| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 2007/10/2 [Science/Battery, Science/GlobalWarming] UID:48218 Activity:very high 75%like:48221 |
10/1 Finally! OLED Televisions
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=071001112033.l3kf86xb&show_article=1
\_ Technology needs more development still. But I'm glad this is
finally rolling out.
\_ 3mm thick? Does it break easily just from moving around? (Unless
it's made of flexible material.) |
| 2007/10/2-5 [Computer/Companies/Google] UID:48219 Activity:very high |
10/1 Where's the short Google at 100 guy?
\_ Me thinks it's a great time to short now.
\_ Yeah, definitely short it now! Funny thing about stock
valuation: it can sometimes be rational and sometimes
be irrational. If everyone hates a stock, and everyone
shorts it except for a few, and no one who actually owns
the stock sells it, it'll go up, not down.
\_ Over time, companies which succeed will go up and
companies which fail will go down. The question for
Short Google Guy was always, what reason was there to
short Google, other than his own interpretation of
the current stock value, which was not based on any
sort of analysis?
Google was a freight train back then, and it still is.
As long as the company keeps executing, don't get in the
way of a freight train.
-tom (Finally bought GOOG at 450)
\_ 450? You're an idiot. !short G guy
\_ Why? Because GOOG's market cap is 5x that of YHOO
and there is no reason for it. I still think that most
investors do not understand what they are investing
in. They are buying a name/brand. Brands do have
value, but so what? I would say that GOOG should be
valued about 2x YHOO based on performance, but 5x is
not justified. I still think that GOOG is using money
to buy talent and hoping that that talent figures out
some great product(s). That might work. It's not what I
want to invest in. The stock is overvalued. BTW, it
was Motley Fool's "Worst Stock for 2007" so I am
hardly the only person who doesn't understand why so
many people want to suck the c*ck of this dog.
\_ Hey, welcome back, Short Google At 100 Guy! Good to
see that being brutalized in the market for three
years hasn't taken away your sense of certitude.
Perhaps the fact that GOOG is making *more than 5
times as much money as YHOO* might have something to
do with the fact that the stock is valued 5 times
higher.
YHOO 6/07: $1.7B rev, $185M earn
GOOG 6/07: $3.8B rev, $1.1B earn
But go ahead, keep shorting! I'm sure Yahoo will
be destroying Google any day now! -tom
\_ Yahoo is VERY diversified. Google has ONE product.
You know what they say, easy come, easy go.
\_ Oh, humor of tom mocking someone for certitude in
the face of stunning evidence to the contrary.
In our next episode, tom will declare that any who
mock or disagree with him are idiots.
-dans
\_ Are you Short Google At 100 Guy, or is there
someone else as stupid as you are? -tom
\_ Dear god you're fun to bait. And no, I'm not
Short Google Guy, I pretty much always sign my
posts. -dans
\_ The P/E for both is about the same. Why do you
think GOOG deserves a 5x market cap?
\_ Uh, because it's earning 5 times as much.
Do you understand what P/E means? -tom
\_ Uh, how about because it's earning 5 times
as much money? Do you have any idea what
P/E means? -tom
\_ Yes. Do you? Two companies with one share
of stock outstanding. One company's stock
is $20/share. The other is $10/share. The
first company earns $10. The second
company earns $5. What is their P/E? What
is their market cap? How was that $20
determined in the first place and what
does it mean to an investor? BTW, as of
today GOOG has the 13th largest market
cap in the US. If GOOG tripled in value
it would become the largest company in
the US. Do you think it will triple again
(let alone a 600% increase)? Some day it
might, but as compared to previous growth
in stock price over the last N years?
Any reasonable expectation of growth in
earnings is already built-in to the current
stock price so where does that leave
someone who buys at $650?
\_ Price/Market Cap: $20, $10. P/E: $2 for
\_ Price/Market Cap: $20, $10. P/E: 2.0 for
both. All else being equal, the companies
are valued comparable relative to
are valued comparably relative to
earnings, just like GOOG and YHOO when
GOOG's market cap and earnings are both
5* YHOO's. Do you have a point?
\_ Now answer the question about how
the $20 was determined in the first
place and what it means to an investor.
\_ To me, being an investor means
finding good companies which I
can purchase at a reasonable
price given their performance and
prospects. As long as Google
continues to execute on its web
services, it fits that mold. I
don't see any serious threats to
Google in the areas it dominates.
-tom
\_ Google only has 1 web service.
Without ads from search they
cease to exist. What are these
other 'web services' you speak
of? How much research have you
done into search competitors?
Not Yahoo or MS crap who are
just playing follow the leader
but people working on real
changes in search?
\_ Wrong.
"Google would be the largest company
in the US" assumes that none of the
other companies are getting larger.
My investment goal is generally to look
for a double within 5 years; I think
GOOG is reasonably likely to hit that
mark for me; at a forward PE of 25 (less
than today), it would require hitting
earnings of about $7 billion before 2013.
Considering that GOOG is likely to hit
$5 billion this year, that does not seem
unreasonable. -tom
\_ Why should GOOG have a larger
market cap than BRK-A making $7B
when BRK-A makes $12B+? Also, if
share price doubles, but earnings
only increase 50% ($5B to $7B) then
GOOG P/E would skyrocket. I don't
think it's gonna happen.
\_ If you don't think earnings
increases are going to happen,
you're correct in not buying
GOOG. Do you have a reason to
believe earnings increases will
not continue to happen? Earnings
for the last 3 years for GOOG:
$400M, $1.5B, $3.1B. Projected
for this year: $5B. Do you think
it will stop there? Why? Do you
think BRKA is growing at that rate?
Do you think a company that is
growing quickly should be valued
the same as a company that's growing
slowly? -tom
\_ How long do you think a company can
grow quickly?
\_ Depends on the industry and
the economy, eh? Google
won't continue to double
profits and revenues every
year, but it is likely to
grow faster than BRKA for
at least the next 5 years,
absent a serious technological
challenge (which I don't see
on the horizion). -tom
\_ Market Cap != Company Value. Some companies capitalize
their operations largely through debt. How much equity
vs. how much debt is a highly idiosyncratic decision. So
who has the most equity value is an irrelevant question.
\_Google is something like 40th biggest company
in America / 160th in the world. Almost all of
its value goes to equity holders. Citibank goes
almost all to debt, but it is worth 12.5 Googles.
\_ What happens if you buy all outstanding GOOG stock?
\_ You would own all the equity, which will receive
whatever value the company has AFTER the debt
is satisfied. The first portion of company's value
goes to the debtholders. Berkshire, since it is
in this example has about the same $180B market
cap as Google, true, but also has $140B of debt
and is worth $320B. If you wanted to have the
right to every cashflow Berkshire were to ever
take in in the future, you would have to pay
$320B. For Google, $180B. (~0 debt)
\_ You could buy BRK for ~$180B and assume the
debt. The net income is income *after*
interest on debt has been paid and it is 2x
that of GOOG and it can be had for ~$180B.
\_ The problems investing in google: 1) they have a single product,
2) that single product can be displaced by a superior product at
any time (google wasn't always the #1 search engine), 3) they are
super secretive about everything (which bugs me as a potential
investor), 4) they're flying on a lot of hype, if/when that balloon
bursts, they'll come crashing down fast. I am not short-google guy.
I know better than to bet against the crazed massses. I also won't
put my money into a single product company built on net hype.
\_ I agree with this guy. Psychologically propped up stocks can
suffer a bubble bust any time, based on news you cannot
predict. You can win, but it's more about luck than anything.
\_ Was it Warren Buffett who once remarked that he doesn't invest
in high tech companies because he does not understand valuation
for such companies? -- ilyas
\_ Google's product is not search.
<<<<<<< Other Changes Below
\_ Google's product is ads slapped on search results pages. If
someone makes a better search, then google's ad value drops
to near zero.
\_ Wrong.
\_ Of course it is. They say it is not, because they don't
want to be painted with that brush and they are trying
like mad to diversify. However, if the Google search
engine disappeared tomorrow (along with YouTube) then what
would they have left?
=======
\_ no, their product is advertising. Search is just
'advertising' to bring in the eyeballs and make their
real product worth something. Do you think TV shows are
the 'product' of broadcast TV companies? Think about
where they get their revenue. -ERic
\_ Without search they would have no viewers and hence
no advertisers. Their product is their search
engine. Likewise, TV shows are the product of
broadcast TV networks. You are confusing the
product with where the revenues come from. GOOG's
problem going forward is finding ways to expand
their market share and that will be difficult
because they already have such a popular search
engine.
\_ Google has been desperately trying to diversify for
about 5 years. They have come up with all sorts of
very cool and free products but they're not making
any real money on any of them. They also got a bit
Microsoft-y, buying up all sorts of little companies
who could do things that Google with all their PhD
geniuses on board could not.
\_ Wrong.
\_ Google is not "psychologically propped up." It is a company
that is making money hand over fist, growing at an astounding
rate, and showing no signs at all of giving up its dominating
market position.
\_ Like so many others before it, especially in high technology,
they too shall fall.
\_ yeah, I'm sure those idiots who bought Microsoft and Cisco
are kicking themselves now. -tom
\_ The idiots who bought in 2000 sure are.
\_ Google in 2007 is not comparable to Microsoft/Cisco
in 2000; it's comparable to Microsoft in, say, 1990,
or Cisco in 1995. People who bought those stocks
then made a lot of money. I think Google is more
like Cisco than it is like http://pets.com. -tom
\_ Delusional. Like I said, good luck.
Much of the dotcom bubble was based on companies with no real
earnings and no prospects. Google is not one of those companies.
It will have over $15 billion in revenues this year and probably
$5 billion in earnings.
$5 billion in earnings with growth rates remaining near 50%
year-over-year. That's not hype, that's a company with
ridiculously strong, probably unmatched financials. Bet
against it if you like, but you're likely to get your head
handed to you, just like short-GOOG-at-100-guy did. -tom
>>>>>>> Your Changes Above
\_ There are 34 other companies with sales over $10B and 5 year
growth in line with GOOG. GOOG has a larger market cap
than all of them except for BHP.
\_ Are you shorting them? Give some examples; I'd be
interested to investigate them. -tom
\_ No one has to short something to correctly note it is
overvalued and highly risky. Your obsession with the
one short guy is a red herring which has nothing to do
with the overhyped valuation the crazies in the market
have placed on this secretive single-product company.
\_ If you're not putting your money where your mouth is
why should we possibly be interested in your risk
assessments? -dans
\_ Because as I said earlier, I'm not going to
put money down against crazy people who have a
whole lot more they can afford to lose than I can.
I don't have to play russian roulette to know
that it is stupid to do so.
\_ But by your very statement you indicate that
the people putting money down on google are
neither crazy nor playing russian roulette.
Ergo, why is your risk assessment of interest
to anyone, but, well, you? -dans
\_ No, you're confused. By my very statement
they are playing russian roulette and simply
haven't found the chamber with the bullet
yet. I'm not tom. Why are you trolling me
like I'm tom? As far as why would anyone be
interested? It's the motd. The very
question has no meaning here. If people
find my risk assessment interesting, they'll
reply. Some have. You have. If not, they
will skip it. Doesn't matter either way.
\_ No one has provided any real analysis to suggest
that Google is overvalued. They've provided
irrelevant comparisons to other companies,
and thrown numbers around in ways that suggest
that they really don't know how to analyze a
company's stock valuation. For that matter, I'll
take a company with a good single product over a
company with a confused product strategy (such as
Yahoo) any day. -tom
Yahoo) any day.
Edit to add: You also haven't provide examples of
companies with market cap over $10B and growth
profiles similar to Google. -tom
\_ Look them up yourself. It's easy enough. A
lot of them are energy companies. I think
that Apple is one of them, too, as is
Halliburton.
\_ I also own Apple, and Berkshire Hathaway for
that matter. Oil companies are not
comparable; they are growing due to the
commodity they control, which at some
point is going to fall off a cliff. -tom
\_ That's only better for them in terms of
profit. Or if you mean that some day
there will be zero need for oil then
your horizon is far too long and who
knows what will happen with GOOG in 100
years?
\_ Oil companies are basically commodities
plays, and commodities plays are not
directly comparable with pure stock
plays. It may be that oil companies
are good investments due to the
commodity scarcity, but that doesn't
really relate to much other than the
price of the commodity. It also
leaves aside the moral issues. -tom
\_ What moral issues? You invested in
google who has some serious moral
issues but that didn't seem to
bother you; I don't get how you can
seem to believe oil companies have
moral issues which appears to be a
minus for you yet google who has
moral issues is a plus for you.
\_ I just wanted to make a meta comment. I don't actually know how
I would value google's stock. However, to people who thought that
google was overvalued before, and got schooled by the market, you
can't just reply that 'the market is full of idiots, the stock got
hyped' and so on. If the market schools you, your model is bad, end
of story. Maybe your model needs to accomodate psychology. -- ilyas |
| 2007/10/2-5 [Science/Electric] UID:48220 Activity:nil |
10/2 Now *THAT's* a model rocket
http://www.polecataerospace.com/X-Wing.htm |
| 2007/10/2-5 [Science/Battery, Science/GlobalWarming] UID:48221 Activity:low 75%like:48218 |
10/1 Finally! OLED Televisions
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=071001112033.l3kf86xb
\_ Technology needs more development still. But I'm glad this is
finally rolling out.
\_ 3mm thick? Does it break easily just from moving around? (Unless
it's made of flexible material.)
\_ I don't get it. What use does a home user/consumer have for this?
\_ While this particular model isn't remarkable, OLED has a lot of
potential for televisions in general. Compared to LCD, OLED sets
should have wider viewing angles, response times two or three
orders of magnitude quicker (so fast action on screen won't get
blurry), and better display of the color black (all colors,
really, but black is particularly bad on LCDs). Early adoption
aside, the way OLEDs are manufactured means they should also be
cheaper to manufacture (once the production issues get sorted
out, yields come up, and economies of scale kick in).
\_ Thanks. I wasn't seeing how super-thin was that big a deal
but the color, speed, etc, makes sense. I get it now. |
| 2007/10/2-5 [Uncategorized] UID:48222 Activity:moderate |
10/2 tom are you actually holding G stock? If so, I wish you the
best of luck. Tee hee hee. -short G @ 600 guy
\_ Yes, I have GOOG. Up 30% in 6 months so far. Forward PE 30
based on conservative assumptions. -tom
\_ Yes, since about March. Up 30% so far. Forward P/E 30. I don't
need luck. -tom
\_ People don't learn from the dot-bomb days.
\_ Yeah, especially people who hold AMZN, +180%.
Not everything bombs. -tom
\_ Just most of it. Why did you wait to buy until March when
you've been hawking it here for much longer, IIRC? If you
had bought at $83 you could have quit your job.
\_ It didn't fit my risk profile until more recently. I
hadn't been hawking it, I'd just been pointing out
[correctly] that it was stupid to short it. -tom
\_ And now that it's even more expensive it does
fit your risk profile?
\_ No, now that it has several more years of
data to examine and compare. -tom |
| 2007/10/2-3 [Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:48223 Activity:nil |
10/2 Back to OJ Simpson: anyone want to explain how you can get away with
killing 2 people but get 30 years on burglary? Is there
something wrong with our justice system?
\_ 1) Can't. 2) Yes. |
| 2007/10/2-5 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq, Reference/History/WW2] UID:48224 Activity:moderate |
10/2 Check this out, it's awesome:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21105586
Ratio of wounded in action to killed in action:
WW2: 1 killed to 2.40 wounded
Vietnam: 1 to 3.12
Current: 1 to 8.3
\_ All Hail Western Medical Science! Amen!
\_ If you stick a tube in a vegetable, it'll be alive
indefinitely. Case in point... the veggy woman case.
\_ A lot more soldiers get wounded than before? "Ouch, I just got
poked by that cactus and my pinky is bleeding. I'm out of the
mission."
\_ No, it is really because doctors can patch up and save the lives
of soldiers with all sorts of gruesome wounds that would have
been certain death in Vietnam or WW2. Same thing for Vietnam
vs. WW2. If you go back to the Civil War, things we consider
a scratch or minor wound would be almost certain death.
\_ Advances in medicine certainly helped a lot, but it's not the
only thing going on. For one thing, the ammunition size
has decreased over the years (we used to use 7.62 rounds in
our assault rifles). The decrease was driven by limits on
soldier carrying capacity (as soldiers were called upon to
carry more and more equipment), by the fact that the
crucial thing is to disable, not kill, and by noting that
most engagements were fought at distances where larger
rounds were not necessary to achieve decent ballistics.
-- ilyas
\_ Uhm... ok *our* rounds are smaller but doesn't it really
matter what the *other* guys are using? I suspect your
typical AlQ/Iraqi/Whatever gun toter is not carrying the
same load as an American solider in combat.
\_ The russians moved to a similar smaller round (which
is what the AK-74 fires). There are still a lot of
AK-47s in circulation in Iraq, of course. My point is,
the reduced fatalities are not due to medical advances
alone, but the changing realities of modern engagements.
-- ilyas
\_ "Alone"? No. But a huge and seriously major part of
the reason why more solider survive combat wounds?
Absolutely. Think of the Civil War era. Shoot one
of those poor no-medical-bastards with a round of
any size you like. The odds that what we now think
of as a simple infection kills them is extremely
high. It doesn't matter how big a wound. Medicine
gets better every year and what used to mean death
is now a routine fix.
\_ Let's not let justified loathing of the war diminsh the
achievements of the people fighting to keep our soldiers alive.
I'm against the war, but I think the advances in medicine have
been amazing and laudable.
\_ I don't think anyone was dimishing medicines achievements.
Without them there'd be a lot more dead soldiers and others. |
| 2007/10/2-5 [Transportation/Airplane, Politics/Foreign/Asia/India] UID:48225 Activity:nil |
10/2 More on Blackwater:
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/10/02/blackwater.afghan.crash
\_ Blackwater USA: Giving all mercs a bad name! |
| 2007/10/2-5 [Uncategorized] UID:48226 Activity:nil |
10/2 If you go to Build-a-Bear Workshop now, you will get a chance to
win tickets to Hannah Montana Concert! |