Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.os.linux.advocacy > #289066
| From | owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.os.linux.advocacy |
| Subject | Re: It was bound to happen sooner or later |
| Date | 2015-04-11 00:19 +0000 |
| Organization | ok by me, so long as it doesn't get out of hand |
| Message-ID | <bghvur80.ra0@rooftop.invalid> (permalink) |
| References | <mg9ao4$bur$1@dont-email.me> <gbvjdu03.pa3f@rooftop.invalid> <mg9lop$pmr$1@dont-email.me> |
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 and the shareholders could force the board to give them some moolah. 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.
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