JDSoCal
Member
Aspiring oligarch
Posts: 4,186
|
Post by JDSoCal on Mar 3, 2014 11:41:48 GMT -8
I know people love to believe in evil MM, but do you guys realize Apple spent 14B in 2 weeks buying Apple shares and it didn't even move the stock price. That's 20% of Goldman Sachs entire market cap. I'd really be surprised if Goldman Sachs or any other Wall Street firm was able to significantly move Apple's share price by buying or selling stock. The company is just too massive. How can you know it didn't have an impact on the stock price? Maybe the stock would have (continued) going down without the buybacks. And it isn't just the amount of stock, it's the timing of it. Trading algorithms are very complicated, way more than just buy-sell. The fact that Apple had to announce the buy back afterward before anyone knew about it suggests they were discreet and spread it around so nobody would notice. Which would be the smart thing to do if they wanted to buy back at a discount. As opposed, to say, the market screaming, "OMG someone just opened an order for 36,000,000 shares, BUY MORTIMER!" before it could even fill.
|
|
JDSoCal
Member
Aspiring oligarch
Posts: 4,186
|
Post by JDSoCal on Mar 3, 2014 11:48:23 GMT -8
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 3, 2014 11:48:26 GMT -8
I know people love to believe in evil MM, but do you guys realize Apple spent 14B in 2 weeks buying Apple shares and it didn't even move the stock price. That's 20% of Goldman Sachs entire market cap. I'd really be surprised if Goldman Sachs or any other Wall Street firm was able to significantly move Apple's share price by buying or selling stock. The company is just too massive. How can you know it didn't have an impact on the stock price? Maybe the stock would have (continued) going down without the buybacks. And it isn't just the amount of stock, it's the timing of it. Trading algorithms are very complicated, way more than just buy-sell. The fact that Apple had to announce the buy back afterward before anyone knew about it suggests they were discreet and spread it around so nobody would notice. Which would be the smart thing to do if they wanted to buy back at a discount. As opposed, to say, the market screaming, "OMG someone just opened an order for 36,000,000 shares, BUY MORTIMER!" before it could even fill. My point was more that during the 2 weeks, Apple spent 14B and the stock essentially was flat during this period. 14B is obviously a ton of money and not something these investment banks have just sitting around. If Apple can't move the stock significantly buying 28M shares in 2 weeks, what are the chances that Investment Banks with much smaller amounts of cash are.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 3, 2014 11:50:15 GMT -8
As a Canadian, I'm not sure, but doesn't the US subsidize Oil and Gas Companies as well? It seems the price for Gasoline is much cheaper in the US than most other 1st world countries...or at least it's a good 25% cheaper than Canada and we produce more than we use.
|
|
|
Post by BillH on Mar 3, 2014 12:38:42 GMT -8
As a Canadian, I'm not sure, but doesn't the US subsidize Oil and Gas Companies as well? It seems the price for Gasoline is much cheaper in the US than most other 1st world countries...or at least it's a good 25% cheaper than Canada and we produce more than we use. According to Wikipedia about a third of Canadian oil prices are tax. In the US it's roughly 48.8 cents a gallon.
|
|
|
Post by pauls on Mar 3, 2014 13:08:01 GMT -8
I'm pretty pleased with CarPlay. It would appear that car makers are aiming for incorporating multiple OS's in the same in-car hardware, or at least Mercedes is. Not the most elegant solution, but very promising that iOS will be incorporated in a wide range of car brands. Hoping for Ford to make an announcement on the heels of their disaster with MS....
Now on to the living room!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 3, 2014 13:10:14 GMT -8
As a Canadian, I'm not sure, but doesn't the US subsidize Oil and Gas Companies as well? It seems the price for Gasoline is much cheaper in the US than most other 1st world countries...or at least it's a good 25% cheaper than Canada and we produce more than we use. According to Wikipedia about a third of Canadian oil prices are tax. In the US it's roughly 48.8 cents a gallon. Damn taxes...they really get you in every possible way, don't they. Why can't we just get rid of all taxes/fees and have one flat tax with like a $30,000 starting point. Everything after 30k gets taxed at 20%, regardless of what kind of income it is.
|
|
JDSoCal
Member
Aspiring oligarch
Posts: 4,186
|
Post by JDSoCal on Mar 3, 2014 13:37:45 GMT -8
As a Canadian, I'm not sure, but doesn't the US subsidize Oil and Gas Companies as well? It seems the price for Gasoline is much cheaper in the US than most other 1st world countries...or at least it's a good 25% cheaper than Canada and we produce more than we use. Canada's tax on gasoline is roughly 3X the US (closer to 2X in California), about $1.50 average to about $.50 avg in the US. The US only gives tax incentives for oil *exploration*. And I should point out that the vast majority of that exploration is not done by the larger oil companies, who produce only 11% or so of US domestic oil. The US is now a net exporter of oil. That is good for various reasons, both strategic and environmental. Personally, I like living in a country with the freedom to drive, without the government overtly punishing me for it. I'd also point out that the electricity in electric cars doesn't come from magic fairies. Often the power that comes to an electrical outlet is as dirty or dirtier than the highly-regulated, highly-efficient internal combustion engine. And unlike most fuels, most of the work in creating gasoline has already been done by the earth in making crude oil. Regardless, alternative energy can't even come close to meeting 5% of our current needs.
|
|
|
Post by greedynoob on Mar 3, 2014 14:02:52 GMT -8
I'd also point out that the electricity in electric cars doesn't come from magic fairies. Often the power that comes to an electrical outlet is as dirty or dirtier than the highly-regulated, highly-efficient internal combustion engine. And unlike most fuels, most of the work in creating gasoline has already been done by the earth in making crude oil. Regardless, alternative energy can't even come close to meeting 5% of our current needs. The reciprocating internal combustion engines in cars are not highly efficient. The generators in coal-fired power plants are somewhat more efficient (roughly 25%-50% more) with much of that additional energy lost in transmission and charging of electric cars, while gas-fired co-generation plants are substantially more efficient (100+%).
|
|
|
Post by Luckychoices on Mar 3, 2014 14:08:52 GMT -8
Oh, I'm fine that others are willing to wade through that garbage dump of a site. Thanks for your efforts. On occasion, there's a pearl, but I'm unwilling muss up my hair amidst the trash. Really, it's a big problem of current journalism: little accountability, undisclosed agendas, hit-and-run opinion, etc. That story can be read on the author's blog, without going anywhere near SA. Thanks, Lstream, for providing a non-SA link to this compete crap article. Just a few (OK, quite a few) comments of my own: Tim Cook has got a lot of favorable press for confronting an investor group at the last Apple stockholder meeting and telling them that he does not check the “bloody IRR” when he has to do the "right thing". In fact, he went further and suggested that any investor that does not believe in Apple’s social mission should sell Apple stock. No, he didn't say that. He said that if the NCPPR was unhappy that Apple would not commit to only doing something if it was good for the bottom line, THEY should get out of the stock.First, all it required was disclosure of the costs and not a cessation of any worth programs that Apple was promotion to improve the environment. Second, the proposal was rejected by Apple shareholders, with only 3% voting in favor.Yes, ALL they wanted was disclosure and would NEVER seek to get Apple to commit to only taking actions that were good for the bottom line. Well, at least until the Q&A portion of the meeting, when they had to reveal their true intentions. Gee, how did Cook, the BOD and 97% of the shareholders see that coming?In the question and answer session that followed, Tim Cook was asked two questions by the NCPPR representative. The first of the two questions was whether these “green actions” that the company had adopted were good for the bottom line and the second was whether the company would commit to only taking actions that were good for that bottom line. Cook, according to press reports, was visibly angry and is reported to have said that “there are many things Apple does because they are right and just, and that a return on investment (ROI) was not the primary consideration on such issues” and he reportedly followed up by also saying that "when we work on making our devices accessible by the blind," he said, "I don't consider the bloody ROI."Yes, the NCPPR rep asked two questions. But he had already spoken for two minutes during the business part of the meeting in support of the proposal. He had made his case. As far as Cook being visibly angry, "according to press reports"(Gee, if it's in the press reports, it must have happened), perhaps he was visibly frustrated? As for me, I had turned around to look at the speaker and only HEARD the reply from Cook...followed closely by very loud applause from shareholders.Why Tim Cook is missing the point 1. Social responsibility comes with a price tag: 2. If you choose to be socially responsible, as a publicly traded company, you have to be transparent.: 3. If you are transparent, and you truly respect your stockholders, you have to give them a say.: 4. If you give stockholders a say in CSR spreading, and they tell you no, you have to listen: Well, of course, I truly appreciate the professor laying it out in such easy to follow steps. Each one follows the other. Let's make the first one the premise. And each of the following steps will be a "you have to".In summary, I want publicly traded companies to be socially responsible, but not at the expense of becoming basket cases, to bear costs being good corporate citizens, while being transparent about these costs, to trust their stockholders by giving them a say on whether they are okay with that mission, while taking no for an answer. I don't want sanctimonious CEOs to define social responsibility for me, to be generous with my money and then refuse to let me know how much they have spent (let alone give me a say).I'm not even going there.What should Tim Cook have said? So, what should Tim Cook have done in response to the questions from the NCPPR reps? First, he should have responded with respect. And he DID respond with respect. I'm sure with much more respect than he was feeling at the time.Of course, to make this argument, the lazy rationale for CSR, i.e., that being a virtuous company is its own reward, has to be replaced with a more rigorous foundation, where CSR is connected to the drivers of value: cash flows, growth and risk. I personally believe that if we want companies to be socially responsible, we need to stop treating this as a morality play and make it in their economic best interests to be socially responsible. For that to happen, of course, we, as investors and consumers, have to put our money behind our mouths and actually be willing to pay higher prices for products for socially responsible businesses and pay more for their shares. In fact, I would glad to help Apple with building this valuation model and I would do it on a pro bono basis, and treat it as my contribution to a green cause this year.OMG, professor, you're willing to do it pro bono? Please stay near your phone.As an Apple investor, this is what this incident tells me about Tim Cook I may be over reacting to this incident. Yes, you are.However, I am troubled by the reaction because it reveals three troubling things about what Tim Cook thinks about Apple’s mission and its stockholders. 1. The first is Tim Cook's response to the “bottom line” question from the stockholder group, where he reacted with his “bloody ROI” comment. If Cook believes that the ROI, which is a near-term accounting earnings-focused number, is the bottom line for Apple, that may explain the absence of any “major” new products since very few innovations generate high near-term earnings. Value is driven by cash flows over time, not earnings in the near term, and it is definitely not maximized by maximizing ROI.Cash flows over time, not earnings in the near term. OK, got it.2. The second is his suggestion that stockholders who are unhappy with Apple’s social mission, at least as defined by Tim Cook, should feel free to sell their stock. It is never a good idea for an employee to suggest that an unhappy owner of a business sell the business, since the owner is on much more solid ground suggesting that an employee who does not like the owner find another job. Glad this is being addressed. You could just feel the contempt that Tim and the board had for the shareholders in the room. Absolutely chilling. As far as, "defined by Tim Cook", the board might have some input on that as well.3. Third, there is a hint of a Messiah complex in Tim Cook's answer, a mix of hubris and elitism that he not only knows what’s best for society and how Apple can deliver that benefit, but that he can do so, without letting Apple stockholders be privy to the details.Yes, many others have pointed to Cook's "Messiah Complex". Oh, wait...my mistake. That was Steve's "Messiah Complex". Sorry. Yes. Please, Tim...be more forthcoming like Steve was. That's what we loved about him.As a parting thought, Mr. Cook should realize that while he may have fought off Mr. Einhorn and neutralized Mr. Icahn, there are Apple stockholders who care about the “bloody stock price” and they will only get more restive over time, no matter how green, virtuous and socially responsible Apple may be perceived to be as a company. If Mr. Cook feels that he cannot reconcile his green mission with delivering higher value for stockholders, he should give up the pay package that he got from Apple last year and become head of Greenpeace instead.Now see. This is what I like about an author who has no personal agenda. They can speak to a subject without resorting to snark.
Finally, I'll add a little more to extreme length of this post by suggesting that it's worth reading an anonymous comment from someone at the site who had this to say: ============================== No Tim Cook doesn't have to give shareholders ("owners") a say in micromanaging the company, other than his statutory obligations. More so minor shareholders. Even more so, minuscule shareholders like the writer of this blog. THAT would be a horrendous waste of time. Do you have any idea how many shareholders like you there are out there. Is he expected to listen to all your opinions and give them consideration? .... Contemplate these 2 questions. What exactly do you know about running Apple that he and his team might might not have considered? My guess, nothing. What exactly does he know that you might have not considered? My guess, a great deal, given you have no knowledge of the internal workings of the business. .... Finally, no, Tim Cook has no obligation to give you a detailed breakdown of how he spends his ecobudget and how large it is. .... It's a public company not a public service, and goodness we barely have cameras in courtrooms, so why on earth should Apple "let us in" on their business. As he says, it's hard enough keeping one step ahead of the competition - no need to make it easier for them. Apple is a knowledge business, give the knowledge away and you destroy the business. ==============================
|
|
|
Post by Red Shirted Ensign on Mar 3, 2014 14:20:33 GMT -8
|
|
JDSoCal
Member
Aspiring oligarch
Posts: 4,186
|
Post by JDSoCal on Mar 3, 2014 15:30:02 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by jmolloy on Mar 3, 2014 15:41:17 GMT -8
Pertinent point "Op-Ed".
|
|
JDSoCal
Member
Aspiring oligarch
Posts: 4,186
|
Post by JDSoCal on Mar 3, 2014 15:53:50 GMT -8
I consider the opinions of a major financial daily at least as relevant as that of one of the agenda-driven "news" stories by The New York Times. YMMV.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 3, 2014 15:55:58 GMT -8
As a Canadian, I'm not sure, but doesn't the US subsidize Oil and Gas Companies as well? It seems the price for Gasoline is much cheaper in the US than most other 1st world countries...or at least it's a good 25% cheaper than Canada and we produce more than we use. Canada's tax on gasoline is roughly 3X the US (closer to 2X in California), about $1.50 average to about $.50 avg in the US. The US only gives tax incentives for oil *exploration*. And I should point out that the vast majority of that exploration is not done by the larger oil companies, who produce only 11% or so of US domestic oil. The US is now a net exporter of oil. That is good for various reasons, both strategic and environmental. Personally, I like living in a country with the freedom to drive, without the government overtly punishing me for it. I'd also point out that the electricity in electric cars doesn't come from magic fairies. Often the power that comes to an electrical outlet is as dirty or dirtier than the highly-regulated, highly-efficient internal combustion engine. And unlike most fuels, most of the work in creating gasoline has already been done by the earth in making crude oil. Regardless, alternative energy can't even come close to meeting 5% of our current needs. What about the roughly 7B in tax breaks that the big Oil companies got from the US Government last year? www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/03/americas-most-obvious-tax-reform-idea-kill-the-oil-and-gas-subsidies/274121/
|
|
|
Post by Lstream on Mar 3, 2014 15:57:26 GMT -8
Thank you. Cook is out of line on this.
|
|
|
Post by bloodylongaapl on Mar 3, 2014 16:04:17 GMT -8
Oh blah. For the last decade TC turned Apple's idealistic visions into unparalleled and unforeseen profitability and growth. No mean feat. Now he has about-faced and his "green-ness" outweighs efficiency, efficacy and profits? Yeah right!
Jeez people, get real!
|
|
|
Post by pauls on Mar 3, 2014 16:22:48 GMT -8
I consider the opinions of a major financial daily at least as relevant as that of one of the agenda-driven "news" stories by The New York Times. YMMV. But then again, you like to link to Washington Times stories as well. Apple has been leading the way with renewable energy for years, way before Cook took the reins. They can afford it, it is a small hit to their bottom line (at best) and it is good for PR, of course. And as Cook says, and Jobs before him, they are in it for the long haul. Green moves today are part of the grand scheme, and may pay dividends in multiple ways in the future. I'm surprised that ANY long holding as long as you have would just now start complaining about Apple making an effort to be green. Cook's takedown of the NCPPR was welcome at the meeting, by all accounts, and I would have been clapping right along with my fellow shareholders. To suggest he doesn't care about ROI is just dumb. To suggest that he intends Apple to lead the world in many ways, including sustainability, is more like it. Profit has always mattered, and will always matter. Anything that deflects attention away from Apple's ability to shave off billions in taxes is a plus! In light of Apple's astounding creation of wealth over the last 10 years, a little care for the planet is all to the good, imo. It's like you just woke up one day and discovered that you've been cheer-leading the enemy for years! I've always thought AAPL was an odd fit for the partisan right and/or fiercely libertarian. Good for Cook for rattling their cages, it may well pay dividends among the political moderates in the samsung camp.
|
|
JDSoCal
Member
Aspiring oligarch
Posts: 4,186
|
Post by JDSoCal on Mar 3, 2014 16:53:17 GMT -8
Canada's tax on gasoline is roughly 3X the US (closer to 2X in California), about $1.50 average to about $.50 avg in the US. The US only gives tax incentives for oil *exploration*. And I should point out that the vast majority of that exploration is not done by the larger oil companies, who produce only 11% or so of US domestic oil. The US is now a net exporter of oil. That is good for various reasons, both strategic and environmental. Personally, I like living in a country with the freedom to drive, without the government overtly punishing me for it. I'd also point out that the electricity in electric cars doesn't come from magic fairies. Often the power that comes to an electrical outlet is as dirty or dirtier than the highly-regulated, highly-efficient internal combustion engine. And unlike most fuels, most of the work in creating gasoline has already been done by the earth in making crude oil. Regardless, alternative energy can't even come close to meeting 5% of our current needs. What about the roughly 7B in tax breaks that the big Oil companies got from the US Government last year? www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/03/americas-most-obvious-tax-reform-idea-kill-the-oil-and-gas-subsidies/274121/Well, I've already mentioned that tax break is for *domestic* exploration, something to be generally encouraged. That article you linked is very misleading, when it uses the term "Big Oil" (even with scare-capitalization!). Most oil production in the US is not done by the 5 supermajors. Most exploration and drilling - and oil related job creation- is done by smaller firms that can go out of business if they make a bad guess on exploration. There's even a reality show about it. But let's not let the truth get in the way of a good BIG OIL PROFITS meme. Perhaps a better way to view subsidies to see bang-for-bucks: I'm generally against the government picking winners and losers. But, in fairness, not all tax deductions are equal. If I spend $1M on a well, and it produces $1.5M gross profits, should I really be taxed on $1.5M, regardless of how rich I am? Should the IRS treat Apple differently than other industries simply because of is massive profits?
|
|
|
Post by artman1033 on Mar 3, 2014 16:58:22 GMT -8
I don't know about that? I KNOW IBD was founded by a KNOWN CAPITALIST! THE California Teachers Pension fund is a BIG owner of AAPL. This type of article may not be appreciated by many of their members, JD. ARE YOU TRYING TO STIR THE POT AGAIN?
|
|
JDSoCal
Member
Aspiring oligarch
Posts: 4,186
|
Post by JDSoCal on Mar 3, 2014 17:10:41 GMT -8
Oh blah. For the last decade TC turned Apple's idealistic visions into unparalleled and unforeseen profitability and growth. No mean feat. Now he has about-faced and his "green-ness" outweighs efficiency, efficacy and profits? Yeah right! Jeez people, get real! Well I've heard that Cook is a great supply chain guy, but you might be giving him a little too much credit for Apple's success in the past decade. In the short time Tim's run the company, revenue and EPS have stalled, not to mention the stock price. Is that all Tim's wizardry as well? Now, I hope TC turns it all around. But I'd suggest he'd be better served doing that by respecting the owners of Apple, not by showing contempt for them. Or do we have a surplus of AAPL buyers lately? All TC talks about in earnings calls, ad nauseum, is his "laser like focus" on creating great products. But is seems he has time to focus on political matters. So can Apple actually multitask or not? It's like you just woke up one day and discovered that you've been cheer-leading the enemy for years! I've always thought AAPL was an odd fit for the partisan right and/or fiercely libertarian. Good for Cook for rattling their cages, it may well pay dividends among the political moderates in the samsung camp. I've always known Jobs was a Dem, but more of the centrist variety like Clinton, than a died-in-the-wool belieber like Obama. Jobs did, after all, lobby Obama for lower taxes and regulations. I have no problem disagreeing with someone's politics so long as they are not in-your-face about it. Hell, I've never seen anyone I agree politically with 100%. I even disagree with Thomas Sowell once in a blue moon. More importantly, Jobs largely kept his mouth shut about his politics, and least compared to Tim. Besides, Jobs earned the right to Think Different, as a one-of-a-kind CEO who changed the world in several ways, and gave us 10,000% returns along the way. I thought TC was supposed to be of the more traditional executive mold, and less Svengali leading by personality and force of will. Regardless, give me Jobsian returns, and I might be a little less prickly with Tim "LASER FOCUS" Cook. Until then, respectfully, shut up and do your job.
|
|
|
Post by tuffett on Mar 3, 2014 17:11:16 GMT -8
The ICE is "highly efficient"?! I can't stop laughing. Learn something new every day, I guess
|
|
|
Post by rezonate on Mar 3, 2014 17:15:29 GMT -8
So, the $25 iTunes card promotion on the Apple TV expires on Wednesday. Does that mean new hardware tomorrow? Or a week from now?
iOS in the car. This means iPhone, iPad or iWatch in proximity could be rigged to unlock, start, precondition, adjust ergonomic settings with a fingerprint.
|
|
JDSoCal
Member
Aspiring oligarch
Posts: 4,186
|
Post by JDSoCal on Mar 3, 2014 17:23:29 GMT -8
The ICE is "highly efficient"?! I can't stop laughing. Learn something new every day, I guess Almighty Gaia has already pressed carbon into crude oil, doing 95% of the work. Let's start from there, Mr. Gas Tax, not at where you fill up/charge your car. You make it sound like the libs are actually for burning coal and nat gas. Or Nukes. All I have seen guys like you for are wind turbines, or as I like to call them, "bird murderers."
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 3, 2014 17:36:05 GMT -8
So, the $25 iTunes card promotion on the Apple TV expires on Wednesday. Does that mean new hardware tomorrow? Or a week from now? iOS in the car. This means iPhone, iPad or iWatch in proximity could be rigged to unlock, start, precondition, adjust ergonomic settings with a fingerprint. Jim Dalrymple already "noped" this. BUT CONSIDER THIS: I've been a watcher of Apple Retail stores since they opened. Apple rarely allows its retail stores to run without some kind of display in front. There might be a day between displays during a change but that's it. However, it has been around 30 DAYS since my Apple store has had a window display. Nothing. Very odd. No Apple retail store employee I know can figure it out (I've asked).
|
|
|
Post by tuffett on Mar 3, 2014 17:36:21 GMT -8
The ICE is "highly efficient"?! I can't stop laughing. Learn something new every day, I guess Almighty Gaia has already pressed carbon into crude oil, doing 95% of the work. Let's start from there, Mr. Gas Tax, not at where you fill up/charge your car. You make it sound like the libs are actually for burning coal and nat gas. Or Nukes. All I have seen guys like you for are wind turbines, or as I like to call them, "bird murderers." You're out of your depth here. You said that the ICE is highly-efficient - that's an absurd statement as it's maybe 15-20% efficient in converting the energy stored in the fuel into mechanical movement of the car. It's famous for being a terribly inefficient engine. Crude oil does exist, but it needs to be drilled, refined, stored, and transported, all of which consume a large amount of energy. What you're looking for is a well-to-wheel analysis and the answer depends on a lot of things including the method of oil extraction and the method of electricity generation. You are correct that if electricity is generated from an old coal plant that there may not be much of a difference if at all. But electricity can also be generated from dams which are almost completely clean. Transmission losses and electric motors together are far more efficient than the ICE. It's clear you really don't know what you're talking about. I've worked in the field for close to a decade so I kind of do. Re: the birds - Animals aside, I wonder how many human cancer-related deaths can be attributed to gasoline combustion. I'm guessing a massive number.
|
|
icam
Member
Posts: 447
|
Post by icam on Mar 3, 2014 17:40:50 GMT -8
Deleted
|
|
icam
Member
Posts: 447
|
Post by icam on Mar 3, 2014 17:42:43 GMT -8
Oh blah. For the last decade TC turned Apple's idealistic visions into unparalleled and unforeseen profitability and growth. No mean feat. Now he has about-faced and his "green-ness" outweighs efficiency, efficacy and profits? Yeah right! Jeez people, get real! Well I've heard that Cook is a great supply chain guy, but you might be giving him a little too much credit for Apple's success in the past decade. In the short time Tim's run the company, revenue and EPS have stalled, not to mention the stock price. Is that all Tim's wizardry as well? Now, I hope TC turns it all around. But I'd suggest he'd be better served doing that by respecting the owners of Apple, not by showing contempt for them. Or do we have a surplus of AAPL buyers lately? All TC talks about in earnings calls, ad nauseum, is his "laser like focus" on creating great products. But is seems he has time to focus on political matters. So can Apple actually multitask or not? It's like you just woke up one day and discovered that you've been cheer-leading the enemy for years! I've always thought AAPL was an odd fit for the partisan right and/or fiercely libertarian. Good for Cook for rattling their cages, it may well pay dividends among the political moderates in the samsung camp. I've always known Jobs was a Dem, but more of the centrist variety like Clinton, than a died-in-the-wool belieber like Obama. Jobs did, after all, lobby Obama for lower taxes and regulations. I have no problem disagreeing with someone's politics so long as they are not in-your-face about it. Hell, I've never seen anyone I agree politically with 100%. I even disagree with Thomas Sowell once in a blue moon. More importantly, Jobs largely kept his mouth shut about his politics, and least compared to Tim. Besides, Jobs earned the right to Think Different, as a one-of-a-kind CEO who changed the world in several ways, and gave us 10,000% returns along the way. I thought TC was supposed to be of the more traditional executive mold, and less Svengali leading by personality and force of will. Regardless, give me Jobsian returns, and I might be a little less prickly with Tim "LASER FOCUS" Cook. Until then, respectfully, shut up and do your job. +1 JD. To all of it. I've been waiting for 2 1/2 yrs for Tim to prove he's the right guy for this job. I'm still waiting. Until he proves it, the only sure thing is to buy Puts whenever he's scheduled to deliver financial results. They've paid off every time.
|
|
JDSoCal
Member
Aspiring oligarch
Posts: 4,186
|
Post by JDSoCal on Mar 3, 2014 17:46:30 GMT -8
Almighty Gaia has already pressed carbon into crude oil, doing 95% of the work. Let's start from there, Mr. Gas Tax, not at where you fill up/charge your car. You make it sound like the libs are actually for burning coal and nat gas. Or Nukes. All I have seen guys like you for are wind turbines, or as I like to call them, "bird murderers." You're out of your depth here. You said that the ICE is highly-efficient - that's an absurd statement as it's maybe 15-20% efficient in converting the energy stored in the fuel into mechanical movement of the car. It's famous for being a terribly inefficient engine. Crude oil does exist, but it needs to be drilled, refined, stored, and transported, all of which consume a large amount of energy. What you're looking for is a well-to-wheel analysis and the answer depends on a lot of things including the method of oil extraction and the method of electricity generation. You are correct that if electricity is generated from an old coal plant that there may not be much of a difference if at all. But electricity can also be generated from dams which are almost completely clean. Transmission losses and electric motors together are far more efficient than the ICE. It's clear you really don't know what you're talking about. I've worked in the field for close to a decade so I kind of do. Dams! LOL! Because we have a limitless network of waterways in the US that can be damned for hydro-electric power. Now there's our strategic advantage in a competitive world, dams! Says Mr. Energy Depth. When we have 300 petroleum-years of nat gas in the US just waiting to be fracked. Everything has a trade-off. And you always leave out the money part, as if it's irrelevant. All so we can reduce CO2 after a 17-year pause in global "warming."
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 3, 2014 17:51:17 GMT -8
BTW, I called Porsche today to learn why it (and Veyron for the rest of you) has not signed on to CarPlay. I was asked to call back, since she didn't have any information to release. The VW Group has been reasonably supportive of iPhone, so I'm not sure why they would buck the trend now.
|
|