One thing I am not sure about is how much reluctance foreign holders of US treasuries will have to buy more treasuries. My guess is both foreign government and commercial holdings will edge down quite a bit, even without any reciprocal activity. Just because they will have reduced US reserves, and in effect need for treasuries.
God knows what happens if reciprocal activity starts towards using another currency also for global trade.
I played with my wife's lumia 710 and it beats iphone in ease of use. If these phones sell well, which they seem to be doing, developers and apps will come too.
Totally agree. Way too much people thinks changes happen instantly. Nokia did not adapt to the iPhone-Android boom, and it's paying it now. Any movement they do now will be reflected in performance in the next quarters, as that lack of adaptation is reflecting now in their performance.
I think Nokia will improve significantly in terms of revenue. The new Lumias are pretty good and are selling really well. Also, don't forget that behind this stands Microsoft, which still has an enormous dominance in the enterprise business, and who could push Windows Phone as the perfect complement for all the enterprise software it is already selling (Office, Outlook, Exchange, Lync, Windows, Windows Server...)
Well, a manifestation of the main reason I stay away from owning stocks of tech companies. They do not share profits with the stock holders and pretend to know better how to put cash to use, because their current business generates a lot of money.
Not only does Google not share any profit with the shareholders, it is now taking more debt. Google does not need the cash for its business. The only use this cash may be put to is to make acquisitions. Hubris of the highest order when company managements think they know much better than shareholders, how to best use the profits the company generates.
Of course, in technology business, it is very easy for management to claim that they can become irrelevant very fast if they do not do so and so acquisition - just look at Nokia or Microsoft. Which may be true. But it does not take away from the fact that, shareholders do not share much profit in tech companies.
"Hubris of the highest order when company managements think they know much better than shareholders, how to best use the profits the company generates."
I hope you're not seriously suggesting that in a publicly traded company the shareholders know better than the management how the value of the company can be increased, therefore generating shareholder value? Google does have a publicly stated dividend policy, a policy that in the end is decided if not at least tolerated by the shareholders; tolerated presumably because they agree that it will give them the best ROI on their investment.
Well, the one thing I am suggesting for sure is that when I buy a stock in a company, I own a part of the company and as a result own a part of the profit.
And I am seriously implying that the managements in tech companies do not necessarily know better how to use the profits. And sharing the profits with stock holders is not to be looked down upon.
So I'm a business selling stocks. I can sell them to a market which will buy them purely on the speculation that they will rise, costing me nothing over time, or I can sell them with a promise to pay the people who buy them money for the rest of the existence of the stock....if the market's willing to buy the purely speculative sort, what economic sense does it make for me, the company, to sell the other?
When a company is paying dividends it is usually because the stock has been flat, and there are no expectations for growth.
I own a part of the company and as a result
own a part of the profit
You don't own any part of the profit, even if you would have a majority share. You own something only when it is given to you, otherwise it belongs to the company.
Also, voting power is directly proportional to how much you own. Why would you expect to have any saying in how the company is being handled if you own something like 0.01%?
I am seriously implying that the managements in
tech companies do not necessarily know better
how to use the profits
Well, they got there in the first place, so they do have some credibility.
You sound like a value investor interested in dividends; good on you. However a large fraction of wall street is interested in "shareholder value", a nebulous phrase that boils down to "the share price is always going up".
As a rule, paying dividends doesn't increase the share price. Reinvested profits, huge mergers, along with bold press releases, increase the price.
The idea is scary at first. But really makes sense once you think about it. I agree, it makes the screening process more human.
I know the job market is not good right now for job seekers to be chosers, but if I have to apply with a video, I would feel more up to it if I see the hiring team's or manager's video too.
"If you ask me about barriers to entry, you don't understand the internet."
Asking about barriers to entry does not mean the potential investors don't understand internet. This comment says to me the author does not understand business or investing.
I disagree. He's right. What investors should be asking is, "what is it about your idea, people and product" that is unique and difficult to replicate, whilst being crucial for your success. Typical barriers typically come via patents and strategic alliances. Who has those?
There are several other sources of barriers. Network effects is one; goodwill/brand is another; execution/operational excellence, etc.
Think about Ebay, Paypal, Facebook, Amazon. The vast majority of what they do is pretty far from rocket science. (By that, I mean a startup could create a technically credible competitor for their core business.) However, those companies have erected enormous barriers to entry in the form of network effects, brand/trust [of buyers], network effects, and brand/breadth/operational excellence.
Do something you like. Life is too short not to spend on stuff that makes you happy. I believe chances are stuff you like will also pay you reasonably. 3 years is a long time to waste chasing a million dollars doing something you do not like.
I think more of such stuff is going to come in coming years. It is just a manifestation of changing economic profile of the world. I believe something similar might have happened at climate talks - http://www.upi.com/Science_News/Resource-Wars/2010/05/05/Lea...
How it plays out in the long term is anybody's guess. But right now the EU and US have run very high debts which are only increasing with the deficits. With not very good immediate economic prospects, the developed world is beginning to learn to have new folks at the table. When you are neck deep in debt and those new folks are your creditors, there really is no choice.
My guess is that part of the tussle with Chinese authorities which Google does not talk about may be demands made on Google for information on individuals.
More than censorship, it may be the surveillance aspect.
It is maybe in this context that Eric Schmidt told users: "If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place."
Maybe the Chinese authorities told Google: "If you have something on users that you don't want us to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place."
And Google did not want to stop keeping user information for just China....
God knows what happens if reciprocal activity starts towards using another currency also for global trade.