or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by anantksundaram

By the same token, the argument goes from a lot of quarters, money wins elections in the US, the rich are able to give politicians more of it so as to increase the likelihood of wins, and have quid-pro-goodies handed out to them (e.g., tax breaks, regulatory loopholes, "corporate welfare"). See Suddenly Newton above.
I know exactly what he's saying. He's talking about the PE of the operating (non-cash) assets. My question was, what has changed (or will change) about that, and how, with market perceptions? Just the fact that he keeps saying it over and over, with the hope that the "market" will finally pay attention? I don't get it.
That is a silly statement. (Not that I care for politics or politicians in the least).
It's never a good idea to confuse luck with skill, but hey, it's your money... (Add: Oh, I've got quite a bit in AAPL too -- got in early and held on -- but my portfolio is better diversified. Many other parts of the portfolio have done as well, if not better. But like I said, each to his own.)
Nothing wrong at all with the rich getting richer as long as the poor don't get poorer. Unless someone else's improvement in well-being makes you envious (even when your own has improved).
So, Mr. Icahn, what's going to make Apple's PE jump? What's so new about the market's perceptions of Apple's growth opportunities the next year that has not been true of the past?
 Uh oh. tooltalk has shown up. I predict that things go downhill from here on: I am out of this thread.
This is an overwrought statement. There is really no evidence to back this up. Who is Samsung contributing to?
Agree wholeheartedly. The loss of face, reputation, and hence market value for Samsung is worth many multiples of this belated, useless bit of legal kabuki from Koh.
Michael Fassbender is one of the best actors of his generation. Period. I am very impressed by those of you are able to go meh/bleh (or "great!") after 60 seconds. Not.
New Posts  All Forums: