If we lived in a world where people held onto stock for long periods of time, then dividends might be something to value. Paying a dividend adds no value.
In mid 2007 I moved most of my investments to stocks that paid dividends. I've done quite well over the last 4 years, and the five-figure income from dividends has been a great cushion, allowing me to focus of jobs that I enjoy and really want, rather than taking anything because of economic uncertainty. I'll take my dividends - it's regular injections of liquidity into my assets without having to actually sell anything.
Apple is in a much more tenuous position - they'll going down the minute they stop being better than the competition.
Even if Apple is perceived to be weaker, they will fall - nothing about actual results. A lot of people buying iPhones (which account for 50% of all of Apple's revenues and more than 50% of all their profits) buy because they are trendy and fashionable. Once that perception goes, so does their product line on which half their company is based.
Their current profit is a lot closer, with 30 billion for Exxon and 14 billion for Apple, and on current trend, Apple will close that distance within three years.
The market for smartphones and iPads (which make about 65% of Apple's revenues and about 70% of their profits) can - and will - reach saturation at which time growth will greatly slow.
Oil, on the other hand, is a consumable and is always required.
Proof: try living without a smartphone or tablet for 6 months. Now do the same thing with petroleum.
Apple's in a huge bubble, and they are losing marketshare in the smartphone market (which is about 50% of their entire revenue). The only reason their revenue and profits are still increasing is because the smartphone market as a whole is growing faster than their loss of marketshare. But the market growth is starting to slow down already; as it slows down as the market demand is satiated, Apple will see declining revenue and profits.
The first quarter that Apple reports even a stagnant revenue - or one that drops - will see their stock tumble 40% or more. ExxonMobil has reported quarters in the past where revenues decreased - and their stock price didn't really move (a few percent). It's because Apple's market isn't mandatory use for modern life nor is it a consumable product market. ExxonMobil's is.
Apple's in a bubble. How much will it inflate before it pops? My guess is they have another 12-18 months run before the deflating starts...
So, rather than have a "driver" the computer has to know a new means of interrogating the capabilities of the printer, and then convert files to a format that the printer can handle... Right?
But there's a handy survival/emergency axe in the cockpit... Get up for your regular break/stretching of legs, grab the axe and make like Lizzy Borden... And if you miss and trash some of the controls and electronics, well - bonus I guess.
FY2010 and FY2011 should have been written, passed, and signed into law well before any Tea Party supported candidate was sworn into office in January 2011. You can look squarely at President Obama, then-Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and ask them why they refused to create a budget.
Or rather, the lack thereof. We're on day ~830 without a Federal budget. Nothing's been passed since mid-March, 2009 when President Obama signed the FY2009 Appropriations bill (which Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi didn't take up until February 2009). Maybe S&P and a lot of the rest of the world is looking at Harry Reid's refusal to even address a budget as a fundamental sign that at least one part of the 3-step-dance that is the budgetary process is just going to sit on its hands and do nothing.
The difference is, in the US your mortgage is backed by the value of the house. For US treasuries, it's backed by our promise. With your $50,000 gross income, how would you feel about having $100,000 in signature loans backed by nothing other than your word?
Sorry, a mortgage is not a personal debt, it's secured by the property. Our debt, on the other hand, is secured by our promise alone. It's the difference between a secured loan and a signature loan - one has collateral, the other is just your word. Having 90% of your income floating out there on a signature loan would make you insolvent.
The difference is, those nations have a budget - something that we haven't had for over 2.5 years, and Senator Harry Reid seems determined to let continue. Right now, there IS no budget for the US - it's just continuances of past budgets and making it up as we go along. That's certainly not a recipe for building confidence.
The rest of the world has a budget. Senator Harry Reid (D-NV) hasn't allowed a budget for over 2.5 years. The US has been operating without a budget since 2 months in to President Obama's term (when he signed the 2009 Appropriations bill). I bet that has something to do with it - the biggest Government on the face of the Earth running for over 2 years without a budget.
From what I read here, outside of the USA, where the media are less partisan when covering internal US issues, the Democrats want the government to spend LESS, and the Tea Party wants the government to spend LESS too.
Then perhaps the Democrats - notably those in control of the Senate - could actually present a budget with their spending cuts and priorities? Senator Harry Reid has refused to address a budget for over 2.5 years now... Kind of hard to see exactly HOW they want to spend less when they won't even present a plan or budget describing such.
At the very least, Senator Harry Reid could take up the budget passed by the House. But he refuses to do that as well. So we're stuck because the DEMOCRAT Senate Majority Leader doesn't want to actually address the budget. So, since the 2009 Appropriations bill (signed by President Obama in March of 2009), we haven't had an actual budget for the US. Thanks, Harry!
Of the accusation? No. Of enough evidence to convene a grand jury? Sure - don't go into hotel rooms with single women and ask your guard detail to take a walk... Don't do it several times so that half a dozen women all report the same thing.
It's not so much that we found anti-protons - that can be expected. It's that they were apparently trapped with such a weak magnetic field as the Earth's.
More importantly, then-Governor Clinton shouldn't have put himself in a position where he could be accused of sexual assault, which led to his lying about a blowjob while testifying to a grand jury about the sexual assault charge. It wasn't just a blowjob or a lie about it, it was deception in a sexual assault case in front of a grand jury.
Slashdot Mirror
If we lived in a world where people held onto stock for long periods of time, then dividends might be something to value. Paying a dividend adds no value.
In mid 2007 I moved most of my investments to stocks that paid dividends. I've done quite well over the last 4 years, and the five-figure income from dividends has been a great cushion, allowing me to focus of jobs that I enjoy and really want, rather than taking anything because of economic uncertainty. I'll take my dividends - it's regular injections of liquidity into my assets without having to actually sell anything.
Apple is in a much more tenuous position - they'll going down the minute they stop being better than the competition.
Even if Apple is perceived to be weaker, they will fall - nothing about actual results. A lot of people buying iPhones (which account for 50% of all of Apple's revenues and more than 50% of all their profits) buy because they are trendy and fashionable. Once that perception goes, so does their product line on which half their company is based.
It's a side-benefit of having your CEO be the jobs czar for the President, don't you know... Also handy when you move business units overseas as well.
Their current profit is a lot closer, with 30 billion for Exxon and 14 billion for Apple, and on current trend, Apple will close that distance within three years.
The market for smartphones and iPads (which make about 65% of Apple's revenues and about 70% of their profits) can - and will - reach saturation at which time growth will greatly slow.
Oil, on the other hand, is a consumable and is always required.
Proof: try living without a smartphone or tablet for 6 months. Now do the same thing with petroleum.
Apple's in a huge bubble, and they are losing marketshare in the smartphone market (which is about 50% of their entire revenue). The only reason their revenue and profits are still increasing is because the smartphone market as a whole is growing faster than their loss of marketshare. But the market growth is starting to slow down already; as it slows down as the market demand is satiated, Apple will see declining revenue and profits.
The first quarter that Apple reports even a stagnant revenue - or one that drops - will see their stock tumble 40% or more. ExxonMobil has reported quarters in the past where revenues decreased - and their stock price didn't really move (a few percent). It's because Apple's market isn't mandatory use for modern life nor is it a consumable product market. ExxonMobil's is.
Apple's in a bubble. How much will it inflate before it pops? My guess is they have another 12-18 months run before the deflating starts...
It's the largest entity run by corporations.
False. If it was really run by corporations, we'd be turning a profit rather than a 27% loss every year...
Try to live 6 months without your Macbook, smartphone, or iPod. Now try the same without petroleum based products. 'nuf said.
Yeah, but it's no Dyson...
Or more importantly, grounds for raising additional research grants...
So, rather than have a "driver" the computer has to know a new means of interrogating the capabilities of the printer, and then convert files to a format that the printer can handle... Right?
Apple really wants to move the printer driver from the computer to the printer...
I'm putting off my winter of discontent until the 2012 elections. Plan ahead!
What's the point? The world ends at the start of Winter 2012 anyway...
No, Captain Jack doesn't fly for American Airlines...
But there's a handy survival/emergency axe in the cockpit... Get up for your regular break/stretching of legs, grab the axe and make like Lizzy Borden... And if you miss and trash some of the controls and electronics, well - bonus I guess.
I hear you... I bought one just for the halibut...
??? I believe you have your quote wrong...
FY2010 and FY2011 should have been written, passed, and signed into law well before any Tea Party supported candidate was sworn into office in January 2011. You can look squarely at President Obama, then-Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and ask them why they refused to create a budget.
Or rather, the lack thereof. We're on day ~830 without a Federal budget. Nothing's been passed since mid-March, 2009 when President Obama signed the FY2009 Appropriations bill (which Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi didn't take up until February 2009). Maybe S&P and a lot of the rest of the world is looking at Harry Reid's refusal to even address a budget as a fundamental sign that at least one part of the 3-step-dance that is the budgetary process is just going to sit on its hands and do nothing.
The difference is, in the US your mortgage is backed by the value of the house. For US treasuries, it's backed by our promise. With your $50,000 gross income, how would you feel about having $100,000 in signature loans backed by nothing other than your word?
Sorry, a mortgage is not a personal debt, it's secured by the property. Our debt, on the other hand, is secured by our promise alone. It's the difference between a secured loan and a signature loan - one has collateral, the other is just your word. Having 90% of your income floating out there on a signature loan would make you insolvent.
The difference is, those nations have a budget - something that we haven't had for over 2.5 years, and Senator Harry Reid seems determined to let continue. Right now, there IS no budget for the US - it's just continuances of past budgets and making it up as we go along. That's certainly not a recipe for building confidence.
The rest of the world has a budget. Senator Harry Reid (D-NV) hasn't allowed a budget for over 2.5 years. The US has been operating without a budget since 2 months in to President Obama's term (when he signed the 2009 Appropriations bill). I bet that has something to do with it - the biggest Government on the face of the Earth running for over 2 years without a budget.
A plague on both their houses!
From what I read here, outside of the USA, where the media are less partisan when covering internal US issues, the Democrats want the government to spend LESS, and the Tea Party wants the government to spend LESS too.
Then perhaps the Democrats - notably those in control of the Senate - could actually present a budget with their spending cuts and priorities? Senator Harry Reid has refused to address a budget for over 2.5 years now... Kind of hard to see exactly HOW they want to spend less when they won't even present a plan or budget describing such.
At the very least, Senator Harry Reid could take up the budget passed by the House. But he refuses to do that as well. So we're stuck because the DEMOCRAT Senate Majority Leader doesn't want to actually address the budget. So, since the 2009 Appropriations bill (signed by President Obama in March of 2009), we haven't had an actual budget for the US. Thanks, Harry!
Of the accusation? No. Of enough evidence to convene a grand jury? Sure - don't go into hotel rooms with single women and ask your guard detail to take a walk... Don't do it several times so that half a dozen women all report the same thing.
It's not so much that we found anti-protons - that can be expected. It's that they were apparently trapped with such a weak magnetic field as the Earth's.
More importantly, then-Governor Clinton shouldn't have put himself in a position where he could be accused of sexual assault, which led to his lying about a blowjob while testifying to a grand jury about the sexual assault charge. It wasn't just a blowjob or a lie about it, it was deception in a sexual assault case in front of a grand jury.