Contributor since: 2012
RIMM will die.
The timing wasn't too bad.
That description of banking on successes with incremental changes fits the history of a company we know well. Its called ......................... SONY.
A news commentator doesn't create news. Is it that hard to understand?
Well, iPhone was the LAST smartphone to support LTE.
Well, today's product announcement shows Apple is indeed running out of ideas.
Actually, post-Jobs era Apple executives have NO NEW IDEAS AT ALL. They do not even have the courage to make moderate shape changes in iPhone.
Apple, can you introduced a more no-surprise, mundane iPhone 5 than this?
It is not necessarily number massaging, which would be categorized as fraud.
But there are other ways to "count" subscribers -- it's easy to hide the loss of paid subscribers as increased marketing cost by providing promotions to subscribers who might have left otherwise.
iPhone miss is not really that surprising
But I do not expect this miss to hurt AAPL badly. All eyes on iPhone 5 now:
It appears #7 has turned reality. iPhone sales lower than almost all estimates. I don't expect Apple to go down big because of this though. All eyes on iPhone 5 now.
Exactly because the herd now says: we are outta here. Examples like this are abundant - high flyers never recover from hard falls quickly:
The international expansion is a joke.
The growth story is broken. The valuation cannot sustain. The biggest collapse usually comes from contraction of valuation.
My predication is the company will end up ~$200 within a year. As for today, my judgment is as good as (perhaps worse than) yours.
Well, it's already below $320.
long term, man.
Where do you think we should go further from here?
Judgment day.
The key question, especially for the short term is sometimes beyond what's in the balance sheet. In particular, for the upcoming quarter, is subscription the focus? Or is it earnings? Or international expansion (which I always believe is more or less a scam excuse for Netflix' "growth")?
Hastings was lucky to be the one first on the bandwagon of streaming video. Based on his more recent business decisions, this guy doesn't even qualify to make executive decisions.
It's priced in: consistent with my judgment yesterday.
LOL, Paulo. I love this.
I thought it was a bunch of B.S. when I saw the title of the article you are referring to. Didn't even click to read it. To use Warren Buffett's name to win clicks on a 100% speculative metal like gold? Come on. As we all know, for things that cannot be valued by assets or income streams, Buffett wouldn't even piss on them.
If he (plus his insider circle) could own the whole damn thing, why should he share with shareholders? In their mentality, shareholders are meant to be slaughtered. Of course he didn't mean for this to be investigated by the SEC and gotta trashed by Muddy Water.
More to read about this
Goldman Sachs suspends rating on EDU
My prediction about Renren is as good as yours and I have no idea what will happen with that company except I don't trust the management. If you think the private firms are relatively clean, you have not scratched the surface of China.
Following the same trick, one way to think about it is whether the company has assets than can be readily split off. Technically Sina can spin off Weibo...
With inflated stock price, Robin Li's incentive is tentatively inline with shareholders. The short term risk may not be that high.
By your criteria, every single Chinese company is corrupted. The private companies you claim "will beat" are not one iota less corrupted than state owned ones. The strategy for you is very simple; you should not touch any Chinese stock.
It doesn't matter how good the company is if it's NOT the shareholders'.
What happened at EDU, if turned out to be true, is essentially an asset transition from EDU shareholders to its insiders. This is not that uncommon among companies listed in China. An old ugly trick that treats shareholders like pigs.
Each scandal may be massive in scale, but they are isolated events.
Fortunately, these shenanigans don't happen extensively among companies headquartered in the United States. If that's your belief, there is no reason for you stay in the market and what we discuss at SA would be utterly irrelevant to you anyway.
The fire gave Warren Buffett 700% returns within 10 years. I'd take that kind of fire any time. The simple fact is these state owned mega companies are all near monopolies in their respective business and enjoy financial returns way above market average. Fear of public ownership is common among Americans. Unfortunately, fear and ignorance doesn't make you money.
You want a 100% clean market? Then there is no market. As long as you can list these companies, this is still a very, very short list.
This page is too short to list the #$%# by companies out of this country.
From an iPad lover:
"Trolls, feel free to skip to the bottom of this column and post your comments immediately without reading a word. Actually, who are we kidding — you didn’t make it this far."