People seem to have this idea that the stock price is reflective of the "coolness" of the company and how "rad" it is. I base this on some of the above posts. In all seriousness, Google is a rad and cool company with a decent business model.
I think the problem, is that people are so defensive about their beloved Google (understandably), that they ignore what the fine folks at The Economist are trying to say.
This article is simply saying that buying Google is a big gamble. It has been pointed out above that the share price reflects the present value of all future dividends. I humbly throw my opinion in with Graham and Buffett that stocks should not be purchased for speculation, since speculation is a zero-sum game. Instead, dividends should be taken into account.
With that in mind, let's honestly consider when Google can be expected to pay dividends in the future. Look at Microsoft: how many decades did they go for without paying a red cent in dividends? However, it has now paid off for many people.
The Economist is simply making the argument that betting on returns from Google is a long, long bet given the competition and the inherent instability of the market they are in. A lot can happen between now, and when Google has a market share mature enough and safe enough to allow them to start paying back those who bet on them.
Announcements made my the FASB affect GAAP (Generally Accepted Accounting Principles). GAAP is used when reporting financial information for the purpose of investing, either in public or private markets. Financial rules regarding taxation are somewhat related, but not necessarily the same. The IRS must set taxation laws, not the FASB, which is actually not a government institution per se. These new rulings by the FASB will only affect how information is reported to investors, but will have no effect on how the company is taxed.
judging from all these post about robots somehow obtaining sentience on their own and overthrowing humanity.
Computers can beat us in chess now. Am I scared that they are superhuman and will overthrow humanity? No. Why is it we attribute so much more ability to evolve to robots just because they will have a humanoid form?
Slashdot Mirror
People seem to have this idea that the stock price is reflective of the "coolness" of the company and how "rad" it is. I base this on some of the above posts. In all seriousness, Google is a rad and cool company with a decent business model. I think the problem, is that people are so defensive about their beloved Google (understandably), that they ignore what the fine folks at The Economist are trying to say. This article is simply saying that buying Google is a big gamble. It has been pointed out above that the share price reflects the present value of all future dividends. I humbly throw my opinion in with Graham and Buffett that stocks should not be purchased for speculation, since speculation is a zero-sum game. Instead, dividends should be taken into account. With that in mind, let's honestly consider when Google can be expected to pay dividends in the future. Look at Microsoft: how many decades did they go for without paying a red cent in dividends? However, it has now paid off for many people. The Economist is simply making the argument that betting on returns from Google is a long, long bet given the competition and the inherent instability of the market they are in. A lot can happen between now, and when Google has a market share mature enough and safe enough to allow them to start paying back those who bet on them.
Announcements made my the FASB affect GAAP (Generally Accepted Accounting Principles). GAAP is used when reporting financial information for the purpose of investing, either in public or private markets. Financial rules regarding taxation are somewhat related, but not necessarily the same. The IRS must set taxation laws, not the FASB, which is actually not a government institution per se. These new rulings by the FASB will only affect how information is reported to investors, but will have no effect on how the company is taxed.
Lawnmowers mow... ahh nevermind.
Your joke doesn't compute.
English is the most widely spoken language in India.
judging from all these post about robots somehow obtaining sentience on their own and overthrowing humanity. Computers can beat us in chess now. Am I scared that they are superhuman and will overthrow humanity? No. Why is it we attribute so much more ability to evolve to robots just because they will have a humanoid form?