I'm not sure they make money on the olympics themselves. NBC generally bid's higher than other networks for huge events, for the bragging rights and the ability to promote other programming which will eventually earn them more than the olympics cost. Certainly advertising is an important component, but I'd be surprised if NBC made money on the current olympics contract. For the minimalists out there, a cheap games involves 10,000 athaletes (and probably at least that many coaches and support staff) who must all meet at the same location for the games. They will require transportation costs from around the world, two weeks of housing, and you will need some space to contest the events (most big colleges in this country could probably host 90% of the events). If you simply want to have world chamionships for individual sports it would be cheaper. I'd guess a basic olympics could be held for 25-50 million (I'd guess transportation would be 20 million of this $1000/ticket 20,000 folks requiring one).
Principal agent problems. The city population's agents (the mayor and staff) get significant prestige and other benefits (I brought the Olympics to SLC vote for me for Senator, Utah) while the cities taxpayers foot the majority of the bill. Every business owner who didn't start up just for the Olympics (or constructed something, says that having the olympics is more of a bust than a boom, because the city heads there and they don't pick up enough tourist business. Most of the major problems in the country can be explained with different incentives between principals and agents.
Less, it's pretty fun to see the looks on their face when you buy something at about a 5% markup and don't buy an accessory service plan or anything else that makes them any money. Just don't expect good service and realize that you aren't a customer they want shopping there. If you happen to be the only one who will be a sale, that's better than nothing, but others will certainly take priority. Knowledge is power, go use it.
You think that's the price because you have never tried to buy a phone without a wireless service plan. The global average cellular price is about $160 (and that includes the cheap ones sold in developing countries). Most US handsets go for $300-$400 if you don't buy the plan. Not that that makes the service plan any cheaper. The phone will probably be worth $100-$200 in a year, depending on the technology used (If it were a Verizon or Sprint phone figure toward the high end of the range).
Realize that the only part of the deal they make any money on (after paying for the building, sales staff, and other expenses) is the PSP, the products just get you in the store to (hopefully) buy accessories or the support plan. Dell is the same way (1/3 of gross profit in 2003 came from extended service plans). Did you really think they could make a PC for $399 and still make money?
Nordstrom's has built an entire company on that principle. Of course it helps when your gross margin starts at 50% (products at BestBuy are probably in the 15% range) but some people still pay for service.
Glad to see at least one other person on/. understands the easiest bit of legal mumbo jumbo. Of course what else would be expected from the king of torts? Isn't merchantability the one warrantee that cannot be disclaimed in any way shape or form?
Oddly of the two states I've lived in one didn't have an income tax, while the other doesn't have a sales tax. As far as taxes go, I prefered the sales tax only one, even when they set up the WSP on the border to nab use tax avoiders (cigs).
Because investors generally expect a run up to compensate them for the risk of an IPO. Your understanding of a dutch auction is correct, in Google's case, they effectivly moved below the lowest bid range, and gave the same number of shares in smaller portion to more people. They had to have known that there was demand for 21 (or so million shares at $95-$100 million, and demand for 25 million at $85. So Google sold 21 million at $85 to give a gift to the IPO makers, not as bad as usual (More like Google sold stock to Alan for $900 million who sold it to Bob for a billion). And that ensures that Alan will be interested the next time the underwriters want to sell stock of a less famous company. To Google's benefit this was a smaller run up than usual, and the price rose over the course of the day.
Paraphrasing Keynes, the only problem with thinking in the long run is that the goal of Wall St's beauty contest isn't to pick the prettiest girl, it's to pick the girl the others will find the prettiest. That and we're all dead in the long run, too.
Right, the number of shares issued by google was 14,142,135 in the offering. Other shareholders issued additional shares but google was selling that many pre overallotment rights. They raised $1.67 billion (I think that includes either the overallotment shares or the selling stockholder value).
After I read an article about Meslotheleoma adword prices I generated about $300 in revenue for Google in about 5 minutes (I poked around the site to make it look like I was doing something productive). The clicks were going for about 40-100 on inktomi (they publish adword prices). To be fair I clicked on some of theirs too. As a bonus I the money came from trial lawyers.
Google raised 1.67 billion (sqrt 2 *10^8 shares)with others selling an additional ~700 million or so, that is usually termed the offering amount. Their float (definition varies from firm to firm but counts shares that the public will eventually be able to own) is probably double that employee stock options will be included in float the execs class b holdings will not. Their market cap takes every share issued and multiplies them by the current price (most recent price I can find transactions for is $85 offer price, CNBC or not) which is the total value of the companmy.
Not illegal, but anti-trust laws do sometimes prevent them (this is the main defense Peoplesoft is using). In Google's case, they aren't selling enough of the comapny to accomplish a hostile takeover and as extra insurance for lots of option grants the founders keep super voting Class B shares. Similar to Comcast, Ford, and many family owned businesses, the class B owners have to agree to a takeover since they usually have a voting right that is nondilutive (if you issue shares they keep their share of the vote and the other class per share vote declines). As an example the Robert's share of Comcast was negotiated from 60something to 33% with the AT&T purchase. Hostile takeovers are quite legal and a great way to get rid of crappy management by buying shares from disgruntled investors, if HP keeps screwing up they would be a likely target in a few years. Hostile buyers look for cheap companies with either excellent cash generation prospects or valuable assets to sell. Typically they are funded with high yield (treasury +5-10%) bonds, so the company either has to cover that debt, or you have to sell an asset for the majority of the cost of the company.
Sure, but since Cisco hasn't split since the peak and earnings should be known by investors in a stock, so the price makes a fine proxy for valuation. Besides while Cisco is selling for 150 billion, I doubt you and I are buying the company so the absolute value of our 1/7000000000 of the company is probably more important to our personal financial situation. If you are trolling as Bill or Larry, then you can continue focusing on market caps.
I almost bought a Dreamcast at $50, but only while it was legal to run bleem. I ended up getting an XBox and several sega games (I'm sure they were happier with that). From what I've played on Orta and Sega GT (as well as SC2) I'm sorry that I didn't get one earlier.
BusinessWeek should change their name to PHB week. All I ever see in there is either sops to poorly run businesses, glomming on to the latest trend (about 6 months after everyone else did), or crappy stock picks.
My understanding is that doping produces additional red blood cells making your cardiovascular system more efficent (more oxygen carried per gram). These are used in the endurance events (aerobic). Steroids allow very rapid muscle development as they are very similar to hormones used to signal muscle growth. HGH has a similar effect on the production of tendons and other connective tissue. These are more of an advantage in strength (anerobic) events such as (sprints, throws, wrestling, etc). I'm not sure what the mixed events benefit from, but would think that since most of those are team sports having better teamwork would more than offset a single superstar.
It depends on how you measure, by market value MS is, by almost any other measure IBM is. The two are very similar in profit levels. IBM leads in sales, employees, patents, and diversity (of product lines).
Ah, I see the Enron hubris problem. Even more than zero trading costs I wish I could value my own long term derivative securities in time for bonus payouts. Where did everyone get all of this info? Does, "When Genious Failed" have all of this between the lines?
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not sure they make money on the olympics themselves. NBC generally bid's higher than other networks for huge events, for the bragging rights and the ability to promote other programming which will eventually earn them more than the olympics cost. Certainly advertising is an important component, but I'd be surprised if NBC made money on the current olympics contract.
For the minimalists out there, a cheap games involves 10,000 athaletes (and probably at least that many coaches and support staff) who must all meet at the same location for the games. They will require transportation costs from around the world, two weeks of housing, and you will need some space to contest the events (most big colleges in this country could probably host 90% of the events). If you simply want to have world chamionships for individual sports it would be cheaper. I'd guess a basic olympics could be held for 25-50 million (I'd guess transportation would be 20 million of this $1000/ticket 20,000 folks requiring one).
Principal agent problems. The city population's agents (the mayor and staff) get significant prestige and other benefits (I brought the Olympics to SLC vote for me for Senator, Utah) while the cities taxpayers foot the majority of the bill. Every business owner who didn't start up just for the Olympics (or constructed something, says that having the olympics is more of a bust than a boom, because the city heads there and they don't pick up enough tourist business. Most of the major problems in the country can be explained with different incentives between principals and agents.
Less, it's pretty fun to see the looks on their face when you buy something at about a 5% markup and don't buy an accessory service plan or anything else that makes them any money. Just don't expect good service and realize that you aren't a customer they want shopping there. If you happen to be the only one who will be a sale, that's better than nothing, but others will certainly take priority. Knowledge is power, go use it.
Happily the UCC only applies to the sale of physical goods, unless the CDs were explode, the GPL is on a whole different level.
You think that's the price because you have never tried to buy a phone without a wireless service plan. The global average cellular price is about $160 (and that includes the cheap ones sold in developing countries). Most US handsets go for $300-$400 if you don't buy the plan. Not that that makes the service plan any cheaper. The phone will probably be worth $100-$200 in a year, depending on the technology used (If it were a Verizon or Sprint phone figure toward the high end of the range).
Realize that the only part of the deal they make any money on (after paying for the building, sales staff, and other expenses) is the PSP, the products just get you in the store to (hopefully) buy accessories or the support plan. Dell is the same way (1/3 of gross profit in 2003 came from extended service plans). Did you really think they could make a PC for $399 and still make money?
Nordstrom's has built an entire company on that principle. Of course it helps when your gross margin starts at 50% (products at BestBuy are probably in the 15% range) but some people still pay for service.
Glad to see at least one other person on /. understands the easiest bit of legal mumbo jumbo. Of course what else would be expected from the king of torts? Isn't merchantability the one warrantee that cannot be disclaimed in any way shape or form?
Oddly of the two states I've lived in one didn't have an income tax, while the other doesn't have a sales tax. As far as taxes go, I prefered the sales tax only one, even when they set up the WSP on the border to nab use tax avoiders (cigs).
Because investors generally expect a run up to compensate them for the risk of an IPO. Your understanding of a dutch auction is correct, in Google's case, they effectivly moved below the lowest bid range, and gave the same number of shares in smaller portion to more people. They had to have known that there was demand for 21 (or so million shares at $95-$100 million, and demand for 25 million at $85. So Google sold 21 million at $85 to give a gift to the IPO makers, not as bad as usual (More like Google sold stock to Alan for $900 million who sold it to Bob for a billion). And that ensures that Alan will be interested the next time the underwriters want to sell stock of a less famous company. To Google's benefit this was a smaller run up than usual, and the price rose over the course of the day.
Paraphrasing Keynes, the only problem with thinking in the long run is that the goal of Wall St's beauty contest isn't to pick the prettiest girl, it's to pick the girl the others will find the prettiest. That and we're all dead in the long run, too.
Right, the number of shares issued by google was 14,142,135 in the offering. Other shareholders issued additional shares but google was selling that many pre overallotment rights. They raised $1.67 billion (I think that includes either the overallotment shares or the selling stockholder value).
After I read an article about Meslotheleoma adword prices I generated about $300 in revenue for Google in about 5 minutes (I poked around the site to make it look like I was doing something productive). The clicks were going for about 40-100 on inktomi (they publish adword prices). To be fair I clicked on some of theirs too. As a bonus I the money came from trial lawyers.
Google raised 1.67 billion (sqrt 2 *10^8 shares)with others selling an additional ~700 million or so, that is usually termed the offering amount. Their float (definition varies from firm to firm but counts shares that the public will eventually be able to own) is probably double that employee stock options will be included in float the execs class b holdings will not. Their market cap takes every share issued and multiplies them by the current price (most recent price I can find transactions for is $85 offer price, CNBC or not) which is the total value of the companmy.
Not illegal, but anti-trust laws do sometimes prevent them (this is the main defense Peoplesoft is using). In Google's case, they aren't selling enough of the comapny to accomplish a hostile takeover and as extra insurance for lots of option grants the founders keep super voting Class B shares. Similar to Comcast, Ford, and many family owned businesses, the class B owners have to agree to a takeover since they usually have a voting right that is nondilutive (if you issue shares they keep their share of the vote and the other class per share vote declines). As an example the Robert's share of Comcast was negotiated from 60something to 33% with the AT&T purchase.
Hostile takeovers are quite legal and a great way to get rid of crappy management by buying shares from disgruntled investors, if HP keeps screwing up they would be a likely target in a few years. Hostile buyers look for cheap companies with either excellent cash generation prospects or valuable assets to sell. Typically they are funded with high yield (treasury +5-10%) bonds, so the company either has to cover that debt, or you have to sell an asset for the majority of the cost of the company.
Sure, but since Cisco hasn't split since the peak and earnings should be known by investors in a stock, so the price makes a fine proxy for valuation. Besides while Cisco is selling for 150 billion, I doubt you and I are buying the company so the absolute value of our 1/7000000000 of the company is probably more important to our personal financial situation. If you are trolling as Bill or Larry, then you can continue focusing on market caps.
I almost bought a Dreamcast at $50, but only while it was legal to run bleem. I ended up getting an XBox and several sega games (I'm sure they were happier with that). From what I've played on Orta and Sega GT (as well as SC2) I'm sorry that I didn't get one earlier.
When was the last time you saw someone get 5,000 people lunch? That's rich enough for me.
BusinessWeek should change their name to PHB week. All I ever see in there is either sops to poorly run businesses, glomming on to the latest trend (about 6 months after everyone else did), or crappy stock picks.
As opposed to Judi Vodkashots who's still quite popular with the boys even as she gets up there in years.
Not until we add competitive soybeaning as an event. I hear it will be an exhibition at the 2012 olympiad.
My understanding is that doping produces additional red blood cells making your cardiovascular system more efficent (more oxygen carried per gram). These are used in the endurance events (aerobic).
Steroids allow very rapid muscle development as they are very similar to hormones used to signal muscle growth. HGH has a similar effect on the production of tendons and other connective tissue. These are more of an advantage in strength (anerobic) events such as (sprints, throws, wrestling, etc). I'm not sure what the mixed events benefit from, but would think that since most of those are team sports having better teamwork would more than offset a single superstar.
Perhaps but repeatedly feeding villagers to my pet is definitely fun.
It depends on how you measure, by market value MS is, by almost any other measure IBM is. The two are very similar in profit levels. IBM leads in sales, employees, patents, and diversity (of product lines).
Ah, I see the Enron hubris problem. Even more than zero trading costs I wish I could value my own long term derivative securities in time for bonus payouts. Where did everyone get all of this info? Does, "When Genious Failed" have all of this between the lines?