I notice they have a DOW future on there. With such an illiquid market, I would imagine would could easily profit from the arbitrage between the site's DOW future, and one traded on a real exchange.
You seemed to have missed the point of the Dutch auction completely. What you should have done was *gasp* bid what you were willing to pay. If the price turned out to be lower than your bid, you would get the lower price, and if it was higher, you wouldn't spend any money on something you though was overpriced. You could still enter multiple bids if you wanted to get a different number of shares depending on the price. The point is, what the eventual IPO price would be should have had no bearing on your decision.
Perhaps IBM should just buy them out at this point. They might even save on legal fees. SCO's enterprise value of $28.2 million pales in comparison to the $12.5 billion that IBM has in cash alone.
The market cap (total market value of all the stock) is $46.82 million, but the enterprise value, which represents the company's price to an acquirer, is $28.20 million, as a result of the substantial (relatively speaking) amount of cash on the balance sheet.
Intel might be an ok long term value play, but there are many better ones, and Intel is about to engage in one hell of a price war with AMD, and this is going to cause profits to suffer.
Wrong. Options are essentially just another way of using margin. If you buy an in the money call worth 1/10 of the stock price, and the stock goes down 10%, your call is worthless. I know, I am neglecting implicit interest and volatility premiums, but the point is you still lose 10% or your total money either way, whether it be by having your stocks decrease in value by 10% or your 10% in options become worthless. Now, if leverage is what you are after, because you are really confident about a particular pick, then options can be useful, but not in the way you suggest.
Well, the yield curve is inverted (10 year T-note yields less than 3 month T-bill) because the market expects yields to decrease in the future, so theoretically if the market is efficient you are paying a higher price for 10 year T-notes because you are locking in that yield for 10 years. That said, if you have a short time herizon, T-bills obviously make more sense.
No Load mutual funds don't have sales fees, but all funds have management fees of some percentage of the assets managed. Index funds have fees well below 1%, while actively managed mutual funds can have fees of 2% or even more. THere are numerous other handicaps that make it very difficult for an actively managed fund to outperform an index fund over a long period of time, and even if some fund managers could beat the market consistantly, you wouldn't be able to figure out which ones because past performance is a very bad predictor of future results for mutual funds.
Hindsight is 20/20, but the intelligent investor does not need to buy every stock that will see large gains. All he needs to do is avoid buying stocks that do not do well. So, if an analyst was uncertain two years ago about Apple's prospects, and felt more comfortable with the positive outlook for another company, the logical analyst would recommend that latter company, even if he thought there was a reasonable chance that Apple's stock would appreciate significantly. Investors lose money by buying, not selling, the wrong stock.
I would also point out that it is the analyst who changes his mind based on a stock's past performance alone who should be fired. As the price of a stock like AAPL increases, it actually becomes more risky, not less, because the downside increases relative to the upside. Do you feel more comfortable buying a dollar for 40 cents, or $1.20? Would you recommend the firing of an analyst who told clients to get out of the market in January, 2000? If not, it must be because your perfect hindsight already sees the result of such advice just a few months later. Should the prudent analyst not be wary of such a possibility? Is it not smarter for such an analyst to pick his spots, recommending the purchase of only those stocks about which he is most certain?
Re:That was actually surprisingly good article
on
The Cost of the iPod
·
· Score: 1
As you obviously know nothing about investing, perhaps you should move on to commenting on other articles. It is generally bad policy to own te stock of a company that one cannot be reasonably sure is worth owning. The proper rating here is sell, because, as the analyst points out, it is impossible to be confident about Apple's prospects without better information, and apple is really violating the spirit, if not the letter, of SEC rules here. There are thousands of companies to invest in. Better to use one's limited resources to buy one which is sufficiently transperent.
That is really not true. You would think it is true, because the media only report important cases, but there are plenty of narrower decisions as well, and the Supreme Court has a tendency to make narrower ruling whenever possible.
You need to think at the margin. While the absolute utility of water is extremely high, obviously much higher than diamonds, the marginal utility of water is fairly low (drinking one more glass of water isn't all that important). It is the marginal utility and cost which set the quantity supplied. Granted, in a monopoly there is distortion, but even a monopoly cannot charge anything it wants, or it would lose its customers. If prices were high enough, people would just walk down to their local lake. A monopoly essentially faces a downward sloping marginal revenue curve (as opposed to the horizontal price = marginal revenue curve in perfectly competitive markets) and so they produce less than would otherwise be produced, and this makes the price they can charge higher. But if they were to produce even less, in order to send prices even higher, they would profit less.
Price = marginal cost for each supplier, but marginal cost is itself a function of quantity supplied in a basic perfectly competitive model, and in such a model suppliers are price takers rather than price makers. Price and quantity are set where the supply curve intersects the demand curve, at which point suppliers produce up to the point where marginal cost = price and consumers purchase up to the point where price = marginal utility.
Well, it does not act on the opiate receptors. Call it an opiate for its chemical structure if you like. I meant more to point out that codeine, previously in cough syrups, was an opiate in the classic sense.
Inventory makes up a tiny percentage of Microsoft's current assets, $491 million to be precise. They have at least $37 billion in cash, cash equivalents, and short-term investments. About $9 billion is in somewhat less liquid receivables. In any case, they'd be able to pay a large percentage of the cost in cash.
Slashdot Mirror
I notice they have a DOW future on there. With such an illiquid market, I would imagine would could easily profit from the arbitrage between the site's DOW future, and one traded on a real exchange.
You seemed to have missed the point of the Dutch auction completely. What you should have done was *gasp* bid what you were willing to pay. If the price turned out to be lower than your bid, you would get the lower price, and if it was higher, you wouldn't spend any money on something you though was overpriced. You could still enter multiple bids if you wanted to get a different number of shares depending on the price. The point is, what the eventual IPO price would be should have had no bearing on your decision.
They do give some value to their brand name. One would think it should be listed as a liablity.
Have you any evidence to support this statement about Microsoft? No? I am shocked.
There shareholders would vote on it, and management wouldn't be able to convince anyone to vote no to any premium at all.
If IBM did buy SCO, they could have the pleasure of firing everyone there.
Perhaps IBM should just buy them out at this point. They might even save on legal fees. SCO's enterprise value of $28.2 million pales in comparison to the $12.5 billion that IBM has in cash alone.
The market cap (total market value of all the stock) is $46.82 million, but the enterprise value, which represents the company's price to an acquirer, is $28.20 million, as a result of the substantial (relatively speaking) amount of cash on the balance sheet.
Intel might be an ok long term value play, but there are many better ones, and Intel is about to engage in one hell of a price war with AMD, and this is going to cause profits to suffer.
Wrong. Options are essentially just another way of using margin. If you buy an in the money call worth 1/10 of the stock price, and the stock goes down 10%, your call is worthless. I know, I am neglecting implicit interest and volatility premiums, but the point is you still lose 10% or your total money either way, whether it be by having your stocks decrease in value by 10% or your 10% in options become worthless. Now, if leverage is what you are after, because you are really confident about a particular pick, then options can be useful, but not in the way you suggest.
Well, the yield curve is inverted (10 year T-note yields less than 3 month T-bill) because the market expects yields to decrease in the future, so theoretically if the market is efficient you are paying a higher price for 10 year T-notes because you are locking in that yield for 10 years. That said, if you have a short time herizon, T-bills obviously make more sense.
Unfortunatly, you get taxed on any "interest" you earn as a result of inflation, so you aren't completely safe.
No Load mutual funds don't have sales fees, but all funds have management fees of some percentage of the assets managed. Index funds have fees well below 1%, while actively managed mutual funds can have fees of 2% or even more. THere are numerous other handicaps that make it very difficult for an actively managed fund to outperform an index fund over a long period of time, and even if some fund managers could beat the market consistantly, you wouldn't be able to figure out which ones because past performance is a very bad predictor of future results for mutual funds.
1 lot = 12.8 grams, but unfortunately this is a measure of mass, not volume.
with prejudice simply means the RIAA can't refile.
Hindsight is 20/20, but the intelligent investor does not need to buy every stock that will see large gains. All he needs to do is avoid buying stocks that do not do well. So, if an analyst was uncertain two years ago about Apple's prospects, and felt more comfortable with the positive outlook for another company, the logical analyst would recommend that latter company, even if he thought there was a reasonable chance that Apple's stock would appreciate significantly. Investors lose money by buying, not selling, the wrong stock.
I would also point out that it is the analyst who changes his mind based on a stock's past performance alone who should be fired. As the price of a stock like AAPL increases, it actually becomes more risky, not less, because the downside increases relative to the upside. Do you feel more comfortable buying a dollar for 40 cents, or $1.20? Would you recommend the firing of an analyst who told clients to get out of the market in January, 2000? If not, it must be because your perfect hindsight already sees the result of such advice just a few months later. Should the prudent analyst not be wary of such a possibility? Is it not smarter for such an analyst to pick his spots, recommending the purchase of only those stocks about which he is most certain?
As you obviously know nothing about investing, perhaps you should move on to commenting on other articles. It is generally bad policy to own te stock of a company that one cannot be reasonably sure is worth owning. The proper rating here is sell, because, as the analyst points out, it is impossible to be confident about Apple's prospects without better information, and apple is really violating the spirit, if not the letter, of SEC rules here. There are thousands of companies to invest in. Better to use one's limited resources to buy one which is sufficiently transperent.
That is really not true. You would think it is true, because the media only report important cases, but there are plenty of narrower decisions as well, and the Supreme Court has a tendency to make narrower ruling whenever possible.
Well fine. I just meant to point out that substitutes exist, whatever they are.
You need to think at the margin. While the absolute utility of water is extremely high, obviously much higher than diamonds, the marginal utility of water is fairly low (drinking one more glass of water isn't all that important). It is the marginal utility and cost which set the quantity supplied. Granted, in a monopoly there is distortion, but even a monopoly cannot charge anything it wants, or it would lose its customers. If prices were high enough, people would just walk down to their local lake. A monopoly essentially faces a downward sloping marginal revenue curve (as opposed to the horizontal price = marginal revenue curve in perfectly competitive markets) and so they produce less than would otherwise be produced, and this makes the price they can charge higher. But if they were to produce even less, in order to send prices even higher, they would profit less.
Price = marginal cost for each supplier, but marginal cost is itself a function of quantity supplied in a basic perfectly competitive model, and in such a model suppliers are price takers rather than price makers. Price and quantity are set where the supply curve intersects the demand curve, at which point suppliers produce up to the point where marginal cost = price and consumers purchase up to the point where price = marginal utility.
Wrong. Supply and demand just represents necessities as having more inelastic demand schedules.
Well, it does not act on the opiate receptors. Call it an opiate for its chemical structure if you like. I meant more to point out that codeine, previously in cough syrups, was an opiate in the classic sense.
Or 27, as the case may be.
I think you are confusing DXM with codeine, which they used to put in cough syrups. That really does break down into morphine. DXM is a dissociative.
Inventory makes up a tiny percentage of Microsoft's current assets, $491 million to be precise. They have at least $37 billion in cash, cash equivalents, and short-term investments. About $9 billion is in somewhat less liquid receivables. In any case, they'd be able to pay a large percentage of the cost in cash.