3 ms·

By that analysis, Google "left the station" in what, 2005? Microsoft left the station in the late 80s. Apple left the station in 2005? And to the contrast, War

By that analysis, Google "left the station" in what, 2005? Microsoft left the station in the late 80s. Apple left the station in 2005? And to the contrast, Warren Buffer invests in things like Conoco, WellsFargo, and, humorously, Exxon. Small doesn't mean growing. Large doesn't mean shrinking. Any analysis that assumes either is simply flawed. Buffet looks for companies with good fundamentals and returns, whether they're two guys (though I've never, ever heard of him doing such a speculative investment. That seems entirely contrary to his philosophy) or 200,000 people. Google currently makes most of their money in advertising. Anyone paying attention knows that they're working really hard at expanding out from that, and in a few short quarters their non-advertising revenue exploded to 10% of their total (it sounds small, but 10% of a huge number is a huge number), with an incredible growth rate. If they start successfully leveraging their smarts and technology, they truly can be a trillion dollar company. The same is true of Apple. They've coasted on the iPad/iPhone train for a while -- a very enriching coast -- but if they apply their designs and intellect to other industries, the impact can be absolutely enormous.

lutusp 13y ago
> By that analysis, Google "left the station" in what, 2005? By that analysis, Google has most likely experienced the majority of its growth, and its current price reflects not only its actual value but the psychology of investors who try to buy into companies that are already successful, expecting that future returns will reflect past performance (the single most common investor mistake). > Buffet looks for companies with good fundamentals and returns ... No, he looks for companies that are undervalued. http://www.investopedia.com/terms/u/undervalued.asp http://www.investopedia.com/terms/u/undervalued.asp Quote: "Buying stocks when they are undervalued is a key component of mogul Warren Buffett's value investing strategy." > Small doesn't mean growing. Large doesn't mean shrinking. Any analysis that assumes either is simply flawed. Then it's a good thing I never made these claims -- they're yours, not mine.
- corresation 13y ago
  EDIT: Given that lutusp is bizarrely distancing themselves from their own claims (or rather holding their comments as ever mutable and ethereal all-encompassing statements that mean everything yet mean nothing), this thread is futile.
  - lutusp 13y ago
    >> Google has most likely experienced the majority of its growth > That does not follow. Qualified opinions don't need to follow logically. If I had wanted to make a testable claim about a deterministic outcome, surely I would have avoided saying "most likely". Imagine an airline pilot saying, "Folks, we'll most likely land safely today". > You're stating completely subjective things and presenting them as fact. Prove it. Did I assert my claim as fact, or did I say "most likely"? Which of these common English words is causing you the most confusion? Locate my use of the word "fact" or any of its synonyms. > If you think you can call the market by the "it has grown, therefore it will fall" ... That is not a claim I made, that is a claim you made. I don't have to defend it, you do. The burden of evidence is yours. In short, you need to find someone else to have your non-debate with, someone else for whom you can invent their position, then argue against it.
  - lutusp 13y ago
    > EDIT: Given that lutusp is bizarrely distancing themselves from their own claims (or rather holding their comments as ever mutable and ethereal all-encompassing statements that mean everything yet mean nothing), this thread is futile. Sincerely, get professional help. As things stand, people who reply to your posts might be temporarily misled into thinking they're communicating with someone who recognizes the existence of people other than himself.

lutusp 13y ago

> By that analysis, Google "left the station" in what, 2005? By that analysis, Google has most likely experienced the majority of its growth, and its current price reflects not only its actual value but the psychology of investors who try to buy into companies that are already successful, expecting that future returns will reflect past performance (the single most common investor mistake). > Buffet looks for companies with good fundamentals and returns ... No, he looks for companies that are undervalued. http://www.investopedia.com/terms/u/undervalued.asp http://www.investopedia.com/terms/u/undervalued.asp Quote: "Buying stocks when they are undervalued is a key component of mogul Warren Buffett's value investing strategy." > Small doesn't mean growing. Large doesn't mean shrinking. Any analysis that assumes either is simply flawed. Then it's a good thing I never made these claims -- they're yours, not mine.

corresation 13y ago
EDIT: Given that lutusp is bizarrely distancing themselves from their own claims (or rather holding their comments as ever mutable and ethereal all-encompassing statements that mean everything yet mean nothing), this thread is futile.
- lutusp 13y ago
  >> Google has most likely experienced the majority of its growth > That does not follow. Qualified opinions don't need to follow logically. If I had wanted to make a testable claim about a deterministic outcome, surely I would have avoided saying "most likely". Imagine an airline pilot saying, "Folks, we'll most likely land safely today". > You're stating completely subjective things and presenting them as fact. Prove it. Did I assert my claim as fact, or did I say "most likely"? Which of these common English words is causing you the most confusion? Locate my use of the word "fact" or any of its synonyms. > If you think you can call the market by the "it has grown, therefore it will fall" ... That is not a claim I made, that is a claim you made. I don't have to defend it, you do. The burden of evidence is yours. In short, you need to find someone else to have your non-debate with, someone else for whom you can invent their position, then argue against it.
- lutusp 13y ago
  > EDIT: Given that lutusp is bizarrely distancing themselves from their own claims (or rather holding their comments as ever mutable and ethereal all-encompassing statements that mean everything yet mean nothing), this thread is futile. Sincerely, get professional help. As things stand, people who reply to your posts might be temporarily misled into thinking they're communicating with someone who recognizes the existence of people other than himself.