Thanks for chiming in, makes me seem more reasonable. I have a close family member that sees me detached from the new reality. That said, I helped him recover part of an investment he foolishly sunk most of his net worth during the Tech Bubble. For most the memory is short, the financial services industry depends on it.
-
00
-
00
-
00
-
rhode island red gente wrote:
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
Yours is the all too common excuse. CNBC uses non-GAAP exclusively when reporting EPS, as well as highlighting the same by companies. Why? it makes the growth of trees to the sky more plausible. While the average investor does not know the difference. All the stuff quoted in the previous post are business expenses.
I see it as the zeitgeist of this era. Anything goes. Everyone wants their cut.
The last 2 days since CRWV's earning release!
CRWV; it's now 1 week since earnings release, stock is down 37.55%. I guess it would be down 50% if "investors" weren't fooled by non-GAAP numbers.
10 -
Maybe.
00 -
10
-
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
Maybe.
How did Apple lose $1.1 trillion? Please explain.
20 -
Sally Vix wrote:
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
Maybe.
How did Apple lose $1.1 trillion? Please explain.
Read the full thread. Interesting. The author outlines the financialization of Apple. Stocks buybacks and dividends take precedence over innovation.
10 -
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
Sally Vix wrote:
How did Apple lose $1.1 trillion? Please explain.
Read the full thread. Interesting. The author outlines the financialization of Apple. Stocks buybacks and dividends take precedence over innovation.
Can you please explain how Apple lost a $1 trillion? Are we talking market cap? Revenue? Please elaborate.
30 -
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
Sally Vix wrote:
How did Apple lose $1.1 trillion? Please explain.
Read the full thread. Interesting. The author outlines the financialization of Apple. Stocks buybacks and dividends take precedence over innovation.
Now I see. Apple's stock price was $3 in 2011. It is now $230. That is what you found interesting?
10 -
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
Sally Vix wrote:
How did Apple lose $1.1 trillion? Please explain.
Read the full thread. Interesting. The author outlines the financialization of Apple. Stocks buybacks and dividends take precedence over innovation.
Garbage. How did Apple lose $1.1 trillion. No more garbage.
00 -
rhode island red gente wrote:
IYKYK
I ran this by someone I know and they couldn't figure out its meaning.
So, my take is this: the stock market is celebrating and appreciating while turning its back on a concerning/troubling backdrop of military and authoratarian developments.
How did I do?
01 -
seattle prattle wrote:
rhode island red gente wrote:
IYKYK
I ran this by someone I know and they couldn't figure out its meaning.
So, my take is this: the stock market is celebrating and appreciating while turning its back on a concerning/troubling backdrop of military and authoratarian developments.
How did I do?
Here's some background on the screenshot;
Here's a post by Sean Tuffy with the same vibe:
He also used the Myanmar coup dancer a couple of days after my post!
Another inspiration was Citi's Chuck Pince.
I was reminded of this after reading Tom Hirst's thread;
"But to keep that going you have to constantly increase your pace of
capex so that it keep rising faster than the pace of depreciation. Fun
game! Bit vulnerable to, err, when the music stops though."Hirst does a good job explaining the James Chanos tweet about Meta and depreciation posted by GoI last week. Can also explain this from GoI today.
"Market lessons: When the option set for the tech sector is either “shall
we return this gigantic pile of cash we’re perched atop of to
shareholders” or “shall we latch onto the nearest passing moonshoot
narrative and set fire to said cash on our shareholders’ behalf” it’s
never really a contest""There's much funnier option that the game of capex chicken continues
even though it becomes increasingly clear that the moat is dissolving,
in part b/c of ratchet dynamics discussed above & in part due to a
falling but nonzero chance of winner-takes-all"Another take;
Maybe Tim Cook knows a thing or two.
10 -
rhode island red gente wrote:
seattle prattle wrote:
I ran this by someone I know and they couldn't figure out its meaning.
So, my take is this: the stock market is celebrating and appreciating while turning its back on a concerning/troubling backdrop of military and authoratarian developments.
How did I do?
Here's some background on the screenshot;
Here's a post by Sean Tuffy with the same vibe:
He also used the Myanmar coup dancer a couple of days after my post!
Another inspiration was Citi's Chuck Pince.
I was reminded of this after reading Tom Hirst's thread;
"But to keep that going you have to constantly increase your pace of
capex so that it keep rising faster than the pace of depreciation. Fun
game! Bit vulnerable to, err, when the music stops though."Hirst does a good job explaining the James Chanos tweet about Meta and depreciation posted by GoI last week. Can also explain this from GoI today.
"Market lessons: When the option set for the tech sector is either “shall
we return this gigantic pile of cash we’re perched atop of to
shareholders” or “shall we latch onto the nearest passing moonshoot
narrative and set fire to said cash on our shareholders’ behalf” it’s
never really a contest""There's much funnier option that the game of capex chicken continues
even though it becomes increasingly clear that the moat is dissolving,
in part b/c of ratchet dynamics discussed above & in part due to a
falling but nonzero chance of winner-takes-all"Another take;
Maybe Tim Cook knows a thing or two.
Thanks for that, gente.
00 -
I am in agreement that Tim Cook is not an innovator, selling people marginal changes, using the stock as a finance tool. Like my dishwasher that tells me the cycle is complete at 2:00 am. Or an over sensitive coolant system sensor on my Porsche that requires a tech to interpret the benign finding. Technology that becomes burdensome rather than advancing. I am perfectly happy with the iPhone SE 4 I am typing on, but no Tim wants me to buy a new one and throws all sorts of things my way to make it less usable. Just to make money. OK, just be like everyone else.
Not Steve Jobs.
This post was edited 2 minutes after it was posted.00 -
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
I am in agreement that Tim Cook is not an innovator, selling people marginal changes, using the stock as a finance tool. Like my dishwasher that tells me the cycle is complete at 2:00 am. Or an over sensitive coolant system sensor on my Porsche that requires a tech to interpret the benign finding. Technology that becomes burdensome rather than advancing. I am perfectly happy with the iPhone SE 4 I am typing on, but no Tim wants me to buy a new one and throws all sorts of things my way to make it less usable. Just to make money. OK, just be like everyone else.
Not Steve Jobs.
I suppose you mean your iPhone 4. The SE 4 you reference was expected to be released earlier this year but was never released, and was rebranded.
As for the iPhone 4:
AI Overview wrote:
AI Overview
While an iPhone 4 can still perform basic functions like calling, texting, and using Wi-Fi for iMessage and FaceTime, it's not recommended for everyday use in 2025 due to its outdated software, slow performance, and limited app compatibility. It's better suited as a collector's item or for nostalgic purposes.As someone who uses a fair amount of technology, Apple has been and continues to be a godsend. The integration of their various products for a seamless user experience is very valuable. I could list the numerous apps and products of theirs that work so reliably together but I hardly feel that is necessary.
Also their cell phones have come a long ways with improvements to cameras, storage capacity, processors, usable screen sizes, speed, integration of AI, face recognition, etc.
And Apple has not generally been known as much of a prime instigator of new technology, but rather they wait a little bit so the kinks get worked out, then they enter the market with a super-smooth and integrated product that distinguishes itself with its features and usability and compatability with its other products and apps. Again, Apple isn't really the innovator, it does a better job of incorporating everything into a very enjoyable user experience.
00 -
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
I have noticed similar things to this and have been wondering where the money is coming from. Has to be margin/leverage/credit. If anything it seems like work has slowed down to me. We're not booming. I haven't been able to put much into the market this year as some of my excess income came from government contract work, which has gone to a near standstill. Looking at fundamentals, it's hard to understand how anyone could think it's a good idea to keep putting money into the Mag 7 right now... Part of me thinks it's algorithms keying in on the wrong metrics or something. Timing the market is impossible, but some crash of 15-30% seems pretty likely over the next 3-12 months.
00 -
“It's better suited as a collector's item or for nostalgic purposes.”
Funny. Fortunately my life is not on my phone. Then I am nostalgic for simpler times.
00 -
Incredibly lopsided:
00 -
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
“It's better suited as a collector's item or for nostalgic purposes.”
Funny. Fortunately my life is not on my phone. Then I am nostalgic for simpler times.
They think of everything, They've got you covered. If a nostalgia for a simpler time is what you desire, they have just the thing for you, and with all the bells and whistles of modern technology and features you may expect in an iPhone 14 (or similar)
Here you go:
;10
What People Are Talking About On LetsRun
No top threads at the moment. Check back soon.