Sorry for your confusion. I know quite a lot about hedging and proprietary trading (and how they are completely different), and you obviously don't.
To respond to your other point, if you (let's imagine you are a Wall Street firm) have $10B of client money to invest upon which you make 10% in management fees, and $1B of the firm's money to invest upon which you retain 100% of the earnings, on which fund (client or proprietary) are you going to employ your skilled traders and most sophisticated techniques?
Edit: The answer, from personal experience, is that the skilled traders and sophisticated techniques will be deployed for your proprietary trading.
I would wager I know as much as you do.
As for your question, I agree that a bank would use more complex trading strategies on a proprietary fund. As with hedge funds, a fund closed to the public will employ techniques that regular investors may neither understand nor be comfortable with. Where I disagree with you is that banks make more money from their private investments.
Sorry for your confusion. I know quite a lot about hedging and proprietary trading (and how they are completely different), and you obviously don't.
To respond to your other point, if you (let's imagine you are a Wall Street firm) have $10B of client money to invest upon which you make 10% in management fees, and $1B of the firm's money to invest upon which you retain 100% of the earnings, on which fund (client or proprietary) are you going to employ your skilled traders and most sophisticated techniques?
Edit: The answer, from personal experience, is that the skilled traders and sophisticated techniques will be deployed for your proprietary trading.
So... as was mentioned earlier, the analysts hits and misses don't really affect the bulk of invested money (ie. pension plans). The hits and misses are used more for prop trading... a fancy name for day trading and swing trading.
Originally Posted by Constable Odo ...... I'm only referring to the stock and how that money is being managed. Apple should be able to do both if other, lesser companies can manage to do both.
Maybe that's why those "other, lesser companies" are just that .... lesser. Apple's strength is remaining true to it's philosophy, not trying to please everyone, all of the time, on everything. Apple did not get to the lofty heights where it finds itself at today by not knowing what its doing.
As for your question, I agree that a bank would use more complex trading strategies on a proprietary fund. As with hedge funds, a fund closed to the public will employ techniques that regular investors may neither understand nor be comfortable with. Where I disagree with you is that banks make more money from their private investments.
We are not in complete disagreement. Last year 18% of JPMorgan's gross profits came from proprietary trading or similar investment strategies. This is not the majority of their income of course. Nevertheless, I assert that prop funds earn higher rates of return than even mixed prop/customer funds, never mind funds where the firm has very little stake except a management fee.
We are not in complete disagreement. Last year 18% of JPMorgan's gross profits came from proprietary trading or similar investment strategies. This is not the majority of their income of course. Nevertheless, I assert that prop funds earn higher rates of return than even mixed prop/customer funds, never mind funds where the firm has very little stake except a management fee.
If you're talking about rates of return then absolutely, yes, a public fund will likely never outperform a proprietary one.
I'll take that as your tacit acknowledgement of the fact that you once again said something indefensible and, instead of admitting your fallacy and making a valid assertion supported by logic or fact, attempted to divert attention to another subject. What baffles me is that you didn't even have to say I was right about anything. I asked for an explanation of something that happened. I hope you manage conversations better in real life.
Unfortunately, it is very much within the realm of possibility that schools will adopt Chromebooks. As a student, it's blatantly obvious that schools (or at least mine) don't care about specs, but rather something cheap enough to get basics done.
I'll take that as your tacit acknowledgement of the fact that you once again said something indefensible and, instead of admitting your fallacy and making a valid assertion supported by logic or fact, attempted to divert attention to another subject.
It’s explicitly talking about the primary and only subject. iWork is not free. What is wrong with you?
What baffles me is that you didn't even have to say I was right about anything.
That’s a relief; you weren’t.
I asked for an explanation of something that happened.
That's not equivalent. A lie is intentionally misleading. Analyst expectations are designed to be informative, but the people who actually use them understand that nothing is certain and that there is always risk involved in making predictions.
Software can sell hardware even when it costs money, so that's not a valid explanation of the change in pricing from not free to free.
1. It's equivalent to analyst guesses at the supply chain.
2. Free with a purchase of a new machine. If Apple really wanted to compete with the freebies, they would have release it free for all Macs. It's just another incentive to buy a Mac.
With the fact in mind that from now until our sun swallows the Earth in a fiery death, iWork will be included for free on Macs but will not be given for free to those who bought Macs before, I would like to pose a question to you. What spurred Apple to make this software free for all current and future buyers?
With the fact in mind that from now until our sun swallows the Earth in a fiery death, iWork will be included for free on Macs but will not be given for free to those who bought Macs before, I would like to pose a question to you. What spurred Apple to make this software free for all current and future buyers?
Went back and looked at a number of your posts from time gone by. You are completely, totally negative when it comes to Apple products, 100% of the time. I don’t even know why you are a member of this forum. You put your own words in your mouth. You recommend anything but Apple products, the Nexus over the iPad mini. Now you are touting the Chromebook. Go figure.
Went back and looked at a number of your posts from time gone by. You are completely, totally negative when it comes to Apple products, 100% of the time. I don’t even know why you are a member of this forum. You put your own words in your mouth. You recommend anything but Apple products, the Nexus over the iPad mini. Now you are touting the Chromebook. Go figure.
I am completely and totally negative when it comes to using iOS on my personal device, but I strongly recommend iPhones and iPads to all of my older relatives. That's about it as far as negativity towards Apple. I only recommend Macbooks and I will only buy Macbooks. I would never buy a Chromebook as they are now. I would never buy a Windows PC or tablet or phone.
You may be confusing my rationality for negativity. Rationality looks a lot like negativity relative to the zealotry of many users here.
Edit: To give you a little perspective on me and this site, I began reading articles here before the iMac was released. As I am 26, that means I've been loving Apple and reading this site for at least 60% of my entire life and 100% of my adult life. I began reading the comment sections sporadically a while after I began reading articles here. I began commenting on articles several months after buying my first smartphone (a Droid X because the iPhone wasn't available on Verizon at that time) and seeing the utter idiocy of the posts here regarding Android. At that time I still longed to own an iPhone in spite of the fact that I appreciated the potential in Android. When the Galaxy Nexus and Android 4.0 were released, I upgraded and was hooked on Android. iOS no longer had the edge in design and stability that would have made the restrictive user experience worthwhile in earlier times, and after Jelly Bean was released, iOS's edge in smoothness became insignificant even though it still does have the advantage there in some cases. If the day comes when Apple allows the iPhone to work like a computer should, I will change to iOS in a heartbeat. I love the iPhone hardware for its design, and I trust Apple to choose the best quality components.
As far as computers, the only computers my family used since the iMac came out were Apple, and that won't be changing. I love the build and quality of the components in Macs, and I love OSX for its aesthetics and user friendliness. It's a computer operating system done right, unlike iOS. I have Windows 7 installed on my Mac via Bootcamp but I only used that side for schoolwork while in college and for officework at my last job. I strongly prefer OSX to Windows.
Long story short, me and Apple go way back. I love Apple. I just don't have blinders on.
Ooops. We were waiting for the “zealot” label, same as “fanboy.” At least you finally came out with it. Now we know where you are coming from. Your objectivity is astounding, the complete opposite of zealotry.
Ooops. We were waiting for the “zealot” label, same as “fanboy.” At least you finally came out with it. Now we know where you are coming from. Your objectivity is astounding, the complete opposite of zealotry.
Yep. And? Not for existing Macs and it can’t be said that this is forever.
This has all already been said. Why are you repeating things?
Still avoiding my question, huh? I laid out the facts as they are now, explicitly acknowledging the fact that Mac users not currently purchasing new Macs don't get free iWork. You can ignore the part about forever if you would prefer to; I put forever because Apple lists no expiration on the offer.
So, why is iWork currently and indefinitely (rather than eternally) being given away for free to Mac and iDevice buyers? What caused that change?
I don't understand why Um thinks that the subsidy issue will hurt Apple if the carriers drive to "maximize profitability". Apple is always used more then Android according to web statistics. There are too many data points to ignore that Apple users suck up more bandwidth and so are more profitable then Android users. Carriers aren't offering unlimited plans anymore so more bandwidth usage = more profit = carriers want more Apple users.
Comments
I would wager I know as much as you do.
As for your question, I agree that a bank would use more complex trading strategies on a proprietary fund. As with hedge funds, a fund closed to the public will employ techniques that regular investors may neither understand nor be comfortable with. Where I disagree with you is that banks make more money from their private investments.
Sorry for your confusion. I know quite a lot about hedging and proprietary trading (and how they are completely different), and you obviously don't.
To respond to your other point, if you (let's imagine you are a Wall Street firm) have $10B of client money to invest upon which you make 10% in management fees, and $1B of the firm's money to invest upon which you retain 100% of the earnings, on which fund (client or proprietary) are you going to employ your skilled traders and most sophisticated techniques?
Edit: The answer, from personal experience, is that the skilled traders and sophisticated techniques will be deployed for your proprietary trading.
So... as was mentioned earlier, the analysts hits and misses don't really affect the bulk of invested money (ie. pension plans). The hits and misses are used more for prop trading... a fancy name for day trading and swing trading.
Because they weren’t, first of all.
Maybe that's why those "other, lesser companies" are just that .... lesser. Apple's strength is remaining true to it's philosophy, not trying to please everyone, all of the time, on everything. Apple did not get to the lofty heights where it finds itself at today by not knowing what its doing.
We are not in complete disagreement. Last year 18% of JPMorgan's gross profits came from proprietary trading or similar investment strategies. This is not the majority of their income of course. Nevertheless, I assert that prop funds earn higher rates of return than even mixed prop/customer funds, never mind funds where the firm has very little stake except a management fee.
If you're talking about rates of return then absolutely, yes, a public fund will likely never outperform a proprietary one.
I'll take that as your tacit acknowledgement of the fact that you once again said something indefensible and, instead of admitting your fallacy and making a valid assertion supported by logic or fact, attempted to divert attention to another subject. What baffles me is that you didn't even have to say I was right about anything. I asked for an explanation of something that happened. I hope you manage conversations better in real life.
It’s explicitly talking about the primary and only subject. iWork is not free. What is wrong with you?
That’s a relief; you weren’t.
Except it didn’t happen.
1. It's equivalent to analyst guesses at the supply chain.
2. Free with a purchase of a new machine. If Apple really wanted to compete with the freebies, they would have release it free for all Macs. It's just another incentive to buy a Mac.
?
It’s explicitly talking about the primary and only subject. iWork is not free. What is wrong with you?
That’s a relief; you weren’t.
Except it didn’t happen.
iWork is free with every Mac purchased from now until eternity. Do I need to post the links again? What about the one directly from Apple's website?
http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2013/10/23Apple-Introduces-Next-Generation-iWork-and-iLife-Apps-for-OS-X-and-iOS.html
With the fact in mind that from now until our sun swallows the Earth in a fiery death, iWork will be included for free on Macs but will not be given for free to those who bought Macs before, I would like to pose a question to you. What spurred Apple to make this software free for all current and future buyers?
iWork is free with every Mac purchased from now until eternity. Do I need to post the links again? What about the one directly from Apple's website?
http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2013/10/23Apple-Introduces-Next-Generation-iWork-and-iLife-Apps-for-OS-X-and-iOS.html
With the fact in mind that from now until our sun swallows the Earth in a fiery death, iWork will be included for free on Macs but will not be given for free to those who bought Macs before, I would like to pose a question to you. What spurred Apple to make this software free for all current and future buyers?
Went back and looked at a number of your posts from time gone by. You are completely, totally negative when it comes to Apple products, 100% of the time. I don’t even know why you are a member of this forum. You put your own words in your mouth. You recommend anything but Apple products, the Nexus over the iPad mini. Now you are touting the Chromebook. Go figure.
Went back and looked at a number of your posts from time gone by. You are completely, totally negative when it comes to Apple products, 100% of the time. I don’t even know why you are a member of this forum. You put your own words in your mouth. You recommend anything but Apple products, the Nexus over the iPad mini. Now you are touting the Chromebook. Go figure.
I am completely and totally negative when it comes to using iOS on my personal device, but I strongly recommend iPhones and iPads to all of my older relatives. That's about it as far as negativity towards Apple. I only recommend Macbooks and I will only buy Macbooks. I would never buy a Chromebook as they are now. I would never buy a Windows PC or tablet or phone.
You may be confusing my rationality for negativity. Rationality looks a lot like negativity relative to the zealotry of many users here.
Edit: To give you a little perspective on me and this site, I began reading articles here before the iMac was released. As I am 26, that means I've been loving Apple and reading this site for at least 60% of my entire life and 100% of my adult life. I began reading the comment sections sporadically a while after I began reading articles here. I began commenting on articles several months after buying my first smartphone (a Droid X because the iPhone wasn't available on Verizon at that time) and seeing the utter idiocy of the posts here regarding Android. At that time I still longed to own an iPhone in spite of the fact that I appreciated the potential in Android. When the Galaxy Nexus and Android 4.0 were released, I upgraded and was hooked on Android. iOS no longer had the edge in design and stability that would have made the restrictive user experience worthwhile in earlier times, and after Jelly Bean was released, iOS's edge in smoothness became insignificant even though it still does have the advantage there in some cases. If the day comes when Apple allows the iPhone to work like a computer should, I will change to iOS in a heartbeat. I love the iPhone hardware for its design, and I trust Apple to choose the best quality components.
As far as computers, the only computers my family used since the iMac came out were Apple, and that won't be changing. I love the build and quality of the components in Macs, and I love OSX for its aesthetics and user friendliness. It's a computer operating system done right, unlike iOS. I have Windows 7 installed on my Mac via Bootcamp but I only used that side for schoolwork while in college and for officework at my last job. I strongly prefer OSX to Windows.
Long story short, me and Apple go way back. I love Apple. I just don't have blinders on.
Ooops. We were waiting for the “zealot” label, same as “fanboy.” At least you finally came out with it. Now we know where you are coming from. Your objectivity is astounding, the complete opposite of zealotry.
Ooops. We were waiting for the “zealot” label, same as “fanboy.” At least you finally came out with it. Now we know where you are coming from. Your objectivity is astounding, the complete opposite of zealotry.
Read my edited post. Then reconsider.
iWork is free with every Mac purchased… …now…
Yep. And? Not for existing Macs and it can’t be said that this is forever.
This has all already been said. Why are you repeating things?
Yep. And? Not for existing Macs and it can’t be said that this is forever.
This has all already been said. Why are you repeating things?
Still avoiding my question, huh? I laid out the facts as they are now, explicitly acknowledging the fact that Mac users not currently purchasing new Macs don't get free iWork. You can ignore the part about forever if you would prefer to; I put forever because Apple lists no expiration on the offer.
So, why is iWork currently and indefinitely (rather than eternally) being given away for free to Mac and iDevice buyers? What caused that change?