By Chris Nuttall and Richard Waters in San Francisco
Actually, it would help if you could come off your pedestal and actually read what I wrote. Or even better, comprehend what I wrote, including the simple arithmetic involved. I said (re-read, if you wish, at post #19): "Both Yahoo Finance and Google Finance say that AAPL has 932.37M shares outstanding. At the risk of sounding nitpicky, that would say $536.27, not $536.87....."
I was saying that, if, as Yahoo and Google suggest that the correct number of shares outstanding is 932.37M, then the price per share would be $536.27 not $536.87. If that is not the correct number of shares, then the correct market cap would be different, genius. (For the record, Nuttall and Waters are using 941M as the number of shares outstanding).
Btw, that would make FT right, and Google and Yahoo wrong. Which is certainly possible. But also wrong would be the headline of this AI article that we are all responding to, which is titled "...Nearly Half-Trillion Dollars...."
Why don't you write to AI and ask them correct the headline if you are so damn sure?
You know, this is just another time when you start spouting nonsense, and trivial junk. Sure, if you prefer "Money manager", fine. It's really not worth arguing about that.
Know what words you are using, and stop being so defensive.
A "thank you" would be enough - use the words more appropriately in the future.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
They are concerned with losing money. That, you don't understand? What, are you trying to be obtuse? Would you have preferred me to word it differently? Should I have instead said they are concerned that they don't lose money? Would that have been easier for you to understand? It was pretty obvious as to what I meant. They are concerned about losing money. Concerned should have been a hint to you.
I still have no clue what you mean, because this paragraph is completely obtuse. Perhaps someone else can explain. You;re just making it worse.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
Why do you bother to even comment on these things? Your comments are so often off the wall.
Actually, it would help if you could come off your pedestal and actually read what I wrote. Or even better, comprehend what I wrote, including the simple arithmetic involved. I said (re-read, if you wish, at post #19): "Both Yahoo Finance and Google Finance say that AAPL has 932.37M shares outstanding. At the risk of sounding nitpicky, that would say $536.27, not $536.87....."
I was saying that, if, as Yahoo and Google suggest that the correct number of shares outstanding is 932.37M, then the price per share would be $536.27 not $536.87. If that is not the correct number of shares, then the correct market cap would be different, genius. (For the record, Nuttall and Waters are using 941M as the number of shares outstanding).
Btw, that would make FT right, and Google and Yahoo wrong. Which is certainly possible. But also wrong would be the headline of this AI article that we are all responding to, which is titled "...Nearly Half-Trillion Dollars...."
Why don't you write to AI and ask them correct the headline if you are so damn sure?
Now you're backtracking. The Financial Time's article is pretty clear. It's what I was saying as well. It's not a talk about a few hundred million. It's billions different. About a $504 billion number. That's what I was talking about. Not what you're concerned about. That's minor.
For example, MDN likes to do a feature of "Apple shares hit new all-time intraday, closing*highs".
The problem is that they quote a market cap for ExxonMobile from Yahoo Finance that's different from the one from CNN Marketwatch. Today, for example, MDN's number is $410.71.
But CNN has it as $417.7. That's a big discrepancy. It's the difference in the way they count the shares.
Know what words you are using, and stop being so defensive.
A "thank you" would be enough - use the words more appropriately in the future.
I still have no clue what you mean, because this paragraph is completely obtuse. Perhaps someone else can explain. You;re just making it worse.
Really? Show me one other. And argue why.
Otherwise, move along.
Thank you for what, not understanding what I wrote, and causing unnecessary problems? You really do have problems with reading. Just say you're sorry about making such a big deal about nothing, and that you're embarrassed at the mistake.
Of course they do. But not because they wake up in the morning with the goal of losing money on your behalf. They actually perhaps care about the fact that, if -- by luck or skill -- they end up making money for you, they stand a chance of making even higher commissions in the future from other unsuspecting folks!
No argument there... The point, though, if it it is important enough to you -- you can position yourself to do a better job.
It really depends on what you want to spend your time doing!
At this point your seemingly desperate obsession with wanting to sound right (at the risk of any and all lameness) trumps your ability to comprehend what the headline of this article says, what the body of the text of the article says, and what I wrote.
Have you written to AI to change the headline? In which case, do you realize that this thread is moot?
Also, allow me to repeat my question since you made a shrill and insulting claim when you said "Your comments are so often off the wall": Really? Show me one other. And argue why.
Darn! I can't buy stock since it doesn't want to come down a little!
Sure you can, don't be silly.
I bought in at $194 and again at $343. The second go-round, my broker thought I was nuts and tried to talk me out of it. I said "screw that, I'm going balls-deep!" and dropped a much bigger load into it than I did the first go-round. I'm about ready to jump in again.
I bought in at $194 and again at $343. The second go-round, my broker thought I was nuts and tried to talk me out of it. I said "screw that, I'm going balls-deep!" and dropped a much bigger load into it than I did the first go-round. I'm about ready to jump in again.
At this point your seemingly desperate obsession with wanting to sound right (at the risk of any and all lameness) trumps your ability to comprehend what the headline of this article says, what the body of the text of the article says, and what I wrote.
Have you written to AI to change the headline? In which case, do you realize that this thread is moot?
Also, allow me to repeat my question since you made a shrill and insulting claim when you said "Your comments are so often off the wall": Really? Show me one other. And argue why.
Oh please! Really, if you insist on saying things that don't relate to my posts, and ignore links, then nothing you say is relevant.
Why is this controversy going on between two well-reasoned participants in AI?
I see good posts on both sides... Normally I am an opinionated asshole!
Because he isn't interested in actually reading what I say. He reads it to believe what he want's to believe. I didn't write to discuss a minor difference. I was pointing out that there are different ways of calculating this, which there are. Of course, if he wants to think that he knows better...
As the Financial Times is showing (which is what I was trying to show), is that there is Market cap, and equity. Calculated slightly differently. Most sites use simple market cap, but occasionally, some will use equity, which is higher, as the FT shows. In this case it's $504 billion, not 498+, or 499+.
Somehow, he wants to deny this difference. I don't know why. It's not as through the FT isn't one of the most respected financial journals around.
Then, and again I don't know why, he assumes I mean that financial advisors, or managers are trying to lose money for their clients. If anyone else here thinks I meant that, I would be surprised. Even if my wording wasn't the best, it was pretty obvious that I meant that they were concerned that they NOt lose money for their clients.
But for some reason, he chooses to think the other way, a nonsensable conclusion that should have had him wondering at his interpretation. But instead, he chooses to confront me on it, thinking that I actually mean that these guys spend time thinking how to lose their clients money.
Nuts! Really!
I provided a link to the first, but he doesn't seem to have read the quote either that explained the position, and keeps on repeating what isn't relevant to what I was saying.
Then he doesn't understand my explanation of the second.
So, does anyone really think I was saying that managers spend time trying to find ways of losing their clients money? How could anyone think that?
So he starts insulting me instead. I suppose I should just have removed his posts. But instead I try to reply, even though it becomes increasingly difficult to be objective towards him.
Oh please! Really, if you insist on saying things that don't relate to my posts, and ignore links, then nothing you say is relevant.
Groan.
In addition to www.finance.yahoo.com, www.google.com/finance, and AppleInsider, you might wish to know (as noted above) that WSJ, Forbes, thestreet.com, and Bloomberg agree with me (please make sure to read the whole article in the instance where they say AAPL crossed $500B in mkt cap, i.e., after hours):
New flash: All the really important financial data sources in the US must be wrong, and melgross (and that UK newspaper, Financial Times) must be right!
Quit it. Sometimes you can be wrong. And that's not such a big deal.
I suppose I should just have removed his posts. But instead I try to reply, even though it becomes increasingly difficult to be objective towards him.
Stop throwing your weight around. I dare you to.
But I would expect the decency of someone from AI - not you, since you appear to be conflating your personal interests with those of AI - explaining exactly what rule I violated.
I personally think as Apple expands into more high-margin (and currently incompetently managed) markets that are ripe for takeover they may easily hit something like $1,000 a share in 3 to 5 years time. Call me crazy, but I see a clear path for this happening.
Apple made nearly $14/s during the last Q, mostly due to the iPhone 4S. On the next upgrade, they will have most likely compatibility with China Mobile... that is huge. iPad is being adopted by the mass market including schools, universities, government, etc and that wave will go worldwide. The Mac sales that grew 50% last year, particularly due to the laptops. Apple has a tinny share of the PC market.
Even with iPhone saturation in the US market, sales could double in the next 18 months. Even with PE compression, the stock could come close to 4 digits.
Just a scenario and speculation. Meh, all it takes is for somebody to start a war in the Persian Gulf and all bets are off.
In addition to www.finance.yahoo.com, www.google.com/finance, and AppleInsider, you might wish to know (as noted above) that WSJ, Forbes, thestreet.com, and Bloomberg agree with me (please make sure to read the whole article in the instance where they say AAPL crossed $500B in mkt cap, i.e., after hours):
New flash: All the really important financial data sources in the US must be wrong, and melgross (and that UK newspaper, Financial Times) must be right!
Quit it. Sometimes you can be wrong. And that's not such a big deal.
You REALLY aren't reading anything I write, or what I quoted, are you? You insist in repeating something that I didn't say, and that the FT didn't say. As for your putting down "that UK newspaper" that just shows prejudice and ignorance. Why don't you finally read the quote.
Neither I or the FT are saying that the $504 billion number is market cap. But you don't know that, because you didn't bother to read it, did you?
Because he isn't interested in actually reading what I say. He reads it to believe what he want's to believe. I didn't write to discuss a minor difference. I was pointing out that there are different ways of calculating this, which there are. Of course, if he wants to think that he knows better...
I carefully read what you had to say. You simply said, without quoting FT or clarifying anything at all: "Again, market cap vs. equity. For equity, there are more shares being counted. Another several billion worth."
I noted that the statement makes no sense all. It simply didn't, because my post (which you were responding to) was specifically saying that, if the number of shares outstanding is 932.37M, then a $500B mkt cap would require a price of $536.27/share. That is straightforward arithmetic with clearly defined assumptions/caveats.
It had nothing to do with my knowing better or worse. That is your interprertaion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
As the Financial Times is showing (which is what I was trying to show), is that there is Market cap, and equity. Calculated slightly differently. Most sites use simple market cap, but occasionally, some will use equity, which is higher, as the FT shows. In this case it's $504 billion, not 498+, or 499+.
Somehow, he wants to deny this difference. I don't know why. It's not as through the FT isn't one of the most respected financial journals around.
If FT is among the 'most respected,' so are Yahoo Finance, Google Finance, Wall Street Journal, Forbes, theStreet.com, Bloomberg, all of which show a number different from that of FT.
I reconciled the difference by giving you the arithmetic (FT is assuming 941M shares, while everyone else is assuming my number) and you simply chose to ignore that fact.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
Nuts! Really!
You call me "nuts" or say "If you knew as much about this as you think you do..." or "...spouting nonsense, and trivial junk..." or "...are you trying to be obtuse..." or "Your comments are so often off the wall" or "...You really do have problems with reading..." (I could go on, but you get the drift) and you have the temerity to say that I am insulting? Why, because you are a moderator, you think have the right to insult your members and not be called on that? That is sheer arrogance and hypocrisy, sir.
I could give you many examples of where you insult posters on this forum (and attempt to pull your weight as a moderator) a great deal. Stop it. It makes you, and by inference AI, look silly.
---
Look, I could go on with line-by-line responses to the rest of your post (including where you acknowledge that your wording could have been better -- talk about backtracking!), but frankly, life is too short, it's too late, and I need to get to bed. And it's tiresome.
I'll respond to you tomorrow morning if you had a substantive response to anything the I had to say.
You REALLY aren't reading anything I write, or what I quoted, are you? You insist in repeating something that I didn't say, and that the FT didn't say. As for your putting down "that UK newspaper" that just shows prejudice and ignorance. Why don't you finally read the quote.
Neither I or the FT are saying that the $504 billion number is market cap. But you don't know that, because you didn't bother to read it, did you?
I read everything you wrote, and the article.
If I am "prejudiced and ignorant" about a "UK newspaper," (how about you stop with the insults, and keep the conversation civil) surely you can see that you must be guilty of the same with at least six well-respected US newspapers and websites that I cited.
Talk to you tomorrow! (If you didn't pull some phony rank, that is).
I don't understand the stock market, which is probably why I don't have any shares. I always thought the point of owning shares was for the dividends. The higher the profits, the better the dividend and so the shares go up in line with the P/E ratio.
Apple doesn't pay any dividends so why does the share price keep going up every day? Surely if they don't pay any dividends there is no point owning the stock unless you think the stock is going to just keep going up and up which it might well do.
Either all the fund managers think Apple will pay a dividend sometime soon or they're looking to make a lot of money quickly by riding the tidal wave up. I wonder if the stock will come back down once they start selling to take their profits.
It's a strange world we live in.
Dividends are fine when the stock market is providing steady returns from solid companies. The problem we have now is many of the old reliable stocks have done poorly in recent years, often with greatly reduced dividends. Just look at Goldman Sachs, for example, which prior to the collapse had one of the best track records of any company available. In the years since, they've lost money for the first time in their history.
Comments
If you knew as much about this as you think you do, it would be amazing!
From the Financial Times today:
If you can see this page, it's the article where the quote comes from. Live and learn.
http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/2/a49cb...#axzz1niNRgfLJ
If you can't get it, the name of the article is:
Last updated: February 28, 2012 11:39 pm
Apple joins exclusive $500bn club
By Chris Nuttall and Richard Waters in San Francisco
Actually, it would help if you could come off your pedestal and actually read what I wrote. Or even better, comprehend what I wrote, including the simple arithmetic involved. I said (re-read, if you wish, at post #19): "Both Yahoo Finance and Google Finance say that AAPL has 932.37M shares outstanding. At the risk of sounding nitpicky, that would say $536.27, not $536.87....."
I was saying that, if, as Yahoo and Google suggest that the correct number of shares outstanding is 932.37M, then the price per share would be $536.27 not $536.87. If that is not the correct number of shares, then the correct market cap would be different, genius. (For the record, Nuttall and Waters are using 941M as the number of shares outstanding).
Btw, that would make FT right, and Google and Yahoo wrong. Which is certainly possible. But also wrong would be the headline of this AI article that we are all responding to, which is titled "...Nearly Half-Trillion Dollars...."
Why don't you write to AI and ask them correct the headline if you are so damn sure?
You know, this is just another time when you start spouting nonsense, and trivial junk. Sure, if you prefer "Money manager", fine. It's really not worth arguing about that.
Know what words you are using, and stop being so defensive.
A "thank you" would be enough - use the words more appropriately in the future.
They are concerned with losing money. That, you don't understand? What, are you trying to be obtuse? Would you have preferred me to word it differently? Should I have instead said they are concerned that they don't lose money? Would that have been easier for you to understand? It was pretty obvious as to what I meant. They are concerned about losing money. Concerned should have been a hint to you.
I still have no clue what you mean, because this paragraph is completely obtuse. Perhaps someone else can explain. You;re just making it worse.
Why do you bother to even comment on these things? Your comments are so often off the wall.
Really? Show me one other. And argue why.
Otherwise, move along.
Actually, it would help if you could come off your pedestal and actually read what I wrote. Or even better, comprehend what I wrote, including the simple arithmetic involved. I said (re-read, if you wish, at post #19): "Both Yahoo Finance and Google Finance say that AAPL has 932.37M shares outstanding. At the risk of sounding nitpicky, that would say $536.27, not $536.87....."
I was saying that, if, as Yahoo and Google suggest that the correct number of shares outstanding is 932.37M, then the price per share would be $536.27 not $536.87. If that is not the correct number of shares, then the correct market cap would be different, genius. (For the record, Nuttall and Waters are using 941M as the number of shares outstanding).
Btw, that would make FT right, and Google and Yahoo wrong. Which is certainly possible. But also wrong would be the headline of this AI article that we are all responding to, which is titled "...Nearly Half-Trillion Dollars...."
Why don't you write to AI and ask them correct the headline if you are so damn sure?
Now you're backtracking. The Financial Time's article is pretty clear. It's what I was saying as well. It's not a talk about a few hundred million. It's billions different. About a $504 billion number. That's what I was talking about. Not what you're concerned about. That's minor.
For example, MDN likes to do a feature of "Apple shares hit new all-time intraday, closing*highs".
The problem is that they quote a market cap for ExxonMobile from Yahoo Finance that's different from the one from CNN Marketwatch. Today, for example, MDN's number is $410.71.
But CNN has it as $417.7. That's a big discrepancy. It's the difference in the way they count the shares.
Know what words you are using, and stop being so defensive.
A "thank you" would be enough - use the words more appropriately in the future.
I still have no clue what you mean, because this paragraph is completely obtuse. Perhaps someone else can explain. You;re just making it worse.
Really? Show me one other. And argue why.
Otherwise, move along.
Thank you for what, not understanding what I wrote, and causing unnecessary problems? You really do have problems with reading. Just say you're sorry about making such a big deal about nothing, and that you're embarrassed at the mistake.
Of course they do. But not because they wake up in the morning with the goal of losing money on your behalf. They actually perhaps care about the fact that, if -- by luck or skill -- they end up making money for you, they stand a chance of making even higher commissions in the future from other unsuspecting folks!
No argument there... The point, though, if it it is important enough to you -- you can position yourself to do a better job.
It really depends on what you want to spend your time doing!
Now you're backtracking.
Backtracking schmacktracking.
At this point your seemingly desperate obsession with wanting to sound right (at the risk of any and all lameness) trumps your ability to comprehend what the headline of this article says, what the body of the text of the article says, and what I wrote.
Have you written to AI to change the headline? In which case, do you realize that this thread is moot?
Also, allow me to repeat my question since you made a shrill and insulting claim when you said "Your comments are so often off the wall": Really? Show me one other. And argue why.
No argument there... The point, though, if it it is important enough to you -- you can position yourself to do a better job.
It really depends on what you want to spend your time doing!
I have no doubt that you can. If you - they - can (and people who let them manage their money can) distinguish between skill and luck.
Darn! I can't buy stock since it doesn't want to come down a little!
Sure you can, don't be silly.
I bought in at $194 and again at $343. The second go-round, my broker thought I was nuts and tried to talk me out of it. I said "screw that, I'm going balls-deep!" and dropped a much bigger load into it than I did the first go-round. I'm about ready to jump in again.
C'mon in, the water's warm!
Why is this controversy going on between two well-reasoned participants in AI?
I see good posts on both sides... Normally I am an opinionated asshole!
Confused...
Why is this controversy going on between two well-reasoned participants in AI?
I see good posts on both sides... Normally I am an opinionated asshole!
You're right..... what's a few billion between friends..... if someone thinks it's $504B, so be it.
(Although, in addition to www.finance.yahoo.com, www.google.com/finance, and AppleInsider, WSJ, Forbes, thestreet.com, and Bloomberg must be wrong as well:
http://blogs.wsj.com/marketbeat/2012...view_wsjlatest
http://www.forbes.com/sites/ericsavi...cap-hits-500b/
http://www.thestreet.com/story/11437...cm_ven=GOOGLEN
http://www.bloomberg.com/quote/AAPL:US)
Sure you can, don't be silly.
I bought in at $194 and again at $343. The second go-round, my broker thought I was nuts and tried to talk me out of it. I said "screw that, I'm going balls-deep!" and dropped a much bigger load into it than I did the first go-round. I'm about ready to jump in again.
C'mon in, the water's warm!
that was uncomfortably sexual. lol
Backtracking schmacktracking.
At this point your seemingly desperate obsession with wanting to sound right (at the risk of any and all lameness) trumps your ability to comprehend what the headline of this article says, what the body of the text of the article says, and what I wrote.
Have you written to AI to change the headline? In which case, do you realize that this thread is moot?
Also, allow me to repeat my question since you made a shrill and insulting claim when you said "Your comments are so often off the wall": Really? Show me one other. And argue why.
Oh please! Really, if you insist on saying things that don't relate to my posts, and ignore links, then nothing you say is relevant.
Confused...
Why is this controversy going on between two well-reasoned participants in AI?
I see good posts on both sides... Normally I am an opinionated asshole!
Because he isn't interested in actually reading what I say. He reads it to believe what he want's to believe. I didn't write to discuss a minor difference. I was pointing out that there are different ways of calculating this, which there are. Of course, if he wants to think that he knows better...
As the Financial Times is showing (which is what I was trying to show), is that there is Market cap, and equity. Calculated slightly differently. Most sites use simple market cap, but occasionally, some will use equity, which is higher, as the FT shows. In this case it's $504 billion, not 498+, or 499+.
Somehow, he wants to deny this difference. I don't know why. It's not as through the FT isn't one of the most respected financial journals around.
Then, and again I don't know why, he assumes I mean that financial advisors, or managers are trying to lose money for their clients. If anyone else here thinks I meant that, I would be surprised. Even if my wording wasn't the best, it was pretty obvious that I meant that they were concerned that they NOt lose money for their clients.
But for some reason, he chooses to think the other way, a nonsensable conclusion that should have had him wondering at his interpretation. But instead, he chooses to confront me on it, thinking that I actually mean that these guys spend time thinking how to lose their clients money.
Nuts! Really!
I provided a link to the first, but he doesn't seem to have read the quote either that explained the position, and keeps on repeating what isn't relevant to what I was saying.
Then he doesn't understand my explanation of the second.
So, does anyone really think I was saying that managers spend time trying to find ways of losing their clients money? How could anyone think that?
So he starts insulting me instead. I suppose I should just have removed his posts. But instead I try to reply, even though it becomes increasingly difficult to be objective towards him.
Oh please! Really, if you insist on saying things that don't relate to my posts, and ignore links, then nothing you say is relevant.
Groan.
In addition to www.finance.yahoo.com, www.google.com/finance, and AppleInsider, you might wish to know (as noted above) that WSJ, Forbes, thestreet.com, and Bloomberg agree with me (please make sure to read the whole article in the instance where they say AAPL crossed $500B in mkt cap, i.e., after hours):
http://blogs.wsj.com/marketbeat/2012...view_wsjlatest
http://www.forbes.com/sites/ericsavi...cap-hits-500b/
http://www.thestreet.com/story/11437...cm_ven=GOOGLEN
http://www.bloomberg.com/quote/AAPL:US
New flash: All the really important financial data sources in the US must be wrong, and melgross (and that UK newspaper, Financial Times) must be right!
Quit it. Sometimes you can be wrong. And that's not such a big deal.
I suppose I should just have removed his posts. But instead I try to reply, even though it becomes increasingly difficult to be objective towards him.
Stop throwing your weight around. I dare you to.
But I would expect the decency of someone from AI - not you, since you appear to be conflating your personal interests with those of AI - explaining exactly what rule I violated.
I personally think as Apple expands into more high-margin (and currently incompetently managed) markets that are ripe for takeover they may easily hit something like $1,000 a share in 3 to 5 years time. Call me crazy, but I see a clear path for this happening.
Apple made nearly $14/s during the last Q, mostly due to the iPhone 4S. On the next upgrade, they will have most likely compatibility with China Mobile... that is huge. iPad is being adopted by the mass market including schools, universities, government, etc and that wave will go worldwide. The Mac sales that grew 50% last year, particularly due to the laptops. Apple has a tinny share of the PC market.
Even with iPhone saturation in the US market, sales could double in the next 18 months. Even with PE compression, the stock could come close to 4 digits.
Just a scenario and speculation. Meh, all it takes is for somebody to start a war in the Persian Gulf and all bets are off.
Groan.
In addition to www.finance.yahoo.com, www.google.com/finance, and AppleInsider, you might wish to know (as noted above) that WSJ, Forbes, thestreet.com, and Bloomberg agree with me (please make sure to read the whole article in the instance where they say AAPL crossed $500B in mkt cap, i.e., after hours):
http://blogs.wsj.com/marketbeat/2012...view_wsjlatest
http://www.forbes.com/sites/ericsavi...cap-hits-500b/
http://www.thestreet.com/story/11437...cm_ven=GOOGLEN
http://www.bloomberg.com/quote/AAPL:US
New flash: All the really important financial data sources in the US must be wrong, and melgross (and that UK newspaper, Financial Times) must be right!
Quit it. Sometimes you can be wrong. And that's not such a big deal.
You REALLY aren't reading anything I write, or what I quoted, are you? You insist in repeating something that I didn't say, and that the FT didn't say. As for your putting down "that UK newspaper" that just shows prejudice and ignorance. Why don't you finally read the quote.
Neither I or the FT are saying that the $504 billion number is market cap. But you don't know that, because you didn't bother to read it, did you?
Because he isn't interested in actually reading what I say. He reads it to believe what he want's to believe. I didn't write to discuss a minor difference. I was pointing out that there are different ways of calculating this, which there are. Of course, if he wants to think that he knows better...
I carefully read what you had to say. You simply said, without quoting FT or clarifying anything at all: "Again, market cap vs. equity. For equity, there are more shares being counted. Another several billion worth."
I noted that the statement makes no sense all. It simply didn't, because my post (which you were responding to) was specifically saying that, if the number of shares outstanding is 932.37M, then a $500B mkt cap would require a price of $536.27/share. That is straightforward arithmetic with clearly defined assumptions/caveats.
It had nothing to do with my knowing better or worse. That is your interprertaion.
As the Financial Times is showing (which is what I was trying to show), is that there is Market cap, and equity. Calculated slightly differently. Most sites use simple market cap, but occasionally, some will use equity, which is higher, as the FT shows. In this case it's $504 billion, not 498+, or 499+.
Somehow, he wants to deny this difference. I don't know why. It's not as through the FT isn't one of the most respected financial journals around.
If FT is among the 'most respected,' so are Yahoo Finance, Google Finance, Wall Street Journal, Forbes, theStreet.com, Bloomberg, all of which show a number different from that of FT.
I reconciled the difference by giving you the arithmetic (FT is assuming 941M shares, while everyone else is assuming my number) and you simply chose to ignore that fact.
Nuts! Really!
You call me "nuts" or say "If you knew as much about this as you think you do..." or "...spouting nonsense, and trivial junk..." or "...are you trying to be obtuse..." or "Your comments are so often off the wall" or "...You really do have problems with reading..." (I could go on, but you get the drift) and you have the temerity to say that I am insulting? Why, because you are a moderator, you think have the right to insult your members and not be called on that? That is sheer arrogance and hypocrisy, sir.
I could give you many examples of where you insult posters on this forum (and attempt to pull your weight as a moderator) a great deal. Stop it. It makes you, and by inference AI, look silly.
---
Look, I could go on with line-by-line responses to the rest of your post (including where you acknowledge that your wording could have been better -- talk about backtracking!), but frankly, life is too short, it's too late, and I need to get to bed. And it's tiresome.
I'll respond to you tomorrow morning if you had a substantive response to anything the I had to say.
You REALLY aren't reading anything I write, or what I quoted, are you? You insist in repeating something that I didn't say, and that the FT didn't say. As for your putting down "that UK newspaper" that just shows prejudice and ignorance. Why don't you finally read the quote.
Neither I or the FT are saying that the $504 billion number is market cap. But you don't know that, because you didn't bother to read it, did you?
I read everything you wrote, and the article.
If I am "prejudiced and ignorant" about a "UK newspaper," (how about you stop with the insults, and keep the conversation civil) surely you can see that you must be guilty of the same with at least six well-respected US newspapers and websites that I cited.
Talk to you tomorrow! (If you didn't pull some phony rank, that is).
I don't understand the stock market, which is probably why I don't have any shares. I always thought the point of owning shares was for the dividends. The higher the profits, the better the dividend and so the shares go up in line with the P/E ratio.
Apple doesn't pay any dividends so why does the share price keep going up every day? Surely if they don't pay any dividends there is no point owning the stock unless you think the stock is going to just keep going up and up which it might well do.
Either all the fund managers think Apple will pay a dividend sometime soon or they're looking to make a lot of money quickly by riding the tidal wave up. I wonder if the stock will come back down once they start selling to take their profits.
It's a strange world we live in.
Dividends are fine when the stock market is providing steady returns from solid companies. The problem we have now is many of the old reliable stocks have done poorly in recent years, often with greatly reduced dividends. Just look at Goldman Sachs, for example, which prior to the collapse had one of the best track records of any company available. In the years since, they've lost money for the first time in their history.