Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.os.linux.advocacy > #289100
| From | owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.os.linux.advocacy |
| Subject | Re: It was bound to happen sooner or later |
| Date | 2015-04-11 14:45 +0000 |
| Organization | ok by me, so long as it doesn't get out of hand |
| Message-ID | <jgnvmb83.gkjd@rooftop.invalid> (permalink) |
| References | <mg9ao4$bur$1@dont-email.me> <gbvjdu03.pa3f@rooftop.invalid> <mg9lop$pmr$1@dont-email.me> <bghvur80.ra0@rooftop.invalid> <mgb69g$h0h$1@dont-email.me> |
Ezekiel <zeke@nosuchemail.com> wrote: > "owl" <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote in message > news:bghvur80.ra0@rooftop.invalid... >> Ezekiel <zeke@nosuchemail.com> wrote: >> >>> "owl" <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote in message >>> news:gbvjdu03.pa3f@rooftop.invalid... >>>> Ezekiel <zeke@nosuchemail.com> wrote: >>>>> Apple is worth twice as much as Google. >>>> >>>>> Or Google is worth 1/2 as much as Apple if you prefer. >>>> >>>>> AAPL = $740.33B >>>>> GOOG = $367.59B >>>> >>>>> I know many of you are confused because of "share price." But don't >>>>> be. >>>>> It's market-capitalization that determines what a company is worth. Not >>>>> the >>>>> share price. >>>> >>>>> Don't be like this dimwit below. >>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> "Share price is a measure of market confidence based on current >>>>> performance. >>>>> The market is apparently twice as confident of ($600) Google as it is >>>>> of >>>>> ($320) Apple, and 20 times more confident than it is of ($28) >>>>> Microsoft. >>>>> So >>>>> what Google is doing today is apparently better than what others are >>>>> doing." >>>> >>>>> Homer the "advocate" lecturing others on another simple concept he >>>>> completely fails to understand >>>> >>>> Yeah, but market cap is basically a popularity contest. >> >>> To a very small extent. There's always the "now company people want to >>> see >>> in the portfolio" thing but it's primarily based on fundamentals and >>> expected future earnings. >> >> >>>> Apple doesn't have >>>> all that money, and they don't get money every time a share of Apple >>>> stock >>>> is sold at a higher price. Apple got paid one time - the day the stock >>>> was >>>> issued. >> >>> Yes and no. When a company has their IPO they don't release all the >>> shares. >>> It's called the "float" and nearly every company owns and holds shares in >>> their own company. When you hear a company is spending billions on a >>> "stock >>> buyback" then they're buying more of their own shares. Companies use the >>> shares they own for bonuses, etc but they'll also sell some shares to >>> raise >>> capital. >> >> >>>> 2014 Liabilities & Shareholders' Equity: >>>> Apple: 231.84B >>>> Google: 131.13B >>>> Microsoft: 172.38B >>>> >>>> http://www.marketwatch.com/investing/stock/aapl/financials/balance-sheet >>>> http://www.marketwatch.com/investing/stock/goog/financials/balance-sheet >>>> http://www.marketwatch.com/investing/stock/msft/financials/balance-sheet >>>> >> >>> This is an interesting accounting trick. You see companies with insane >>> amounts of money in the bank yet these companies issue debt (ie - borrow >>> money) to raise capital. >> >>> The reason behind this is that Apple/Microsoft/Google have the highest >>> possible bond ratings. So they can borrow money at a low interest rate >>> and >>> then deduct the interest from their taxes. >> >>> Most/much/shitloads of the cash they have is overseas. So if they were to >>> bring that cash back into the US they would need to pay US taxes on the >>> money. So it's cheaper to borrow money (at low rates) than it is to bring >>> in >>> money from foreign subsidiaries. >> >> Actually I grabbed the wrong line. >> >> Total Equity 2014: >> Apple: 111.55B >> Google: 104.5B >> Microsoft: 89.78B >> >> So they are really *much* closer than market cap would indicate. >> I mean, really, if Apple's share price fell to $1 tomorrow, based on >> some wild news that made everybody suddenly hate the company and dump >> their stock, the company would still actually be in the black to the >> tune of 111.55 billion > Having $111 billion in the bank isn't a bad thing. According to their latest > SEC filing it's now up to $178 Billion. > "Apple has mind-boggling $178 billion in cash to spend" > (CNN-Money) >> and the shareholders could force the board >> to give them some moolah. > Here's where it gets tricky. For example, Google founders did a power-play > and made it so that ordinary share-holders have no voting rights. On top of > that, their special "class-B shares" (that don't trade on the market) get 10 > votes/share whereas ordinary class-A shares get only 1 vote per share. > The bottom line is that even if every single Google shareholder in the world > agreed on something - they can't force the company/board to do squat. > <quote> > I believe this stock split is largely being done so that Sergey Brin and > Larry Page can maintain voting control over everyone else. > However if they don't execute well they can't be "forced" to change by > everyone else. > Currently everyone except Brin, Page, Eric Schmidt, Google's ex-CEO and > Executive Chairman, and a few other people own Class A shares. Class A > shares get one vote for each share. > Class B shares are largely owned by Brin, Page and Schmidt and they get 10 > votes per share. In total there were 56,167,343 Class B shares outstanding > on January 30, 2014. > Class C shares will be given to the Class A and B shareholders but receive > no votes on stockholder resolutions. Their trading symbol will be the > historical GOOG after the split. These are the shares that the company will > probably issue going forward for acquisitions or stock awards. > This means that Brin and Sergey have 468 million votes compared to the 280 > million Class A shareholders, essentially complete control of the company as > they have just over 55% of the total votes. Maybe the Board could exert > enough pressure on either Brin or Page to step down if they thought it was > being taken in such a wrong direction that it warranted action but otherwise > the founders have complete control. > </quote> > http://www.forbes.com/sites/chuckjones/2014/04/02/google-stock-split-in-larry-and-sergey-we-trust/ >> Regardless of whatever is happening trade-wise on the market, a stock >> represents an ownership share of the company, and if the company is >> strong financially, that share has value separate from its market value. >> Likewise, whatever inflated price a stock might be selling for has no >> real relation to the "value" of a company. > A companies assets (like $178 billion in the bank) gets factored into the > companies valuation. So in Apple's case, they're a $562 billion dollar > company with $178 billion in the bank. All that really means though is, "this is how we're going to do the math." A company is truly only worth its net worth: assets - liabilities. The stock market is just respectable a means of gambling and has no relevance the value of a company. If I decide to buy Apple one day, there's no way I'm paying $740 billion for a company that has a net worth of $178 billion. Now if I'm just planning on trading Apple stock, that's different. I only care about share price and the likelihood of making a profit down the line on the sale.
Back to comp.os.linux.advocacy | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
It was bound to happen sooner or later "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchemail.com> - 2015-04-10 16:12 -0400
Re: It was bound to happen sooner or later Tomas <tgif9fri@numo.net> - 2015-04-10 16:15 -0400
Re: It was bound to happen sooner or later "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchemail.com> - 2015-04-10 16:29 -0400
Re: It was bound to happen sooner or later Tomas <tgif9fri@numo.net> - 2015-04-10 17:20 -0400
Re: It was bound to happen sooner or later Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-04-10 13:33 -0700
Re: It was bound to happen sooner or later owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-04-10 22:07 +0000
Re: It was bound to happen sooner or later "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchemail.com> - 2015-04-10 19:20 -0400
Re: It was bound to happen sooner or later owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-04-11 00:19 +0000
Re: It was bound to happen sooner or later "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchemail.com> - 2015-04-11 09:08 -0400
Re: It was bound to happen sooner or later owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-04-11 14:45 +0000
Re: It was bound to happen sooner or later DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-04-11 12:21 -0400
Re: It was bound to happen sooner or later owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-04-11 16:58 +0000
Re: It was bound to happen sooner or later DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-04-11 22:00 -0400
Re: It was bound to happen sooner or later Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-04-11 09:43 -0700
Re: It was bound to happen sooner or later owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-04-11 17:17 +0000
Re: It was bound to happen sooner or later owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-04-11 17:20 +0000
Re: It was bound to happen sooner or later Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-04-11 11:58 -0700
Re: It was bound to happen sooner or later owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-04-11 20:02 +0000
Re: It was bound to happen sooner or later Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-04-11 13:56 -0700
Re: It was bound to happen sooner or later owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-04-11 21:48 +0000
Re: It was bound to happen sooner or later "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchemail.com> - 2015-04-13 14:01 -0400
Re: It was bound to happen sooner or later Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-04-13 11:21 -0700
Re: It was bound to happen sooner or later owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-04-13 19:24 +0000
Re: It was bound to happen sooner or later "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchemail.com> - 2015-04-13 16:04 -0400
Re: It was bound to happen sooner or later owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-04-13 20:35 +0000
Re: It was bound to happen sooner or later Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-04-13 14:13 -0700
Re: It was bound to happen sooner or later owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-04-13 21:52 +0000
How many barrels of oil will the stock produce ? Jeff-Relf.Me <@.> - 2015-04-13 23:42 -0700
Re: How many barrels of oil will the stock produce ? "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchemail.com> - 2015-04-14 13:37 -0400
How many barrels of oil will the stock produce ? Jeff-Relf.Me <@.> - 2015-04-14 10:55 -0700
Re: How many barrels of oil will the stock produce ? "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchemail.com> - 2015-04-14 15:20 -0400
csiph-web