It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The "up-to-the-minute Market Data" thread

page: 685
189
<< 682  683  684    686  687  688 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 7 2010 @ 10:26 PM
link   
reply to post by GreenBicMan
 

Tells me everything I need to know.

Second verse, same as the first.




posted on Jun, 7 2010 @ 10:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rockpuck
reply to post by sligtlyskeptical
 


Generally a companies value over all has absolutely nothing to do with market cap .. it has to do with profit to share .. if a stock only gains .50 per share and is valued at $100 .. it's far over valued. Remember, the price of a companies share is a bet on the overall value and productivity of the company, nothing more. People forget this anymore, because it's not exactly common for people to hold stocks for dividends, at least in the day trader crowd.


Give me a break. Market Cap = number of shares x price of shares. Apple has just over 900 million shares and they closed at $250.94. Thus Apples market cap and also their value is $228.34 billion. If you want things in per share then Apple has made about $11.50/sh the last 12 months and is expeced to make $13.40 for the year 2010 and $15.58 in 2011. They have tangible assets of $48 per share. So you are basically paying $202 per share for annual earnings of say $14/share. Gives you a PE ratio of about 14-15 which equates to an earnings yield of 6.5% or so. Compare that to what you can get elsewhere and you can understand why Apple trades at the price it trades at.

The point is your $58/sh number is ridiculous and is obviously rooted in ignorance.

A company earning $.50 does not sell at $100 very often. If they do there is usually a catalyst which means their earnings will acelrate at a huge rate.



posted on Jun, 8 2010 @ 12:35 AM
link   
reply to post by Stewie
 


OK,

If you know everything, do me a favor and go start your own little shadow corporation.

Let me know how far you get. It should impress me quite a bit as you are obviously well versed on equity raising in capital market structure.

The stuff you are saying is making you look like a fool and you just can't even see it. Go try to raise $100.00 - that would even impress me.

I am guessing you don't have the money for the ticket to New York even. There is a reason why you read stupid blogs and websites like that - it is because they prey on the foolish and incompetent.



posted on Jun, 8 2010 @ 02:23 AM
link   
reply to post by Stewie
 


You can't just "create stock" and put it on the NYSE buddy .. your company WILL be investigated, thoroughly.

Hence almost all shell companies are LLC type business structures. You can hide business activities under the guise of private ownership, no investigation as long as it's not blatantly illegal.

While I believe guys like Cramer DO post information in a way that they know is false, or are reported by specific individuals to say (for instance his Bearstearns fiasco) .. but it has nothing to do with shell companies.. Over all .. what your saying makes little sense at all.

And I reserve the right to be the only one allowed to be mean to GBM.




posted on Jun, 8 2010 @ 02:36 AM
link   
reply to post by sligtlyskeptical
 




Give me a break. Market Cap = number of shares x price of shares. Apple has just over 900 million shares and they closed at $250.94. Thus Apples market cap and also their value is $228.34 billion.


Indeed..




So you are basically paying $202 per share for annual earnings of say $14/share.


No. You're not. Apple doesn't pay a dividend at all.. so you are paying $202 per share for nothing in return. You are speculating that the total profit of the company will provide the increase in share price.. but what would be considered price to earnings Apple is highly inflated, especially since they don't even pay a dividend on Common Shares.

But lets assume they DID pay a dividend. They make something like $3billion dollars. divide by the common shares it comes out to something like $3.20 cents or so per share. (1.4% return) That's assuming all profit went to the share holders, which it never does. Even so, it would be a relatively nice dividend paying stock -- assuming they would pay one, for logn term investors.. though I doubt anyone could ever rationalize $200+ per share. Most of the Apple hype is that huge surging sales in one quarter will be enough to prospectively boost share prices -- pure speculation.

Even after 10 years of hoarding cash like mad in their fight against Microsoft, they've only accumulated enough cash at $30 per share. A huge reserve that, quite frankly, they steal from their investors who gave their corporation the fuel to be what it is.



A company earning $.50 does not sell at $100 very often. If they do there is usually a catalyst which means their earnings will acelrate at a huge rate.


Yeah they do.. well, I should say, in good economic times.. P/E ratios are very high at the moment, due to pure speculation ..

but ultimately the point being that a companies share is not valued by the total market cap, because the market cap is the effect of the cause.. the cause being speculating the productivity and earning power of the corporation in quest, which leads to demand, which increase price, which increases market cap.




[edit on 6/8/2010 by Rockpuck]



posted on Jun, 8 2010 @ 04:44 AM
link   
Ok people, time to panic...

Sterling falls on Fitch comments on UK fiscal challenge



Tue Jun 8, 2010 10:19am BSTLONDON June 8 (Reuters) - Sterling fell to session lows against the dollar and the euro on Tuesday after Fitch ratings agency described the fiscal challenge facing the UK as "formidable".

There's several ways we are screwed and the UK being downgraded and falling into a debt spiral until they are bankrupt is one of them. It's now on the verge of starting.




posted on Jun, 8 2010 @ 04:54 AM
link   
reply to post by Vitchilo
 


Yup, just read this article about how Fitch are saying that Britains fiscal challenge is "formidable". It's only a matter of time before their rating is dropped. The uk is an absolute basket case right now.

www.marketwatch.com...

[edit on 8-6-2010 by SpaceMonkeys]



posted on Jun, 8 2010 @ 06:55 AM
link   
reply to post by Vitchilo
 


Uk is not new to downfall they will do what they have done before, more strong measures against their debt, you know, cuts and more taxes, (that is what is coming our way next year to pay for HCR) and that will help lower their deficit.

UK is not by any means bankrupted they still have a very solid influence in exports and they have oil sites all over Europe.





[edit on 8-6-2010 by marg6043]



posted on Jun, 8 2010 @ 07:16 AM
link   
So interesting to see how the global economy that is to make nations economies improve only benefits a few, now that US has sold its soul for profits and have lost most of its power as a industrial leader, every time a nation have a hiccup US plunges

That shows that investors no longer hold US as a haven when anything else goes down the hill.

Nobody cares about a country like Hungary, until their economic woes starts to affect global markets and more so the mighty US


The possibility of a Hungarian debt crisis pushed the euro to a four-year low against the dollar on Friday and reignited fears more Eastern European nations could reveal financial frailties.


I wonder how much is still kept hidden when it comes to the real state of the global economies


The central bank rushed to reassure investors Hungary's budget was sustainable. It said it had an account surplus and that external financing capacity should remain positive in the next two years.

The bank also said Hungary's deficit could be 4.5 percent of GDP, while analysts see a deficit of 5 percent. Both are above the target of 3.8 percent.


When you read news like that you know that the problems is worst that speculated.

www.reuters.com...



posted on Jun, 8 2010 @ 05:25 PM
link   
reply to post by SpaceMonkeys
 


I'm sorry I can't agree with you. The situation is more complex than what is revealed by reviews of the situation to date (—see below).



reply to post by marg6043
 


I agree with you, Marg. The UK's finances are in a dire state, but the new government was specifically elected on a platform of prompt and sizeable cuts in public spending. Bear in mind that this government is against higher taxes, both philosophically (i.e. historically) and in terms of its current manifesto; (the Conservatives always seek to shrink government). 'Spend, spend, spend... SPEND till you're red in the face' just left the building, in the form of Gordon the Gold-seller:

April 2007:

Gordon Brown is to face questions in parliament after revelations that he disregarded advice from the Bank of England before he sold off more than half the country’s gold reserves at the bottom of the market.

Insiders involved in the decision have broken ranks after an 18-month battle in which the Treasury has blocked attempts by The Sunday Times to make public the official advice received by Brown before he sold the gold.

They have revealed that Bank of England officials had serious misgivings over the chancellor’s determination to sell 400 tons of bullion in a series of auctions between 1999 and 2002, when the price was at a 20-year low. Since then the price has almost trebled, meaning the decision cost the taxpayer an estimated £2 billion.

Source

Nice one, Gord.


So what exactly are the government eying up in terms of cuts?-

( in today's news: )

Benefits and pensions targeted to cut deficit

Benefits, tax credits and public sector pensions have been formally earmarked for potential cuts for the first time under Government plans to avert a Greek-style debt crisis, the Chancellor has disclosed.

George Osborne [*Chancellor*] said these areas would be "comprehensively" scrutinised as he singled them out for special attention in the forthcoming spending review.

His announcement came within hours of Fitch, one of the world's biggest credit ratings agencies, warning that the Government must cut spending by £86 billion – at least £15 billion more than previously forecast – over the next five years.

Fitch said the cuts, equivalent to almost the entire NHS budget, [*National Health Service*] would be required to maintain Britain's reputation with international investors. Income tax for basic-rate payers would have to double to raise the equivalent amount.

There are growing signs that the Chancellor agrees with the scale of cuts proposed by the independent experts after he referred to the warning in Parliament.

Yesterday morning, Mr Osborne briefed his Cabinet colleagues on separate research showing that every government department, other than health and international development, would have to cut spending by between 15 and 20 per cent annually.

These cutbacks may now be too modest, with the credit rating agency study suggesting that departments might need to reduce spending by between 25 and 30 per cent.

Holy Cow! And Gordy-babes was campaigning for re-election on the basis of promises to maintain/increase public spending (to aid the 'recovery').

Yes, the situation is serious, make no bones about it. But how serious is the new government when it comes to taking the bull by the horns?-

(continuation of above article)

Mr Osborne said: "We didn't choose the terrible economic situation we inherited. But we can work to put it right, to deal with our debts, to set our country on a brighter economic course."

Source

The UK might just blaze a trail for all those budding Greece-immitators out there. Mind you, countries that joined the Euro gave up control over several key aspects of their economies — such as the ability to set their own interest rates — so in reality they'll only be able to look on, enviously.

Stirling? Waves off the starboard bow, calmer waters forecast.

The Euro? "When you hear three blasts of the horn, make your way to the nearest exit where members of the crew will issue life jackets..."




[edit on 8/6/10 by pause4thought]



posted on Jun, 8 2010 @ 08:18 PM
link   
reply to post by GreenBicMan
 

You are funny.

I have been in business for myself for thirty plus years, with multiple stores.

Patrick Byrne is the subject of my link, his company was Overstock.com. You did not read the link. You do not respect the information, I am cool with that. I don't respect you, so I guess we have nothing more to discuss. I was just trying to help.



posted on Jun, 8 2010 @ 09:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Stewie
 


You assume you know, but you do not.

The overstock story is an old one.

You also know nothing about an initial public offering, or what it takes to launch one. That much you have displayed already in your prior texts.

EDIT:

Let me expand on the overstock guy

1) Company sucked

2) Investment bankers that most likely had a hand in launching IPO were pissed this company looks like it is going down the tube

3) A syndicate of some nature decides it is time to accelerate the slow death and take advantage of a non liquid security

That is basically the end of the story. He is just pissed his company sucks and looking for an out. He has been all about this for quite a while and his whining is getting old.


[edit on 8-6-2010 by GreenBicMan]



posted on Jun, 8 2010 @ 10:16 PM
link   
reply to post by GreenBicMan
 

You say, his "company sucked"...
Have YOU ever had a company? Where you had to make payroll week after week? Do you even know what it means to be responsible for other peoples lives? Their livelihood?
When you own a business, you understand that it is more than what money you can make and put in the bank at the end of the day.

Utilities, Insurance, Accounting fees...the possibility that some government agency will come audit your business.
Pay whatever property taxes the county decides that you have to pay

Hot checks, break ins, employee pilferage, natural disasters,
like floods.

Bic Man, you don't know &^%^$%##

You play a game, YES, you know the rules of the little game you play, but YOU DON'T CREATE S....H....I....T....

and you know it.



posted on Jun, 8 2010 @ 10:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by GreenBicMan
reply to post by Stewie
 


3) A syndicate of some nature decides it is time to accelerate the slow death and take advantage of a non liquid security
[edit on 8-6-2010 by GreenBicMan]


So you agree that it is ok to llegally manipulate stock prices through illegal short selling? That is the problem with the organized day trade crowd. They think the end justify the means. Congress should slap trades less than 30 days with a 75% cap gains tax and that would be the end of it. Money would start being used to invest once again.



posted on Jun, 8 2010 @ 10:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by sligtlyskeptical


So you agree that it is ok to llegally manipulate stock prices through illegal short selling? That is the problem with the organized day trade crowd. They think the end justify the means. Congress should slap trades less than 30 days with a 75% cap gains tax and that would be the end of it. Money would start being used to invest once again.



Yeah that would be great. You want to see what a real crash is like then you can do that. Maybe we can stop short trades too since that isn't investing. Then our markets can move down 5% without a blink of an eye like China's markets do when a tiny bit of bad news scares the longs (and short covering doesn't mitigate the slide).

How about you leave markets alone? If there were no day traders, then if some big holder wanted to sell all their stock in Apple, then the stock would go down 12% because there is no liquidity. Go back to the drawing boards genius.

[edit on 8-6-2010 by MrDarlingFace]



posted on Jun, 8 2010 @ 11:07 PM
link   
reply to post by sligtlyskeptical
 


You are not taking into account liquidity and many other things. It isn't their fault, rather they took a huge risk that no one would return to bidding on the stock and they were quite correct. They could have been burned on the other side of the equation. So, it looks like their gamble payed off. There is nothing wrong IMO with a syndicate taking huge risks.

Illegal short selling is .000001% of all activity. And I have yet to see anyone be persecuted for anything that has happened so far. Not that they would anyway most likely.

There are better examples of "manipulation" that are far more devious such as DNDN. Although again, *IMO* that isn't manipulation, and it is taking advantage of retail investors that should have known better to play with a heavily invested institutional holding such as DNDN before a FDA approval meeting.

The unwritten rule that no one gives a **** about what happens to you or anyone else in the market applies here. Everyone is prey for everyone else at anytime. That is the rule. Everyone gets burnt and not everyone always wins.



posted on Jun, 8 2010 @ 11:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Stewie
reply to post by GreenBicMan
 

You say, his "company sucked"...
Have YOU ever had a company? Where you had to make payroll week after week? Do you even know what it means to be responsible for other peoples lives? Their livelihood?
When you own a business, you understand that it is more than what money you can make and put in the bank at the end of the day.

Utilities, Insurance, Accounting fees...the possibility that some government agency will come audit your business.
Pay whatever property taxes the county decides that you have to pay

Hot checks, break ins, employee pilferage, natural disasters,
like floods.

Bic Man, you don't know &^%^$%##

You play a game, YES, you know the rules of the little game you play, but YOU DON'T CREATE S....H....I....T....

and you know it.



What are you talking about now?

Your original post in this thread wreaks of little knowledge.

Now you bring up Overstock. As if anyone gives 2 #s about them.

Now you bring up payroll etc.

I have news for you. I do own a business you dumb #, and I don't give a rats ass about anything you are saying because 99% of it is totally bunk. Go back to your artists colony.

You don't know anything about the markets, and all that you do know is what misinformation you have read. Upon reading that, you have made up a lot of misconceived notions about what is going on.

I don't create SHIIIIIITTTT? Awesome, I will go back to not caring that I do not create anything. As if that matters.



posted on Jun, 9 2010 @ 01:12 AM
link   
beryankee says today markets have stabilized there's very little chance of a double dip and we can only go higher from here atleast thats what obama and his lovely wife jezabel told me to say now my buddy geitner is taking meds for his shifting eye syndrome that only flares up when he has to tell the truth now i also have my friend nancy pelosi shes a good lookin thing but just don't ask about the subsidies she approved for starkist her sugardaddy owns 17million of i think del monte and she would have had to pay a lot of taxes but now she doesnt have to taxes are just for the peasents and by the way where's my jet and if you back up all these headliners with barney frank and al sharpton i think i'm in cash until someone administers some truth serum to this whole dog and pony show



posted on Jun, 9 2010 @ 01:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by robatmj12
beryankee says today markets have stabilized there's very little chance of a double dip and we can only go higher from here atleast thats what obama and his lovely wife jezabel told me to say now my buddy geitner is taking meds for his shifting eye syndrome that only flares up when he has to tell the truth now i also have my friend nancy pelosi shes a good lookin thing but just don't ask about the subsidies she approved for starkist her sugardaddy owns 17million of i think del monte and she would have had to pay a lot of taxes but now she doesnt have to taxes are just for the peasents and by the way where's my jet and if you back up all these headliners with barney frank and al sharpton i think i'm in cash until someone administers some truth serum to this whole dog and pony show


Again with the scripting?

Is this becoming a regular thing now?



posted on Jun, 9 2010 @ 05:08 AM
link   
I just gave a star to everyone.

Could we call that "inflation"?




top topics



 
189
<< 682  683  684    686  687  688 >>

log in

join