Decline is decline, regardless how the details are parsed. Unless we can demonstrate that there's some invisible third tablet OS that everyone somehow forgot to tally, the bottom line is that the difference in Apple's tablet market share seems to belong to Android.
You can make up anything you want. It doesn't make it true. More manufacturers are now making tablets, so more tablets are being shipped, that doesn't mean they're being bought
Look at the Playbook. They shipped 500,000, as against analysts numbers of 400,000, but they directly refused to say how many sold. In one article, it was said that the number would be between 0 and 300,000. But now we read that RIM missed their sales target for the Playbook by 90%, and they may discontinue the current WiFi model. We know they discontinued development on the 10" model.
How many other manufacturers are in the same boat? Good shipments that are sitting in warehouses and on retailers shelves, don't count as sales. So yes, there are many more tablets being made by more manufacturers, and so many more have been shipped. so what?
Another business article recently said that business is buying tablets by the truckload. But Goode, who supplies software for business on tablets to run databases and such said that 95% of them are iPads.
Don't exaggerate. A "bunch of people" didn't. One person -- melgross -- did.
I've never seen long term benefits to the share price from a dividend. As you fellows have been saying, it's the fundamentals of the business that determines how well the stock does. Short term, it can help, but as soon as there's a dip, it gets wiped out, and then it's very difficult to prove if it's been effective.
You may be right. There's a warehouse somewhere with many millions of Android tablets in it. Probably the same warehouse shown at the end of Indiana Jones. The Android tablet on my desk, the ones my friends have, the ones I see at my corner cafe? All part of some mass hypnosis from Nazi mind control scientists.
Yep. That seems far more plausible than Apple's iPad sales numbers responding to the entry of dozens of new competing products in the market.
You're going further off the fringe. You know very well how this works, or do you? Assuming you're serious. You must be in a mythical place where all is Android tablets. I haven't seen a single one here in NYC yet.
We'll see in a couple of quarters how this is working out. A lot of companies stuff the channel, and that can only work for a couple of quarters.
We've got people stating that if Apple offers a dividend, the stock will go higher, as that will make it more desirable.
That's a psychological effect of the dividend, and it can go either way - I'm not talking about that.
I'm just saying that having paid dividends Exxon has retained less earnings than it would have otherwise. Retained earnings absolutely increase market cap. Stick another 50BN in Apple's bank and their value will go up, maybe not 50BN but by a good proportion.
Quote:
In the case of Exxon, over the years their market cap has risen and fallen with oil prices. What do you think will happen to their stock if oil goes to 125, what about if it drops to 75?
Obviously Exxon correlates with oil price, but it's not just an oil price derivative, it depends on other things too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
I've never seen long term benefits to the share price from a dividend. As you fellows have been saying, it's the fundamentals of the business that determines how well the stock does. Short term, it can help, but as soon as there's a dip, it gets wiped out, and then it's very difficult to prove if it's been effective.
They're not supposed to necessarily increase share price, they are supposed to increase total shareholder return.
If you had two otherwise identical firms, one of which pays a dividend and the other doesn't and retains the cash - then the former would provide a better investment return, but the second would (eventually) have the higher share price.
Decline is decline, regardless how the details are parsed. Unless we can demonstrate that there's some invisible third tablet OS that everyone somehow forgot to tally, the bottom line is that the difference in Apple's tablet market share seems to belong to Android.
Bit of a difference if Apple has only declined to 85% though isn't there? 60% of shipments could easily be 85% of sales. Heck it could be more.
Is that what you meant? It wasn't clear. But we must assume a value for future investment purposes, or we can't invest at all.
A particular value? I never have, and it hasn't prevented me from investing. Even if you invest in diversified index funds, you can't assume anything but a range of future values dependent on probability factors over which you have no actual control and can't be accurately forecasted. Investing in individual stocks is an educated crap shoot, at best.
On another subject, I have to weigh in on the bizarre notion that a company's "retained earnings" (read: unused cash) is of value to investors. Unless it's being paid out those same investors in the form of a dividend, it is not. I've seen AAPL priced by the markets at essentially 100% of the company's cash on hand value. If this money meant something, anything, to investors, this would be impossible. Investors, at least investors with a clue, know that "retained earnings" is dead money because it's not being used to either grow the company's business and consequently its earnings, or it's not being distributed to stockholders.
Unless people buy more computers than they do fuel, I smell a bubble.
I'm grateful for how well my AAPL stock is doing, but it's getting kinda out there....
If you think AAPL is overvalued, sell your shares. But be clear about how you define words like "overvalued" or "bubble." On a similar note, you've probably seen the media describe social networking as the "next tech bubble" but so far, there is no data to back that up.
Similarly, a lot of people seem to think that AAPL is overvalued. This talk sprang up when Apple overtook Microsoft in market cap. They thought AAPL was overvalued. Clearly that was not the case. Right now, AAPL is trading at 15x earnings. Trading at 15x earnings is not a bubble by any means. Neither is $76 billion in cash. Apple's valuation is high. But Apple has the results to back it up.
If you think AAPL is overvalued, sell your shares. But be clear about how you define words like "overvalued" or "bubble."
Agreed. Terms like "overvalued" and "undervalued" only have meanings after the fact. When a stock climbs, it's fair to say it was undervalued. If it declines, it's safe to conclude that it was overvalued. Making claims beforehand that a stock is over, under or fairly valued is a form of prognostication about future values that even the best-educated experts in investing can't make accurately on a regular basis.
Agreed. Terms like "overvalued" and "undervalued" only have meanings after the fact.
There are extreme cases when it is clear, Netscape back at the peak of the bubble was overvalued for example, it was clear to anybody in the industry that the browser wasn't worth that much money because it couldn't be monetized directly.
An extreme example of undervalued stock would be Barclays which sank to under 50p a share, at which point it was priced effectively as an option. The market noticed fairly fast and a few days later it was back above 100p.
That's a psychological effect of the dividend, and it can go either way - I'm not talking about that.
I'm just saying that having paid dividends Exxon has retained less earnings than it would have otherwise. Retained earnings absolutely increase market cap. Stick another 50BN in Apple's bank and their value will go up, maybe not 50BN but by a good proportion.
Yes, well, I've read just the opposite. That holding too much cash actually lowers the value. It seems wrong, but then, investing isn't always sensible.
Quote:
Obviously Exxon correlates with oil price, but it's not just an oil price derivative, it depends on other things too.
Of course it does. But oil pricing is the largest determiner of their sales, and profits. Of course, these days, oil companies are also subject to the whims of the governments of the countries they do business with, so that has an effect as well.
[/
They're not supposed to necessarily increase share price, they are supposed to increase total shareholder return.
If you had two otherwise identical firms, one of which pays a dividend and the other doesn't and retains the cash - then the former would provide a better investment return, but the second would (eventually) have the higher share price.[/QUOTE]
i'm not sure I can agree with that. I've seen a fair amount of analysis that shows that dividends lowers the company's value, and so keep the share price lower than it would be, thereby lowering the return to investors.
So the problem is that depending on who your read, it can go either way.
As most dividends are a very small percentage of the stock price, I question whether it's of value in the long run. If it suppresses the share price, it's a negative.
And return can be measured different ways. I look at the value of my investments in total. If there is a dividend, how does that affect the investment? Generally, growth companies don't give dividends, but it's not always true.
Measuring all of this is impossible because of the many varied factors that involve a company's success, or lack of same.
A particular value? I never have, and it hasn't prevented me from investing. Even if you invest in diversified index funds, you can't assume anything but a range of future values dependent on probability factors over which you have no actual control and can't be accurately forecasted. Investing in individual stocks is an educated crap shoot, at best.
On another subject, I have to weigh in on the bizarre notion that a company's "retained earnings" (read: unused cash) is of value to investors. Unless it's being paid out those same investors in the form of a dividend, it is not. I've seen AAPL priced by the markets at essentially 100% of the company's cash on hand value. If this money meant something, anything, to investors, this would be impossible. Investors, at least investors with a clue, know that "retained earnings" is dead money because it's not being used to either grow the company's business and consequently its earnings, or it's not being distributed to stockholders.
Not an exact value, but an approximate one over some time.
I don't think it's any more bizarre than many other investment beliefs. This is a bizarre industry to begin with . It's subject entirely to human whim. Economists have no way to predict what will happen.
Not an exact value, but an approximate one over some time.
I don't think it's any more bizarre than many other investment beliefs. This is a bizarre industry to begin with . It's subject entirely to human whim. Economists have no way to predict what will happen.
Exactly. Markets are based entirely on human behavior factors. Experts can't predict what they will do in advance with much more accuracy than amateurs, or coin flips.
There are extreme cases when it is clear, Netscape back at the peak of the bubble was overvalued for example, it was clear to anybody in the industry that the browser wasn't worth that much money because it couldn't be monetized directly.
An extreme example of undervalued stock would be Barclays which sank to under 50p a share, at which point it was priced effectively as an option. The market noticed fairly fast and a few days later it was back above 100p.
You say it is clear, but the only clarity that actually matters is the market, and everyone knows the true value of something after the fact. Knowing before the fact is the much harder part. It's an old saw but a truism that the dynamics of the markets are the opposing forces of fear and greed.
You say it is clear, but the only clarity that actually matters is the market, and everyone knows the true value of something after the fact. Knowing before the fact is the much harder part. It's an old saw but a truism that the dynamics of the markets are the opposing forces of fear and greed.
In addition, Netscape did charge for their browser from the very beginning. I paid $39.95 for a boxed version, and then an additional $14.95 for a Netscape cap. I still hav e both, for historical reasons. Above that, Netscape was selling their Enterprise server software for $5,000 a pop. Back then, organizations bought the server software if they ran the browser. It may seem backwards today, but that was the way it was.
Netscape had no problem monitoring it's products until Ms gave IE away for free, and made it almost impossible for people to get Netscape on their machines.
Our friend doesn't seem to understand the issues of the day that led to the federal lawsuit against MS.
Of course, though it sometimes seems that way, the market isn't entirely random either, and so we can make investment decisions long term that work for us.
Comments
Decline is decline, regardless how the details are parsed. Unless we can demonstrate that there's some invisible third tablet OS that everyone somehow forgot to tally, the bottom line is that the difference in Apple's tablet market share seems to belong to Android.
You can make up anything you want. It doesn't make it true. More manufacturers are now making tablets, so more tablets are being shipped, that doesn't mean they're being bought
Look at the Playbook. They shipped 500,000, as against analysts numbers of 400,000, but they directly refused to say how many sold. In one article, it was said that the number would be between 0 and 300,000. But now we read that RIM missed their sales target for the Playbook by 90%, and they may discontinue the current WiFi model. We know they discontinued development on the 10" model.
How many other manufacturers are in the same boat? Good shipments that are sitting in warehouses and on retailers shelves, don't count as sales. So yes, there are many more tablets being made by more manufacturers, and so many more have been shipped. so what?
Another business article recently said that business is buying tablets by the truckload. But Goode, who supplies software for business on tablets to run databases and such said that 95% of them are iPads.
Strange, others have gotten to it.
And that an odd statement.
Maybe others have a CNN account.
As for the observation that markets don't necessarily respond to logic, I didn't think to be odd at all.
Don't exaggerate. A "bunch of people" didn't. One person -- melgross -- did.
I've never seen long term benefits to the share price from a dividend. As you fellows have been saying, it's the fundamentals of the business that determines how well the stock does. Short term, it can help, but as soon as there's a dip, it gets wiped out, and then it's very difficult to prove if it's been effective.
Maybe others have a CNN account.
As for the observation that markets don't necessarily respond to logic, I didn't think to be odd at all.
Is that what you meant? It wasn't clear. But we must assume a value for future investment purposes, or we can't invest at all.
You may be right. There's a warehouse somewhere with many millions of Android tablets in it. Probably the same warehouse shown at the end of Indiana Jones. The Android tablet on my desk, the ones my friends have, the ones I see at my corner cafe? All part of some mass hypnosis from Nazi mind control scientists.
Yep. That seems far more plausible than Apple's iPad sales numbers responding to the entry of dozens of new competing products in the market.
You're going further off the fringe. You know very well how this works, or do you? Assuming you're serious. You must be in a mythical place where all is Android tablets. I haven't seen a single one here in NYC yet.
We'll see in a couple of quarters how this is working out. A lot of companies stuff the channel, and that can only work for a couple of quarters.
We've got people stating that if Apple offers a dividend, the stock will go higher, as that will make it more desirable.
That's a psychological effect of the dividend, and it can go either way - I'm not talking about that.
I'm just saying that having paid dividends Exxon has retained less earnings than it would have otherwise. Retained earnings absolutely increase market cap. Stick another 50BN in Apple's bank and their value will go up, maybe not 50BN but by a good proportion.
In the case of Exxon, over the years their market cap has risen and fallen with oil prices. What do you think will happen to their stock if oil goes to 125, what about if it drops to 75?
Obviously Exxon correlates with oil price, but it's not just an oil price derivative, it depends on other things too.
I've never seen long term benefits to the share price from a dividend. As you fellows have been saying, it's the fundamentals of the business that determines how well the stock does. Short term, it can help, but as soon as there's a dip, it gets wiped out, and then it's very difficult to prove if it's been effective.
They're not supposed to necessarily increase share price, they are supposed to increase total shareholder return.
If you had two otherwise identical firms, one of which pays a dividend and the other doesn't and retains the cash - then the former would provide a better investment return, but the second would (eventually) have the higher share price.
Decline is decline, regardless how the details are parsed. Unless we can demonstrate that there's some invisible third tablet OS that everyone somehow forgot to tally, the bottom line is that the difference in Apple's tablet market share seems to belong to Android.
Bit of a difference if Apple has only declined to 85% though isn't there? 60% of shipments could easily be 85% of sales. Heck it could be more.
Is that what you meant? It wasn't clear. But we must assume a value for future investment purposes, or we can't invest at all.
A particular value? I never have, and it hasn't prevented me from investing. Even if you invest in diversified index funds, you can't assume anything but a range of future values dependent on probability factors over which you have no actual control and can't be accurately forecasted. Investing in individual stocks is an educated crap shoot, at best.
On another subject, I have to weigh in on the bizarre notion that a company's "retained earnings" (read: unused cash) is of value to investors. Unless it's being paid out those same investors in the form of a dividend, it is not. I've seen AAPL priced by the markets at essentially 100% of the company's cash on hand value. If this money meant something, anything, to investors, this would be impossible. Investors, at least investors with a clue, know that "retained earnings" is dead money because it's not being used to either grow the company's business and consequently its earnings, or it's not being distributed to stockholders.
Unless people buy more computers than they do fuel, I smell a bubble.
I'm grateful for how well my AAPL stock is doing, but it's getting kinda out there....
If you think AAPL is overvalued, sell your shares. But be clear about how you define words like "overvalued" or "bubble." On a similar note, you've probably seen the media describe social networking as the "next tech bubble" but so far, there is no data to back that up.
Similarly, a lot of people seem to think that AAPL is overvalued. This talk sprang up when Apple overtook Microsoft in market cap. They thought AAPL was overvalued. Clearly that was not the case. Right now, AAPL is trading at 15x earnings. Trading at 15x earnings is not a bubble by any means. Neither is $76 billion in cash. Apple's valuation is high. But Apple has the results to back it up.
If you think AAPL is overvalued, sell your shares. But be clear about how you define words like "overvalued" or "bubble."
Agreed. Terms like "overvalued" and "undervalued" only have meanings after the fact. When a stock climbs, it's fair to say it was undervalued. If it declines, it's safe to conclude that it was overvalued. Making claims beforehand that a stock is over, under or fairly valued is a form of prognostication about future values that even the best-educated experts in investing can't make accurately on a regular basis.
Agreed. Terms like "overvalued" and "undervalued" only have meanings after the fact.
There are extreme cases when it is clear, Netscape back at the peak of the bubble was overvalued for example, it was clear to anybody in the industry that the browser wasn't worth that much money because it couldn't be monetized directly.
An extreme example of undervalued stock would be Barclays which sank to under 50p a share, at which point it was priced effectively as an option. The market noticed fairly fast and a few days later it was back above 100p.
That's a psychological effect of the dividend, and it can go either way - I'm not talking about that.
I'm just saying that having paid dividends Exxon has retained less earnings than it would have otherwise. Retained earnings absolutely increase market cap. Stick another 50BN in Apple's bank and their value will go up, maybe not 50BN but by a good proportion.
Yes, well, I've read just the opposite. That holding too much cash actually lowers the value. It seems wrong, but then, investing isn't always sensible.
Obviously Exxon correlates with oil price, but it's not just an oil price derivative, it depends on other things too.
Of course it does. But oil pricing is the largest determiner of their sales, and profits. Of course, these days, oil companies are also subject to the whims of the governments of the countries they do business with, so that has an effect as well.
[/
They're not supposed to necessarily increase share price, they are supposed to increase total shareholder return.
If you had two otherwise identical firms, one of which pays a dividend and the other doesn't and retains the cash - then the former would provide a better investment return, but the second would (eventually) have the higher share price.[/QUOTE]
i'm not sure I can agree with that. I've seen a fair amount of analysis that shows that dividends lowers the company's value, and so keep the share price lower than it would be, thereby lowering the return to investors.
So the problem is that depending on who your read, it can go either way.
As most dividends are a very small percentage of the stock price, I question whether it's of value in the long run. If it suppresses the share price, it's a negative.
And return can be measured different ways. I look at the value of my investments in total. If there is a dividend, how does that affect the investment? Generally, growth companies don't give dividends, but it's not always true.
Measuring all of this is impossible because of the many varied factors that involve a company's success, or lack of same.
A particular value? I never have, and it hasn't prevented me from investing. Even if you invest in diversified index funds, you can't assume anything but a range of future values dependent on probability factors over which you have no actual control and can't be accurately forecasted. Investing in individual stocks is an educated crap shoot, at best.
On another subject, I have to weigh in on the bizarre notion that a company's "retained earnings" (read: unused cash) is of value to investors. Unless it's being paid out those same investors in the form of a dividend, it is not. I've seen AAPL priced by the markets at essentially 100% of the company's cash on hand value. If this money meant something, anything, to investors, this would be impossible. Investors, at least investors with a clue, know that "retained earnings" is dead money because it's not being used to either grow the company's business and consequently its earnings, or it's not being distributed to stockholders.
Not an exact value, but an approximate one over some time.
I don't think it's any more bizarre than many other investment beliefs. This is a bizarre industry to begin with . It's subject entirely to human whim. Economists have no way to predict what will happen.
Not an exact value, but an approximate one over some time.
I don't think it's any more bizarre than many other investment beliefs. This is a bizarre industry to begin with . It's subject entirely to human whim. Economists have no way to predict what will happen.
Exactly. Markets are based entirely on human behavior factors. Experts can't predict what they will do in advance with much more accuracy than amateurs, or coin flips.
There are extreme cases when it is clear, Netscape back at the peak of the bubble was overvalued for example, it was clear to anybody in the industry that the browser wasn't worth that much money because it couldn't be monetized directly.
An extreme example of undervalued stock would be Barclays which sank to under 50p a share, at which point it was priced effectively as an option. The market noticed fairly fast and a few days later it was back above 100p.
You say it is clear, but the only clarity that actually matters is the market, and everyone knows the true value of something after the fact. Knowing before the fact is the much harder part. It's an old saw but a truism that the dynamics of the markets are the opposing forces of fear and greed.
You say it is clear, but the only clarity that actually matters is the market, and everyone knows the true value of something after the fact. Knowing before the fact is the much harder part. It's an old saw but a truism that the dynamics of the markets are the opposing forces of fear and greed.
In addition, Netscape did charge for their browser from the very beginning. I paid $39.95 for a boxed version, and then an additional $14.95 for a Netscape cap. I still hav e both, for historical reasons. Above that, Netscape was selling their Enterprise server software for $5,000 a pop. Back then, organizations bought the server software if they ran the browser. It may seem backwards today, but that was the way it was.
Netscape had no problem monitoring it's products until Ms gave IE away for free, and made it almost impossible for people to get Netscape on their machines.
Our friend doesn't seem to understand the issues of the day that led to the federal lawsuit against MS.
Of course, though it sometimes seems that way, the market isn't entirely random either, and so we can make investment decisions long term that work for us.