or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by Blastdoor

That makes a lot of sense -- very helpful post. Thanks!
 It would only make sense to buy those other companies instead of AAPL if you expect those other companies to grow profits faster than Apple. I certainly don't expect that, so given a choice between Apple buying AAPL and Apple buying a slow-growth company, I'd rather Apple buy AAPL.  Apple does buy some companies, but the companies Apple tends to buy are seen as valuable to Apple because they bring in productive assets that can contribute to the production of Apple's...
If the Germans regain control of the ECB this might not look like such a smart move for Apple. If deflation takes hold in Europe it will mean that real interest rates are higher than nominal interest rates. That's not good for somebody who owes money. 
Interesting... I wonder if this is driven by economic considerations or tax avoidance considerations (or both).    Yes, interest rates in the Euro area are very low. But the Euro area is also teetering on the brink of deflation, which means that *real* rates might not be quite so low. Of course, if real rates turn out to be higher than anticipated (due to deflation), Apple can always just pay off the debt. And it's generally good to diversify, so having some debt...
I'm getting the impression that MCX and CurrentC are not going to withstand scrutiny well at all. 
The term "Law of Large Numbers" comes from probability/statistics, and the people who use it in the context of $AAPL appear to mean something else. In the context of probability/statistics, it just means that over multiple repetitions of the same process (for example, a coin toss), the average outcome of those repetitions will converge to the "true" average. So, if one were to apply that idea to $AAPL, I guess the notion would be that Apple just got lucky with a few...
"Apple's shares since the report was published have defied the natural laws of geometric broccoli"   This is an occasion where the Dilger snark is totally on target. These CNBC charlatans deserve every last bit of scorn that we can throw at them. 
What does that really even mean? Apple is a private company in so far as it's not a state-owned company.  But do you mean that you don't want ordinary people to be able to own part of Apple? Do you want it owned by a few billionaires? Why is that a good thing exactly?  Or do you mean that you want it to be an employee-owned company (like an ESOP)? I could see that making sense. But then as someone else said, I'd have to go work for them. 
It seems to me that the retailers just got greedy. Avoiding the fees charged by the credit card companies is a good goal, and if they had limited themselves to that objective, I might have been supportive. But they got greedy when they tried to turn this into a way to mine customer data. That's a huge mistake. It would have been hard enough to fight the credit card companies over the fees. Now they're fighting a war on two fronts -- both the credit card companies and...
I totally agree. I wonder if this whole thing was a scam by those c-level guys. The c-level people in a lot of companies are just high class con-men. 
New Posts  All Forums: