There's only two kinds of stock - growth and value. If you can figure out how much a business is worth based on well-understood metrics (EPS, Book value, etc.) then it's a value stock, and it's PE should be in line with the market with various modifiers based on the specifics of these metrics. Otherwise (you add fantasy and predict "big things") it's growth, and the PE is generally a multiple of the market. Apple has been too large to be a "growth stock" for some time, and arguably made the transition the minute it began paying dividends, or the PE fell to the market value whichever you like. My point is, I don't think it's transitioning *now*, though Berkshire's sudden interest does indicate that Buffet thinks the stock is very undervalued (he wants to see a big multiple between when he buys and sells).
I'm not sure why this is being marked as a Troll given the topic and the obvious political slant of the commenter being responded to (rated 5/Insightful). Goes to show just how partisan even/. is now.
Cruz's evangelism and insistence at making it part of the public sphere is hardly Conservative. Most of the founders were Deists, Washington was Anglican. None were evangelical.
Your statement, while logical on it's face, contradicts supreme court doctrine (which I would probably agree with you should be overturned). Look for "substantial effect", in particular
The cumulative effect argument discussed above was firmly established by the Court in Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942). 7 U.S.C.S. 1281 and 1340 (the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938) established production quotas for wheat farmers and imposed a penalty on excess production. Filburn, a farmer in Montgomery County, Ohio, was not engaged in growing wheat for commercial purposes on a large scale. Instead, he grew wheat “to sell a portion of the crop; to feed part to poultry and livestock on the farm, some of which is sold; to use some in making flour for home consumption; and to keep the rest for the following seeding.” Wickard at 114. Under the Act, Filburn’s 1941 allotment was 11.1 acres of wheat, for a total of approximately 223 bushels. But Filburn harvested 23 acres in total, which yielded 239 bushels in excess of his quota. In accordance with the Act he was subject to a penalty of 49 cents per bushel, which he refused to pay.
Wickard is important because while Filburn harvested more than double his quota it is nonetheless clear that his extra 239 bushels of wheat could not, of itself, have any significant impact on interstate commerce. Furthermore, the excess wheat in question was not intended to be placed into the stream of commerce, but rather was to be used primarily for home consumption. The rationale for finding Congressional authority to regulate this activity pursuant to the Commerce Clause comes from cumulative effect that many similar farmers raising wheat for their personal use would have on the demand for wheat purchased in the marketplace. “Home-grown wheat in this sense competes with wheat in commerce [and] would have a substantial effect in defeating and obstructing the purpose of the Act". Wickard at 128-129. So even if an activity in itself does not have a substantial effect on interstate commerce, Congress may still regulate the activity if there is a substantial cumulative economic effect on interstate commerce.
Agree on the PARC comment - once I saw that I stopped reading. Apple PAID Xerox for the access to their lab in stock. Xerox was rooting for Apple to succeed and they weren't doing a damn thing with Star, the DLion, or anything else that was making a profit. Except sell more toner.
When they say: "Every TV set we all make loses money" it doesn't mean what you think it means.
What they are really saying is "Every TV set we all make doesn't continue to make us money once it's been sold"
Nonsense. Read the article:
"Sony said last week that it expects a loss of more than $1 billion in the fiscal year through March, in part because of its struggling television business, which has been a thorn in its side for close to a decade. The business has bled red ink because of plunging prices and declining demand."
I think they're charging for bringing in new subscribers, not offering someone else's content. How is this different from the cheap subscriptions repackagers sell for which the publisher gets $0 but the name of a new sucker to send renewal notices to?
Most magazines and newspapers sell their wares for the cost of physical publication, and make the money for content and profit from ads. That argues the eventual subscription price will be $0.00 for which Apple's 30% cut will not be an issue.
Only clueless moron would buy ANYTHING from itunes. The fresh fruit is free (of the hardware and software), the rotten fruit is to bind yourself to one manufacturer.
Parse that for me will you? Isn't fruit (and brains for that matter) hardware? Isn't the software your mind? the notion "fresh fruit" is already bound to both hardware and software.
Suggest you work on your metaphors and your case isn't helped by the ad hominim.
False yourself. A "dollar" was originally, and in the proverbial grandparent's day, a denotation of an amount of gold. Before fiat money came along, one could exchange gold notes for gold and silver notes for silver, and the amount of gold or silver one exchanged (either way) didn't change with time.
Once the link between currency and any kind of backing store was broken, the "value" of the money was no longer fixed. An hour of labor, a pencil, or whatever, no longer had some common measure (or they did, but the paper money devalued).
Legality may not be the same as morality, but every legal system is a moral system (moral means "customary" not "right" in any absolute sense). Arguing that something is or is not moral comes down to a "community values" argument.
Slashdot Mirror
There's only two kinds of stock - growth and value. If you can figure out how much a business is worth based on well-understood metrics (EPS, Book value, etc.) then it's a value stock, and it's PE should be in line with the market with various modifiers based on the specifics of these metrics. Otherwise (you add fantasy and predict "big things") it's growth, and the PE is generally a multiple of the market. Apple has been too large to be a "growth stock" for some time, and arguably made the transition the minute it began paying dividends, or the PE fell to the market value whichever you like. My point is, I don't think it's transitioning *now*, though Berkshire's sudden interest does indicate that Buffet thinks the stock is very undervalued (he wants to see a big multiple between when he buys and sells).
I'm not sure why this is being marked as a Troll given the topic and the obvious political slant of the commenter being responded to (rated 5/Insightful). Goes to show just how partisan even /. is now.
Cruz's evangelism and insistence at making it part of the public sphere is hardly Conservative. Most of the founders were Deists, Washington was Anglican. None were evangelical.
And yet he isn't the socialist candidate.
Nothing is worth more than manufacturing cost +20%. If you are willing to pay more ... A fool and his money will be soon parted
Never had a kid, right?
Vanity < Logic after all :)
Logic isn't one of the seven deadly sins.
No, no... it's DEC. Digital Equipment Corporation. Bought by Compaq. Then Compaq was bought by HP. What were we talking about?
would you please give me one example of when 0s and 1s have been turned into understanding
Oh I dunno. Morse code?
Which is so painfully obvious the phonebook is prior art.
You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means. http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2012/06/09/patentability-overview-obviousness-and-adequate-description/id=25191/
Clearly you don't work with databases. They are the 900 pound gorilla of that market.
More like the 1800 pound gorilla. It needs to go on a serious diet.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324879504578597883383524650.html
The cumulative effect argument discussed above was firmly established by the Court in Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942). 7 U.S.C.S. 1281 and 1340 (the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938) established production quotas for wheat farmers and imposed a penalty on excess production. Filburn, a farmer in Montgomery County, Ohio, was not engaged in growing wheat for commercial purposes on a large scale. Instead, he grew wheat “to sell a portion of the crop; to feed part to poultry and livestock on the farm, some of which is sold; to use some in making flour for home consumption; and to keep the rest for the following seeding.” Wickard at 114. Under the Act, Filburn’s 1941 allotment was 11.1 acres of wheat, for a total of approximately 223 bushels. But Filburn harvested 23 acres in total, which yielded 239 bushels in excess of his quota. In accordance with the Act he was subject to a penalty of 49 cents per bushel, which he refused to pay. Wickard is important because while Filburn harvested more than double his quota it is nonetheless clear that his extra 239 bushels of wheat could not, of itself, have any significant impact on interstate commerce. Furthermore, the excess wheat in question was not intended to be placed into the stream of commerce, but rather was to be used primarily for home consumption. The rationale for finding Congressional authority to regulate this activity pursuant to the Commerce Clause comes from cumulative effect that many similar farmers raising wheat for their personal use would have on the demand for wheat purchased in the marketplace. “Home-grown wheat in this sense competes with wheat in commerce [and] would have a substantial effect in defeating and obstructing the purpose of the Act". Wickard at 128-129. So even if an activity in itself does not have a substantial effect on interstate commerce, Congress may still regulate the activity if there is a substantial cumulative economic effect on interstate commerce.
See: http://nationalparalegal.edu/conlawcrimproc_public/CongressionalPowers/SubstantialEffect.asp
but it's ok to be wicked, apparently.
I think I've heard of them. Didn't they have a BASIC program for the Apple II?
The issue isn't labor cost, it's supply chain. Where do we have a factory city laid out like FoxConn?
I hope we're tossing Iranians in jail for failing to file 1040s.
Agree on the PARC comment - once I saw that I stopped reading. Apple PAID Xerox for the access to their lab in stock. Xerox was rooting for Apple to succeed and they weren't doing a damn thing with Star, the DLion, or anything else that was making a profit. Except sell more toner.
The intelligent user will know what is wrong.
You need to think like a big corporation.
When they say: "Every TV set we all make loses money" it doesn't mean what you think it means.
What they are really saying is "Every TV set we all make doesn't continue to make us money once it's been sold"
Nonsense. Read the article: "Sony said last week that it expects a loss of more than $1 billion in the fiscal year through March, in part because of its struggling television business, which has been a thorn in its side for close to a decade. The business has bled red ink because of plunging prices and declining demand."
I think they're charging for bringing in new subscribers, not offering someone else's content. How is this different from the cheap subscriptions repackagers sell for which the publisher gets $0 but the name of a new sucker to send renewal notices to? Most magazines and newspapers sell their wares for the cost of physical publication, and make the money for content and profit from ads. That argues the eventual subscription price will be $0.00 for which Apple's 30% cut will not be an issue.
Big media: quit saying "XYZ is dead" every time you're starved for attention.
Film at 11. Oh wait...
Only clueless moron would buy ANYTHING from itunes. The fresh fruit is free (of the hardware and software), the rotten fruit is to bind yourself to one manufacturer.
Parse that for me will you? Isn't fruit (and brains for that matter) hardware? Isn't the software your mind? the notion "fresh fruit" is already bound to both hardware and software. Suggest you work on your metaphors and your case isn't helped by the ad hominim.
Ah, that explains the recent breakout in slide rule use!
False yourself. A "dollar" was originally, and in the proverbial grandparent's day, a denotation of an amount of gold. Before fiat money came along, one could exchange gold notes for gold and silver notes for silver, and the amount of gold or silver one exchanged (either way) didn't change with time. Once the link between currency and any kind of backing store was broken, the "value" of the money was no longer fixed. An hour of labor, a pencil, or whatever, no longer had some common measure (or they did, but the paper money devalued).
Legality may not be the same as morality, but every legal system is a moral system (moral means "customary" not "right" in any absolute sense). Arguing that something is or is not moral comes down to a "community values" argument.