Of course they're connected. Through the expected future growth in profits. That's why Google's PE ratio is ~30, while Apple's is ~13. (Price = EPS*PE)
Rightly or wrongly, the market expects much faster profit growth out of Google. It also expects that Apple's profits won't grow as fast as even that of the average company in the market, let alone Google.
Apple just has to prove them wrong. And they will, for those who wait.
There is nothing direct about an exception of profits by a market diviner and profits that have actually been counted.
The extra stimuli we have now is part of the reason we no longer see the likes of a Mozart, or Michelangelo.
That's your nostalgia filter at work. Its also a blank generalization. Are you part of the general public that only knows names thru cultural osmosis? There has been a great many geniuses over the last 100 to 150 years.
To those who say that google has a better profit margin, look at the tax they paid. Google paid 16 percent while apple paid 26 percent. Yet apple is the one attacked/investigated.
Apple paid income taxes equal to 26% of it's corporate profits? When and where was that?
That's your nostalgia filter at work. Its also a blank generalization. Are you part of the general public that only knows names thru cultural osmosis? There's has been a great many geniuses over the last hundred years.
I agree partly with your comment about a nostalgia filter as we only know the relatively few exceptions that rise to the surface in a generation but I don't think the term "genius" should be used to describe all such people. Genius, in relation to intelligence has to deal with the capacity for exceptional intellectual, creative power or other natural ability but by itself it's not not enough. There are many other factors at play to create the next [name that will be remembered above all others for a given era].
On that point, the most intelligent and clever people I know are not the ones that make the most money or most likely to change the world. It seems like you need to at least have a particular mental aptitude, a high degree of focus, and have been born into the the right circumstances.
The aforementioned Fraunhofer was making glass his whole life as an indentured servant. If that horrible act had not come about and he had a normal and happy childhood what would he have become? I think the odds fall heavily on him not be famous today and certainly not being remembered for his important discovery for modern science. Maybe it's better to have a surgeon that has spent so many years studying medicine that they don't know much about other subjects. I've certainly met such people.
That's your nostalgia filter at work. Its also a blank generalization. Are you part of the general public that only knows names thru cultural osmosis? There has been a great many geniuses over the last 100 to 150 years.
True, and I could've picked some of the more obscure ones that few only know about, but I chose 2 of the most known to help prove my point to the many.
That's your nostalgia filter at work. Its also a blank generalization. Are you part of the general public that only knows names thru cultural osmosis? There has been a great many geniuses over the last 100 to 150 years.
One of them is at work in Silicon Valley and elsewhere right now and goes by the name of Elon Musk. Oh... and his privately owned spacecraft is flying to the ISS on Monday, again. Even the somewhat self-absorbed British TV show Top Gear had this to say - 'The Tesla Model S is the most important car Top Gear has tested.' http://www.topgear.com/uk/photos/Maserati-Ghibli-takes-on-Model-S-2014-04-03
Interested to learn whether there is something to the talk of a mutual interest with Apple in a battery production plant in California. Hopefully greater collaboration.
One of them is at work in Silicon Valley and elsewhere right now and goes by the name of Elon Musk.
He will be one of–if not the–first trillionaires, a word which OS X still thinks is misspelled. Musk has my vote to do just about anything. I think we can pretty well say that someone is “the Steve Jobs of [field]”, and Musk would probably fit that bill a few times over.
He will be one of–if not the–first trillionaires, a word which OS X still thinks is misspelled. Musk has my vote to do just about anything. I think we can pretty well say that someone is “the Steve Jobs of [field]”, and Musk would probably fit that bill a few times over.
I believe that the opportunities for the two folds, Apple and Musk's companies, to take advantage of synergies is enormous. For example, SpaceX apparently, according to Musk at least, is cheaper at lofting payloads than even the Chinese. When his systems become fully re-usable, the advantage will grow even further. This with fully home-grown technology and manufacturing, something Apple must certainly be well aware of. When Musk begins a new venture, I doubt that he gives a thought to it being sited anywhere other than in the US.
Of course they're connected. Through the expected future growth in profits. That's why Google's PE ratio is ~30, while Apple's is ~13. (Price = EPS*PE)
Rightly or wrongly, the market expects much faster profit growth out of Google. It also expects that Apple's profits won't grow as fast as even that of the average company in the market, let alone Google.
Apple just has to prove them wrong. And they will, for those who wait.
There is nothing direct about an exception of profits by a market diviner and profits that have actually been counted.
I guess we can debate the degree of 'direct'ness until the cows come home, but the point is that markets are not valuing what you did for me in the last quarter/year/decade. They are valuing what they think you can do for me in the future. Forming expectations of about that future does not require one to be a diviner, not by a long shot.
Profits that have been 'actually counted' matter in only two ways, really: (1) Whether and what it tells us about the management's ability to deliver the same type of performance in the future; and (2) What management plans to with all the past cash (including whether they're just going to return it to shareholders).
I guess we can debate the degree of 'direct'ness until the cows come home, but the point is that markets are not valuing what you did for me in the last quarter/year/decade. They are valuing what they think you can do for me in the future. Forming expectations of about that future does not require one to be a diviner, not by a long shot.
Profits that have been 'actually counted' matter in only two ways, really: (1) Whether and what it tells us about the management's ability to deliver the same type of performance in the future; and (2) What management plans to with all the past cash (including whether they're just going to return it to shareholders).
That valuation can use recorded profits in their prognostication the way a fortune teller can use visual clues to sometimes make accurate guesses about their next customer but in no way is each a 1:1 (i.e.: direct) indicator of what the future holds. As we've clearly seen the stock will go up and down even as profits go up and down.
Furthermore, investors tend to guess what the stock will do, not what the company's profit will do which is why we see articles stating what they say the stock will be in a year, not what a company's profits will be in a year.
Seems like unless Apple start to lost money, spent money to acquire meaningless businesses, copy others, lie to the shareholders, pay the damn politicians, lobbyiny jerks, data research firms, journalists, analysts, the stock will be not move up like the others.
Where/how do you think the people that prognosticate on where "the stock will be in year" get at that number?
[SIZE=8px](Hint: I gave you the answer in a prior reply, when I said that analysts estimate price as Price = EPS*PE).[/SIZE]
It's all guesses on what they think will happen and not based on what has actually happened. If it was based solely on the latter Apple's valuation would be much higher and Amazon's would be much lower. Again, none of it is direct because it's all about predicting an unknown, uncertain future.
Where/how do you think the people that prognosticate on where "the stock will be in year" get at that number?
(Hint: I gave you the answer in a prior reply, when I said that analysts estimate price as Price = EPS*PE).
It's all guesses on what they think will happen and not based on what has actually happened. If it was based solely on the latter Apple's valuation would be much higher and Amazon's would be much lower. Again, none of it is direct because it's all about predicting an unknown, uncertain future.
1) It's not just 'guesses.' It's much more sophisticated than that. Unless you think all forecasting is 'guesses.'
2) In any event, what you personally about 'what has actually happened' is irrelevant. Markets, unfortunately, could give a s*** about that. I did tell you the two conditions under which 'what has actually happened' matters. You can choose to believe it or not.
3) You seem hung up on the concept of 'direct.' I am simply failing to see how and why that is remotely relevant to how markets actually price stocks. Direct or indirect is not a all relevant. What you think is 'direct' may not be what the market thinks is direct.
4) The future is, by definition, unknown and uncertain (Neils Bohr said it much better). But if you think that forecasting is useless or pointless because of that (which seems to me to be what you're implying here), we might as well shut down the economy and the markets. But that's not an option.
1) It's not just 'guesses.' It's much more sophisticated than that. Unless you think all forecasting is 'guesses.'
It doesn't matter if an educated guess it's still an estimate without sufficient information to be sure of being correct. Apple's earnings are to be taken as factual statements.
guess |ges| verb [ with obj. ]
estimate or suppose (something) without sufficient information to be sure of being correct.
You seem hung up on the concept of 'direct.' I am simply failing to see how and why that is remotely relevant to how markets actually price stocks. Direct or indirect is not a all relevant. What you think is 'direct' may not be what the market thinks is direct.
Of course I'm hung up on the use of direct. If it's direct it means that any additional sales made on a given day will mean that the stock will go up as a direct result of those sales. Stocks simply don't work that way. Actual profits are only a single metric used to determine their future potential.
The future is, by definition, unknown and uncertain (Neils Bohr said it much better). But if you think that forecasting is useless or pointless because of that (which seems to me to be what you're implying here), we might as well shut down the economy and the markets. But that's not an option.
Of course I don't think it's useless or pointless. I'm a frequent contributor to a site called Apple Insider that oft posts rumours. My guesses are still just guesses regardless of how much research I do to back up my ideas or if my ideas about what Apple and other company may do turn out to be spot on.
Apple paid income taxes equal to 26% of it's corporate profits? When and where was that?
Just look at the quarterly report. I will make it easier on you, go to google finance, select aapl and goog. Select each one and go to financials. See the last quarter:
Name, Income before tax, income after tax:
Comments
That was, indeed, a pathetic pos op-ed. Most of his op-eds are.
There is nothing direct about an exception of profits by a market diviner and profits that have actually been counted.
The extra stimuli we have now is part of the reason we no longer see the likes of a Mozart, or Michelangelo.
That's your nostalgia filter at work. Its also a blank generalization. Are you part of the general public that only knows names thru cultural osmosis? There has been a great many geniuses over the last 100 to 150 years.
Apple paid income taxes equal to 26% of it's corporate profits? When and where was that?
I agree partly with your comment about a nostalgia filter as we only know the relatively few exceptions that rise to the surface in a generation but I don't think the term "genius" should be used to describe all such people. Genius, in relation to intelligence has to deal with the capacity for exceptional intellectual, creative power or other natural ability but by itself it's not not enough. There are many other factors at play to create the next [name that will be remembered above all others for a given era].
On that point, the most intelligent and clever people I know are not the ones that make the most money or most likely to change the world. It seems like you need to at least have a particular mental aptitude, a high degree of focus, and have been born into the the right circumstances.
The aforementioned Fraunhofer was making glass his whole life as an indentured servant. If that horrible act had not come about and he had a normal and happy childhood what would he have become? I think the odds fall heavily on him not be famous today and certainly not being remembered for his important discovery for modern science. Maybe it's better to have a surgeon that has spent so many years studying medicine that they don't know much about other subjects. I've certainly met such people.
True, and I could've picked some of the more obscure ones that few only know about, but I chose 2 of the most known to help prove my point to the many.
No offense Neil...
That's your nostalgia filter at work. Its also a blank generalization. Are you part of the general public that only knows names thru cultural osmosis? There has been a great many geniuses over the last 100 to 150 years.
One of them is at work in Silicon Valley and elsewhere right now and goes by the name of Elon Musk. Oh... and his privately owned spacecraft is flying to the ISS on Monday, again. Even the somewhat self-absorbed British TV show Top Gear had this to say - 'The Tesla Model S is the most important car Top Gear has tested.' http://www.topgear.com/uk/photos/Maserati-Ghibli-takes-on-Model-S-2014-04-03
Interested to learn whether there is something to the talk of a mutual interest with Apple in a battery production plant in California. Hopefully greater collaboration.
All the best.
He will be one of–if not the–first trillionaires, a word which OS X still thinks is misspelled. Musk has my vote to do just about anything. I think we can pretty well say that someone is “the Steve Jobs of [field]”, and Musk would probably fit that bill a few times over.
He will be one of–if not the–first trillionaires, a word which OS X still thinks is misspelled. Musk has my vote to do just about anything. I think we can pretty well say that someone is “the Steve Jobs of [field]”, and Musk would probably fit that bill a few times over.
I believe that the opportunities for the two folds, Apple and Musk's companies, to take advantage of synergies is enormous. For example, SpaceX apparently, according to Musk at least, is cheaper at lofting payloads than even the Chinese. When his systems become fully re-usable, the advantage will grow even further. This with fully home-grown technology and manufacturing, something Apple must certainly be well aware of. When Musk begins a new venture, I doubt that he gives a thought to it being sited anywhere other than in the US.
I guess we can debate the degree of 'direct'ness until the cows come home, but the point is that markets are not valuing what you did for me in the last quarter/year/decade. They are valuing what they think you can do for me in the future. Forming expectations of about that future does not require one to be a diviner, not by a long shot.
Profits that have been 'actually counted' matter in only two ways, really: (1) Whether and what it tells us about the management's ability to deliver the same type of performance in the future; and (2) What management plans to with all the past cash (including whether they're just going to return it to shareholders).
That valuation can use recorded profits in their prognostication the way a fortune teller can use visual clues to sometimes make accurate guesses about their next customer but in no way is each a 1:1 (i.e.: direct) indicator of what the future holds. As we've clearly seen the stock will go up and down even as profits go up and down.
Furthermore, investors tend to guess what the stock will do, not what the company's profit will do which is why we see articles stating what they say the stock will be in a year, not what a company's profits will be in a year.
Yes indeed ... google does a lot of this to people to see which one makes analysts / investors excited!
Where/how do you think the people that prognosticate on where "the stock will be in year" get at that number?
(Hint: I gave you the answer in a prior reply, when I said that analysts estimate price as Price = EPS*PE).
It's all guesses on what they think will happen and not based on what has actually happened. If it was based solely on the latter Apple's valuation would be much higher and Amazon's would be much lower. Again, none of it is direct because it's all about predicting an unknown, uncertain future.
Where/how do you think the people that prognosticate on where "the stock will be in year" get at that number?
(Hint: I gave you the answer in a prior reply, when I said that analysts estimate price as Price = EPS*PE).
It's all guesses on what they think will happen and not based on what has actually happened. If it was based solely on the latter Apple's valuation would be much higher and Amazon's would be much lower. Again, none of it is direct because it's all about predicting an unknown, uncertain future.
1) It's not just 'guesses.' It's much more sophisticated than that. Unless you think all forecasting is 'guesses.'
2) In any event, what you personally about 'what has actually happened' is irrelevant. Markets, unfortunately, could give a s*** about that. I did tell you the two conditions under which 'what has actually happened' matters. You can choose to believe it or not.
3) You seem hung up on the concept of 'direct.' I am simply failing to see how and why that is remotely relevant to how markets actually price stocks. Direct or indirect is not a all relevant. What you think is 'direct' may not be what the market thinks is direct.
4) The future is, by definition, unknown and uncertain (Neils Bohr said it much better). But if you think that forecasting is useless or pointless because of that (which seems to me to be what you're implying here), we might as well shut down the economy and the markets. But that's not an option.
It doesn't matter if an educated guess it's still an estimate without sufficient information to be sure of being correct. Apple's earnings are to be taken as factual statements.
verb [ with obj. ]
estimate or suppose (something) without sufficient information to be sure of being correct.
Of course I'm hung up on the use of direct. If it's direct it means that any additional sales made on a given day will mean that the stock will go up as a direct result of those sales. Stocks simply don't work that way. Actual profits are only a single metric used to determine their future potential.
Of course I don't think it's useless or pointless. I'm a frequent contributor to a site called Apple Insider that oft posts rumours. My guesses are still just guesses regardless of how much research I do to back up my ideas or if my ideas about what Apple and other company may do turn out to be spot on.
Just look at the quarterly report. I will make it easier on you, go to google finance, select aapl and goog. Select each one and go to financials. See the last quarter:
Name, Income before tax, income after tax:
Goog 4,047.00, 3,381.00 tax rate: 16.4%
Aapl. 17,709.00, 13,072.00 tax rate; 26.2%
Tell me were i am wrong. Compare to msft
Msft 7,878.00 6,558.00 tax rate: 16.75%
Yet apple is vilified. Every news about tax avoidance is about apple. Again, tell me were aim wrong.