each region posted a profit . GM Q2 2011 conference call

They made $2.5B in what is historically a slow quarter.

This is not what Buffett meant, and anyone who follows Buffett knows that "moats" are the IP, patents, and low-cost advantages (among other things) that protect a company's business assets. Chrome OS, Android, etc. do nothing to "widen the moat" (other than maybe some name recognition). Slashdot editors: Please do your jobs and edit. This is a bad article that deserves to be ignored as worthless drivel by a Google shill.

Some transporation and oil companies and maybe a few wharehouses but the vast majority stay in China and it is stolen out of the US economy.

So when Caterpillar exports bulldozers to China and India, they're stealing from China's and India's economy? And what of the rare earth minerals from China? Those are needed for many things you enjoy. Or coltan, the mining of which fuels the conflict in the Congo, which your cellphone needs. Or the deforestation of Indonesia's forests, for the lumber used to make furniture and to clear the land for palm oil plantations for biofuels.

Oh, and let's not forget all those dollars shipped across the Canadian and Mexican borders with the US for oil. Dollars going to Saudi Arabia for oil? HAHA!!! Forget it, Canada is the US's biggest supplier of petroleum and Mexico is right behind them.

Your dollar moves all around it helping everyone else including industries out. Now picture it with a small hole with the air going into another baloon called China?

Yes, it helps everyone, including you and me. And I already said China is at fault for not having free trade.

FYI does Walmart even pay dividends?

Yes Walmart pays dividends. Here is Morningstar's 5 year history of Walmart dividends. And as of right now Walmart's P/E, Price per Earnings ratio, is 14.08. That is how long it would take to payoff the cost of shares in Walmart, 14.08 years. That is if all of the earnings are paid out.

That is what is happening now. Eventually there will be no more pressure to keep it inflated which is what the recession is all about.

Not that good with economics are you? The reason the economy collapsed and we're now in recession is because people borrowed more than they could pay back. People were taking out mortgages than instead of only taking 20 or 30 years to pay off, were going to take twice that. And why? Because they were hoping the house bubble would keep on inflating. But when prices didn't those borrowers couldn't afford their mortgage payments. They also started using their credit cards to pay their debts as well as living expenses. Debts mounted ever higher until people were bankrupt. So what did lenders do? They cut lending, that's what. Employers were then unable to borrow money to pay employees. Don't ask me why but instead of making sure they had enough money to pay employees many employers took out short term loans. Of course the bank bailout supposedly was supposed to get banks to start lending again. However because there was nothing in the bailout that required banks to lend money they didn't.

Sure free trade can help the world economy but it has to cost the American economy to create it. Many economsts agree if you are willing to research

Oh, I have. But first, your own link has Peter Schiff saying free trade is the answer: "The government is actually the source of our problem, that the stimulus is not the solution, the stimulus is why the economy is so messed up in the first place. And I want to go to Washington to end that." He goes on then says "we have to let free market forces repair the damage done to the economy by government intervention".

Now I didn't listen or watch the whole thing but that right there backs me up. Now I suggest you also check out

I also think it wouldn't be that big a stretch to consider not disclosing these numbers a a violation of insider trading laws, given that the top executives and the board of directors would be familiar with the counts.

Typical /. speculation with high, undeserved, levels of confidence expressed (and rewarded by typically ignorant moderators).

A company's top executives and board of directors often have access to quite a bit of knowledge that is not known to the public. This is not illegal. In fact, if keeping this knowledge secret is in the best interests of the company, then arguably they have a fiduciary duty to maintain the secrecy of the knowledge.

That's not as big of a deal as you'd think. Anyone who is the beneficial owner (directly or indirectly) of 10% or more of a company's stock, or who is a director or officer of the company that issued the stock, has to file ownership reports with the SEC. 35 U.S.C. Sec. 78p(a). Outside investors may not have access to all the information that these key insiders have. However, outside investors can easily find out how many shares each insider has and whether the key insiders are buying or selling shares. Take a look.

There has not been a single fund that has returned 200% over the last five years (which is what you are claiming -- 1.25^5 == 3.05). If that's really the return you've made over the last five years, then I know some people who will want to talk with you about opportunities. Especially considering hedge funds averaged losses in the teens last year, with young funds having a stdev of about 6.5% (from an category-leading loss of only 11%).

Not that I want to help the guy in his penis measuring competition, but there are some funds that have done just that. They are all invested invested in either Latin America or in Metals/Minerals. You can see them all here:
http://screen.morningstar.com/FundSearch/FundRank.html?fundCategory=all&screen=tr5yr

Note, although that page says "5 year total return", that is inaccurate. It is listing a 5 year annualized return. To confirm, look up the #1 on google finance
http://www.google.com/finance?q=MUTF:PRLAX

See on the right of the graph, it shows a 5 year annualized return of +31.12%. Loot at the 5 year graph. You can see that Oct 15, 2004 it traded at 13.44, and todays price is 47.24

I was orginally going to respond to Kodak man but am comfortable just providing this link of their amazing success. http://quote.morningstar.com/stock/s.aspx?t=EK&culture=en-US&region=USA&r=469272&byrefresh=yes

Whoa Nellie! I've always wanted to send this reply but never found a sufficiently relevant post of which to respond.

All corporate IT departments worldwide are basically Johns looking for the cheapest but most satisfying solution to their current needs.

So imagine you are a CTO driving down the street and you see on your right a woman who, while attractive, also seems to provide a significant amount of additional services. However when you roll down your window you find out that in exchange for her services you have to marry her and hire her twenty children from a previous marriage in addition to signing a pre-nuptial agreement that pretty much sucks for you. (IBM)

You continue down the road and see the most beautiful woman in the world and she is guaranteed to be free of any viruses and diseases. Unfortunately she tells you that once you use her services you will be physically incapable of even looking at another women and if you try they will sue both you and the other women in court. Plus she is even more expensive than IBM. (Apple)

After deciding to keep looking you see a girl who looks less than a biscuit over fifteen but claims to be twenty-five. She is very enthusiastic and actually offers to do anything you want absolutely free. When you ask for specifics she excuses herself and walks over to a group of people who are feverously checking their computers for the most recent, coolest and insane method of satisfying your needs. When she returns she absolutely insures that she can do everything that you want but makes you sign an agreement that you have to share everything that you do with her with everyone else on the planet and she cannot completely guarantee that you will be satisfied. Just before you leave the attractive woman from IBM shows up and offers to throw in the fifteen year old for free as long as you still marry her, hire her children and sign the pre-nuptial agreement. (OpenSource)

You continue down the road and see a woman so ugly that you can't tell whether she has makeup on or not. She can provide all of the services of all the other girls and cheaper than everyone but the fifteen year old. She cannot guarantee you won't get any viruses or other diseases but promises to provide as many vaccines and cures necessary to keep you from dying. She seems to have a lot of customers and very few of them have died of anything serious so you are very interested in using her services. (Microsoft)

Before you make a final decision you pull over and roll your windows down to get some air. Suddenly you see a women that looks like nothing you have ever seen but different. She is clearly beautiful but has a strange glow of experience. You actually get out of the car and walk up to her wondering how she would compare to all the other girls. She does not speak English very well but within a very short time you realize that she has as much if not more experience that everyone else. When you ask how much she charges she provides a printout of over a thousand different services at half of what any of the other women are charging, save of course for the fifteen year old, and provides SLAs that put all of the other girls to shame. (Offshore)

You have finally made up your mind. You are going with the offshore service and invite her to join you in you car. She apologizes and mentions that she is just the representative for the team and if you stop at the next light you can pick up the other ten girls.

Because I'm no Ron Jeremy I will leave the end of the story, but suffice to say they separated into five groups of two and he fell asleep before they had decided on a

20% per year is not outrageously high

No?

Looks pretty good to me.

... on a low. Perhaps a good buy, as Tamiflu is said to help.

Or should I say clever timing?

CC.

That would go against his long running wealth redistribution idea. I don't know why people ignore this, but it's clear that wealth redistribution is exactly what he wants to do. He's even said it himself.

It's easy to postulate that the reason Obama didn't become a lawyer and then a potential judge is that he saw early on that the current court system can't get his wealth redistribution plan done. The only way to do this is through politics and the 'gun' of the US tax system (we will take your money or you'll go to jail).

No, Apple was already back on its feet financially by the time the iPod shipped.

I remember Steve Jobs's first use (I'm pretty sure) of his "One Last Thing" catchphrase at Macworld 1998 to announce Apple's first quartly profit in ages. However, revenues were down half a billion dollars from the same quarter the previous year ($1.6 billion down from $2.1 billion).

Three years later, quarterly revenues would be down to about $1 billion and Apple would be losing money again. Apple had a net loss for the year 2001 and a net operating loss in 2003. Revenues/profits bounced back, then took off in 2004 and 2005. Note that iTunes Music Store and iTunes for Windows were launched/released during 2003. In January 2007, even with increased Mac sales, 48% of revenues were from iPod sales.

A nice page with Apple's income data over the last ten years: AAPL - Apple, Inc. Stock Report | Financial Statements

I'm not sure if the iPod "saved" Apple, but I don't for sure if Apple could have continued with Mac sales being their primary revenue source (without the iPod halo effect and a smaller share of the market).

I agree with all of the above points, save two: lagging sales and stock market indifference. If you look at sales of personal computers, you'll see that Vista is taking hold despite all of the negative attention that it has attracted. Simply put, the mainstream media haven't covered the disadvantages of Vista to nearly the same extent as the tech press, with the result that consumers are largely uninformed. Those banner ads saying "Dell recommends Windows Vista" work, because consumers by and large don't realize that Microsoft is paying Dell to put up those ads, and that Dell sales representatives will more than happily recommend XP when asked personally.

As for stock price, Microsoft is doing rather well. They aren't flying at their record height of $50 a share, but the trend has been upward of late, with MSFThitting a 52 week high last month.

Thanks for that.

I tried it with Opera 9.24, the latest version, and it still displays animated ads at Morningstar.com (big stock, bonds and mutual funds web site), but is far better than before.

I wish browsers just worked, instead of making the user become an expert in configuration.

Publisher and developer Midway has announced that it is revising its Q3 estimates due primarily to delays of its headline PlayStation 3 titles

For its third quarter, Midway has revised its sales estimates downward from $50 million to $39 million, and revised full year sales down sharply from $225 million to $170 million

In its conference call with investors, Zucker admitted that the company has "encountered some bumps along the way" in creating its standardized engine technology that it hopes to use for its future titles, but said the the company "continues to believe it's the fastest path to market growth."

http://tools.morningstar.com/charts/Mcharts.aspx?S ecurity=DELL&sLevel=A

Dell's not doing so badly.

Seeing that Microsoft's 2005 revenues are 39.788 Billion and that their net income is 12.254 Billion, both of those numbers are a significant chunck of the United States's 2005 GDP of 12455.8 Billion. Microsoft's net income for 2005 is .098% of the United States's GDP and its total revenues for 2005 are .319% of the United States's GDP. Think about that for one second: one company. If you add 3M to Microsoft you get total revenues of 60.955 Billion 39.788+21.1670 billion). Now let's add P&G. Suddenly, you've got an additiona, 56.7410 billion to bring three companies total revenues up to 117.696, or damn near 1% of the nation's GDP. Simply put, Microsoft, along with the (relatively) few other gigantic corporations are virtually untouchable because they are too large of a portion of our economy to collapse without significantly harming the economy.

Seeing that Microsoft's 2005 revenues are 39.788 Billion and that their net income is 12.254 Billion, both of those numbers are a significant chunck of the United States's 2005 GDP of 12455.8 Billion. Microsoft's net income for 2005 is .098% of the United States's GDP and its total revenues for 2005 are .319% of the United States's GDP. Think about that for one second: one company. If you add 3M to Microsoft you get total revenues of 60.955 Billion 39.788+21.1670 billion). Now let's add P&G. Suddenly, you've got an additiona, 56.7410 billion to bring three companies total revenues up to 117.696, or damn near 1% of the nation's GDP. Simply put, Microsoft, along with the (relatively) few other gigantic corporations are virtually untouchable because they are too large of a portion of our economy to collapse without significantly harming the economy.

Seeing that Microsoft's 2005 revenues are 39.788 Billion and that their net income is 12.254 Billion, both of those numbers are a significant chunck of the United States's 2005 GDP of 12455.8 Billion. Microsoft's net income for 2005 is .098% of the United States's GDP and its total revenues for 2005 are .319% of the United States's GDP. Think about that for one second: one company. If you add 3M to Microsoft you get total revenues of 60.955 Billion 39.788+21.1670 billion). Now let's add P&G. Suddenly, you've got an additiona, 56.7410 billion to bring three companies total revenues up to 117.696, or damn near 1% of the nation's GDP. Simply put, Microsoft, along with the (relatively) few other gigantic corporations are virtually untouchable because they are too large of a portion of our economy to collapse without significantly harming the economy.

Seeing that Microsoft's 2005 revenues are 39.788 Billion and that their net income is 12.254 Billion, both of those numbers are a significant chunck of the United States's 2005 GDP of 12455.8 Billion. Microsoft's net income for 2005 is .098% of the United States's GDP and its total revenues for 2005 are .319% of the United States's GDP. Think about that for one second: one company. If you add 3M to Microsoft you get total revenues of 60.955 Billion 39.788+21.1670 billion). Now let's add P&G. Suddenly, you've got an additiona, 56.7410 billion to bring three companies total revenues up to 117.696, or damn near 1% of the nation's GDP. Simply put, Microsoft, along with the (relatively) few other gigantic corporations are virtually untouchable because they are too large of a portion of our economy to collapse without significantly harming the economy.

Nintendo Market Capital: 34.5 billion
Sony Market Capital: 47.6 billion

I'm actually a bit surprised that their market caps have even gotten that close, but I suppose it has as much to do with Sony's decline as it does Nintendo's resurgence.

Sony encompasses a great deal more markets than Nintendo, which is why they're significantly larger than Nintendo even at their worst.

Nintendo Market Capital: 34.5 billion
Sony Market Capital: 47.6 billion

I'm actually a bit surprised that their market caps have even gotten that close, but I suppose it has as much to do with Sony's decline as it does Nintendo's resurgence.

Sony encompasses a great deal more markets than Nintendo, which is why they're significantly larger than Nintendo even at their worst.

Again, I hurt to burst your bubble of outrage, but the $40B was REVENUE, not operating income. Taxes are collected based upon operating income, not revenue.

Also, looking at the past 10 years financial statements, I don't see these tax-free years you refer to: http://quicktake.morningstar.com/Stock/Income10.as p?Country=USA&Symbol=MSFT&stocktab=finance&pgid=qt qnnavfinstate

Certainly nothing to justify your outlandish claim that they don't pay _any_ taxes.

Areas that Yahoo works for me:

* Start Page. My Yahoo isn't bad, but I actually use their main page - although I only see it once or twice a day, it's a surprisingly good design.
* Yahoo News is my favorite news page on the internet. Google News isn't bad, but it's just an aggregator - Yahoo at has quality feeds (Associated Press, Reuters) - and they actually host their own content.
* The new webmail (that they purchased Oddpost to get, and is a full-function email client in your browser) is absolutely fantastic. It's good enough that I pay for it ($19 per year gets you no advertising on the site or in your outgoing email plus more space than I'll ever use). Server-side mailbox rules are fantastic - and I never have to configure another email client, or worry about backing up my mail when I change computers.
* Address book. It's super-complete (has fields for every IM service, for example) and it integrates with email and Yahoo Maps.
* Yahoo Maps is still better than Google Maps. They did a recent update that surpasses Google for the flash, but Yahoo still has Google beaten in a very important area for me - printability. Have you ever tried *printing* a Google map? It doesn't! Yahoo's map directions print very nicely!

Their acquired properties:

* Bookmarks. I wouldn't be able to manage my bookmarks without them.
* Photos. It's a photographer's paradise - for both hosting and browsing photos.

I also have the Yahoo Toolbar installed in Firefox, configured with icons set pointing to most of the above. The areas that Yahoo does *not* work for me are:

* RSS reader. Google Reader is far superior to any of the RSS solutions offered by Yahoo.
* Finance. They've lost me to MorningStar. I still occasionally check Yahoo Finance for their news feeds, but MorningStar has better portfolio tools (and I have a subscription to them anyway).
* Search. Google is still better. For popular things, Yahoo is just as competent, but Google is better for those hard-to-find and obscure searches.

Put it this way: losing Google would be a minor inconvenience, but losing Yahoo would break the internet for me. Although bear in mind that I've been using the internet (and Yahoo) since around '94 - long before Google was around.

Thanks LaughingCoder for a good response to the "I call BS" poster. Readers who don't understand finance should be well served by your post.

One point I'd also add to your comment about returns is that this data does not include expense ratios, which are usually significantly higher than average in managed green funds. Part of this is due to the funds not getting near as much capital (due to the market's awareness that they deliver poor returns historically) as other funds, so the fund's costs are spread across less invested dollars. There may be other factors that increase the costs as well.

I work with emerging markets analysis and am careful about fund expenses as I would hope all investors would be. While the Green Century Equity Fund (GCEQX) delivers a 7% return, it has a 1.5% expense ratio PLUS taxes that are distributed to the investor (which need to be accounted for as well). Your best return is actually 5.5% pre-tax consideration, and as mutual funds pass on their tax costs from trading, you really should consider that as well.

An alternative (that has its own pros and cons) for someone who is determined to invest in clean energy is something like PowerShares Clean Energy WilderHill ETF PBW. Read up on exchange traded fundss on someplace like Morningstar if you're not familiar with index investing. While I'm not recommending the clean energy sector, I'd suggest that if you're totally determined to invest in it for your own reasons, you at least look at lower expense opportunities like an ETF (in this case, the expense ratio is 0.6%). Otherwise, you'll be paying some firm to have well paid managers delivering lousy returns which is a real shame. And if you're prudent, you won't expect a positive return on your green investments - the sector has too much new venture risk, is very exposed to crude market risk (e.g. if other energy forms become significantly cheaper again, nobody buys their products), and in most cases this leads to liquidity and ultimately solvency risk. In a nutshell, the normal volatility storms of the energy market is too much for these little boats to weather.

According the Bloomberg, it was backdating. And when the Reuters article mentioned a "stock options scandal," there is little question as to what it refers. Taking a step back and viewing the original article as an investor, it seems certain that options backdating was implied. That's the only "scandal" going on right now.

Backdating options is illegal, but it could have been an honest mistake. A delayed executive approval can effectively backdate an options grant, but whether that happened at Apple is unknown at this point.

There's no bi-yearly upgrade cycle that everyone adheres to. Some people have upgraded, some haven't, and cpu sales cycles are actually quite smooth. Look at a graph of intel's or dells quarterly sales. Intel can bring out new tech whenever it wants, and if it is good, it will sell.

http://www.investors.com/editorial/IBDArticles.asp ?artsec=17&issue=20060216

http://quicktake.morningstar.com/Stock/Income10.as p?Country=USA&Symbol=INTC&stocktab=finance&pgid=qt qnnavfinstate

The Shearon Harris plant has been selected by Progress Energy for their proposed new reactor -- a Westinghouse AP-1000.

Morningstar news report

This will be the second reactor on this site. The existing one was the last commercial nuclear reactor certified for operation in the US after the 3 Mile Island accident.

Because the new rector is more powerful than the one built in the 1980's, they may have to increase the depth of Harris Lake to provide additional cooling water capacity. Which would suck, as the area where I go mountain biking would be under water. But better that than rolling blackouts.

Chip H.

Google's stock got clipped because the whole market went down.

Google Vs. Nasdaq.

Google is down about 15% in the past five days. The Nasdaq is down about 3%. Any more misleading comments you want to make?

Target buy prices from wall street analysts rangfe fromn $480 to $560

I'm not sure what analysts you're using (perhaps they own stock in Google and wish to artificially inflate it - and the free Yahoo Finance valuations are not that accurate), but MorningStar values Google significantly less (M* have a free 2-week trial that I highly recommend if you're interested in finding out what their valuation is).

Apple had a similar correction this week, they're down 11%. Their stock is similarly overpriced.

In other words: if this correction takes these stocks back to anywhere near their true value, it could get messy if you're a short-term Google or Apple stockholder. If you're a long-term holder, good for you (although I hope you knew it was overvalued when you bought in).

If you think it isn't hard for them to go from 14 billion in revenues to either 60 billion or 100 billion, within five years, look at what they have done in the past.

http://quicktake.morningstar.com/Stock/Income10.as p?Country=USA&Symbol=AAPL&stocktab=finance000

then look at how long it took Dell, a much more consistently and arguably better managed company, to do what you are talking about

http://quicktake.morningstar.com/Stock/Income10.as p?Country=USA&Symbol=dell&stocktab=finance

OK, not satisfied, have a look at Cisco

http://quicktake.morningstar.com/Stock/Income10.as p?Country=USA&Symbol=csco&stocktab=finance

I know, I know, this time its different....

The fact is, getting this kind of revenue is very difficult, almost never happens. And that's why buying into a multi billion dollar company at PE ratios of 40+ as an investment is a sure fire way to lose your shirt over time.

Momentum speculation is a different matter altogether. A different way for the amateur to lose. But the great thing about markets, we can all bet our futures differently. I think you'll lose your shirt, but good luck!

If you think it isn't hard for them to go from 14 billion in revenues to either 60 billion or 100 billion, within five years, look at what they have done in the past.

http://quicktake.morningstar.com/Stock/Income10.as p?Country=USA&Symbol=AAPL&stocktab=finance000

then look at how long it took Dell, a much more consistently and arguably better managed company, to do what you are talking about

http://quicktake.morningstar.com/Stock/Income10.as p?Country=USA&Symbol=dell&stocktab=finance

OK, not satisfied, have a look at Cisco

http://quicktake.morningstar.com/Stock/Income10.as p?Country=USA&Symbol=csco&stocktab=finance

I know, I know, this time its different....

The fact is, getting this kind of revenue is very difficult, almost never happens. And that's why buying into a multi billion dollar company at PE ratios of 40+ as an investment is a sure fire way to lose your shirt over time.

Momentum speculation is a different matter altogether. A different way for the amateur to lose. But the great thing about markets, we can all bet our futures differently. I think you'll lose your shirt, but good luck!

If you think it isn't hard for them to go from 14 billion in revenues to either 60 billion or 100 billion, within five years, look at what they have done in the past.

http://quicktake.morningstar.com/Stock/Income10.as p?Country=USA&Symbol=AAPL&stocktab=finance000

then look at how long it took Dell, a much more consistently and arguably better managed company, to do what you are talking about

http://quicktake.morningstar.com/Stock/Income10.as p?Country=USA&Symbol=dell&stocktab=finance

OK, not satisfied, have a look at Cisco

http://quicktake.morningstar.com/Stock/Income10.as p?Country=USA&Symbol=csco&stocktab=finance

I know, I know, this time its different....

The fact is, getting this kind of revenue is very difficult, almost never happens. And that's why buying into a multi billion dollar company at PE ratios of 40+ as an investment is a sure fire way to lose your shirt over time.

Momentum speculation is a different matter altogether. A different way for the amateur to lose. But the great thing about markets, we can all bet our futures differently. I think you'll lose your shirt, but good luck!