# Chris Ridder

Chris Ridder
Send Message

Chris Ridder

Stop FollowingChris Ridder

View as an RSS Feed

COMMENTS STATS

160 Comments

75 Likes

## Trouble For 'Bridgewater Risk Parity' Model [View article]

http://bit.ly/1fhJpCh

## Trouble For 'Bridgewater Risk Parity' Model [View article]

http://bit.ly/1fhJpCh

## Inflation And The Money Base [View article]

## Inflation And The Money Base [View article]

## Inflation And The Money Base [View article]

## Inflation And The Money Base [View article]

## 4 Reasons Why Gold Will Continue To Decline [View article]

Here is a brief overview from wikipedia http://bit.ly/13HyJm0

A time series needs to be stationary for statistical inferences to be valid using ordinary least squares regression techniques.

## Trouble For 'Bridgewater Risk Parity' Model [View article]

## Japanese Rates Influencing Gold [View article]

## Apple-nomics And Gross Margins 101 [View article]

"If you take the sales for account for the number of weeks you do indeed get a 26.7% increase. $4193.231 mm in 2012 vs $3309.5 mm in 2011.

However, the same adjustment must then be made to purchases. $2502.154 mm per week in 2012 vs $1812.071 in 2011 for a 38.1% increase. This is a spread difference of 11.4%. The spread difference, in the article was 28.2% vs. 17.7%, or 10.5%; so if you do adjust for weeks, as you suggest, the numbers are even less favorable for Apple when comparing sales vs. costs. "

## Apple-nomics And Gross Margins 101 [View article]

Look on page 30 of Apple's last quarter's financials:

http://1.usa.gov/Vo2ngT

It shows operating expenses. I don't see how depreciation is an operating expense, when it is writing down long term capital assets; and not a selling expense, general expense, or an administrative expense. Hence, why it can be considered part of COGS. But as stated above some companies actually do include it with SG&A. If you are still concerned, I would contact Apple's investor relations with this question.

## Apple-nomics And Gross Margins 101 [View article]

Look at Apple's financials with the website ADVFN:

http://bit.ly/Yoyd89

You will find both "cost of sales" and "cost of sales with depreciation". The line item "cost of sales with depreciation" matches Apples SEC filing for line item cost of sales.

So Apple finds its COGS and then also adds depreciation to get a final COGS, which it reports in its financial statements. To double check this, check the depreciation amount in the statement of cash flows. Also, notice depreciation expense is not mentioned anywhere else on the income statement.

I am glad you enjoyed the article

## Apple-nomics And Gross Margins 101 [View article]

If you take the sales for account for the number of weeks you do indeed get a 26.7% increase. $4193.231 mm in 2012 vs $3309.5 mm in 2011.

However, the same adjustment must then be made to purchases. $2502.154 mm per week in 2012 vs $1812.071 in 2011 for a 38.1% increase. This is a spread difference of 11.4%. The spread difference, in the article was 28.2% vs. 17.7%, or 10.5%; so if you do adjust for weeks, as you suggest, the numbers are even less favorable for Apple when comparing sales vs. costs.

## Inflation And The Money Base [View article]

To be very clear it was in no way an endorsement or adherence to an empirical methodology / ideology.

## Inflation And The Money Base [View article]

This text does not use any empirical methods to prove its hypothesis, but rather a prior, deductive reasoning. The above empirical research shows an outcome consistent with pure theory. The text also explains why only 14.9% of the movement was explained; it is very difficult to model consumer expectations about future inflation.

I did not publish the research in the article, since it is beyond Statistics 101, but I did perform Granger Causality analysis. http://bit.ly/15EmdFz

It showed, with a lag period of 2, that the null hypothesis "money base does not Granger Cause cpi" was rejected at the 10% level with a p-value of .09927. The null hypothesis "cpi does not Granger Cause money base" was NOT rejected with a p-value of .53714