or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by anantksundaram

I guess what you're saying is your economic worldview and pronouncements are based on what you see, and your gut-feel, rather than objective fundmentals like inflation, volatility, unemployment, bond rates, and exchange rates, which according to you is just 'noise.'Hey, it's a free country! You're fee to think what you want. But don't be surprised (and get personal) if you get challenged on it./facepalm
No, I don't. How do you explain such low stock price volatility then, at historically low levels? Why don't we see these potential problems reflected in corporate bond rates? Why is the dollar strengthening? Why is unemployment falling? And no signs of inflation on the horizon?I am not a fan of financial-economics-by-looking.(Added a couple of sentences after original post).
So, can you provide us any evidence that the Fed's easing is what is causing a market overvaluation today? Heck, can you provide any evidence -- other than the Shiller Cyclically-Adjusted PE, which has been implying that for the past few years -- that the market is overvalued today? How do the PE ratios today compare to 2008? Why do you think they're high now? The Fed has been easing for a while now. How come nothing's happened yet?
I didn't 'claim' anything. I said it's unlikely. I could most certainly be wrong about that. Go back and reread the post.
I am sure you're a far better astrologer than I am.
Groan. There we go again....If you really think that, just buy a cabin in the mountains, and spare us the angst. You've been steadfastly and shamelessly wrong for six years. But I am sure you'll be 'right' some day, like a broken clock is. But not for the reasons you think.
If you really think that MSFT at a PE ratio of 75x (or 80x or whatever it was) is the same as AAPL at 16x, I sincerely hope -- and I am not at all being snarky or sarcastic here -- that you have someone else doing your investing for you.
There could most certainly be a positive signal. But the market cap depends on whether the price per share increases by more than the quantity of shares decreases. After all, market cap is equal to price times quantity. Also, it depends on how much of the success of AppleWatch and iPhone 6/6+ is already priced into the stock.I have no idea how to predict that. No one else does, either.
Your post is nonsensical. According to you, Apple has power over the telcos because they're a hardware maker, but really because they're a hardware maker that's also a software maker?'Ummm' is right.Btw, hasn't Google been trying to be a hardware maker? Nexus? Glass? GoogleTV? Chrome? Nest? Motorola? Maybe cars? Just to name a few? How come that didn't pan out vis-a-vis power over the telcos?
So, how do you think Apple achieved its hardware 'control,' especially since no hardware maker before or since appears to have done so to the same degree?
New Posts  All Forums: