or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by ankleskater

IBM is ONE example. And academics still debate over the value of the buyback. Those who believe the tactic was not that effective cite these numbers (I may not have precise figures so feel free to blast me after Googling): They spent something like $12B a couple of years ago buying back shares: Net result is approximate doubling of EPS. Clearly EPS gain would have been lower w/o buyback, but it would have increased anyhow (because IBM did not buy back 50% of its shares)....
Please cite all cases in history where share buyback could irrefutably be credited for sustained growth in market cap. Did it work for Microsoft? Has it worked for HP, Intel, Disney?History shows that this tactic often works in the short term for companies with declining revenues and/or profits.True believers in long term success of the company would sit calmly and wait for that success to evolve.
Kudos to Samsung for taking a lead in a strategically interesting market. They might have accomplished this by means of cheaper phones or larger screens. Either way, it shouldn't take away from the accomplishment. Having said this, I'm a bit fatigued by comments suggesting that Apple had to "innovate" fast and come up with cheaper, larger phones. Pricing and screen size are marketing decisions, not innovations. This doesn't mean Apple cannot design cheaper and larger...
I know - irrelevant and dated argument.
Sony does a significant of manufacturing in China. Looks like this is another field of expertise of yours, like chemistry.
So Amazon is troubled then?
  How do you know this goes beyond redundancy?
When Galaxy S came out, I did a double-take as it sure looked like the iPhone 3G in the display window.
You don't get your money's worth until you win the case, or the case is settled in your favor.
You were saying you weren't aware of the tone of your words? Seriously?
New Posts  All Forums: