Gold in a bubble and/or going to $3,000

[flintlock]

Re: Gold in a bubble and/or going to $3,000

I hold microsoft, not intel for this reason.

X2!

[touchring]

Re: Gold in a bubble and/or going to $3,000

but to the developing world, they are the best brand in electronics and computers that's around. There is nothing they rather want than to afford to own apple products. To some of the younger people they are also ranking very high. That's why they have such margins and pricing power. Their products in many tests are getting outstanding reviews, better than any of their competitors. Like their laptops. They are sure expensive, and it might be a bubble, but it's really possible for them to pull it off too.

Yes, you're right, but are you also aware how huge the real estate and loan bubble is??

[nero3]

Re: Gold in a bubble and/or going to $3,000

X2!

I see. The thing about the US stock market that might seem counter to intuition is that it tends to do better in periods where growth in revenue and US GDP is worse, than in periods where growth in revenue and US GDP is much greater. It does better in periods with a deflationary bias than in periods with an inflationary bias. I think it will do well when the commodity bubble comes down. Companies like Intel isn't exactly producing it's gear in the US, even a lot of the development and engineering of new processors is done in Israel. I guess they do it where the intellectual capacity is greatest relative to costs. If some of the emerging market currencies were to break down. Salaries would go down in those factories. If the commodity bubble would break as well, it would add to the reduction in input costs. That's what Intel would need to get it's stock price going. It's sound so cynical. But eventually those emerging countries will overheat, while the US can put the pedal to the floor. That's when you will see stocks as Intel lift off.

[FrankL]

Re: Gold in a bubble and/or going to $3,000

Intel's success up to now has been caused partly by AMDs poor financial position and execution of the past few years. They need to rapidly innovate in the area of embedded chips, where ARM and MIPS designs rule the market. Up to now reception of their Atom chips has been very underwhelming.

It's very questionable if even the process lead they enjoy compared to major competitor TSMC (~1-1.5 years) is enough to close the gap with ARM designs in the near future. Embedded is the high-growth market of the next 15 years. Within a decade, embedded chips will be in every major household appliance, home central heating, home power meters, communicating with your home network or through the internet to allow for 'smart appliances' that will tell you or the manufacturer when they need cleaning, repairs, when electricity rates are low for washing, or whatever else you could think of. Cars will be able to auto-drive to their destination and avoid traffic cues by monitoring traffic in realtime through an internet connection. This all is made possible by embedded CPU architectures like ARM and MIPS.

Intel has nothing of interest to show in this area right now, but promises about their next generation Atom stuff. I consider it vaporware until they prove otherwise.

Oh and Apple's valuation is just plain retarded. Jobs will die or at least step down rather sooner than later with his liver condition, and the past success of Apple is way too dependent on Jobs and the ability of consumers to over-leverage to buy their expensive toys.

Microsoft is a company to try something that would be hugely profitable if it works out for them (by locking the market), stick too it too long if it doesn't and eventually switch to doing the right thing. Maybe a bit like a less stubborn version of Sony that has been able to eliminate virtually all competition in the past. MS will reinvent itself if needed, and they have incredibly talented people working for them.

[nero3]

Re: Gold in a bubble and/or going to $3,000

Intel's success up to now has been caused partly by AMDs poor financial position and execution of the past few years. They need to rapidly innovate in the area of embedded chips, where ARM and MIPS designs rule the market. Up to now reception of their Atom chips has been very underwhelming.

It's very questionable if even the process lead they enjoy compared to major competitor TSMC (~1-1.5 years) is enough to close the gap with ARM designs in the near future. Embedded is the high-growth market of the next 15 years. Within a decade, embedded chips will be in every major household appliance, home central heating, home power meters, communicating with your home network or through the internet to allow for 'smart appliances' that will tell you or the manufacturer when they need cleaning, repairs, when electricity rates are low for washing, or whatever else you could think of. Cars will be able to auto-drive to their destination and avoid traffic cues by monitoring traffic in realtime through an internet connection. This all is made possible by embedded CPU architectures like ARM and MIPS.

Intel has nothing of interest to show in this area right now, but promises about their next generation Atom stuff. I consider it vaporware until they prove otherwise.

Oh and Apple's valuation is just plain retarded. Jobs will die or at least step down rather sooner than later with his liver condition, and the past success of Apple is way too dependent on Jobs and the ability of consumers to over-leverage to buy their expensive toys.

Microsoft is a company to try something that would be hugely profitable if it works out for them (by locking the market), stick too it too long if it doesn't and eventually switch to doing the right thing. Maybe a bit like a less stubborn version of Sony that has been able to eliminate virtually all competition in the past. MS will reinvent itself if needed, and they have incredibly talented people working for them.

One company that have been breaking out very nice lately is Taiwan Semiconductor. What's your take on that one? I think they look excellent from a technical perspective, insider holdings, stronger dollar, etc.

http://finance.yahoo.com/echarts?s=T...urce=undefined

I recently read an article, it was about apple, and if they could make it to 1 trillion in market cap. I think they can if the general market increases by a factor of 3 over the next five years. They really had a stellar performance in a market where the trend was flat. I think the market have moved flat so long, that 1 trillion is simply not what it used to be (if the general market triple). There was some speculation about Apple buying Sony. I think if you had a market that tripled over the next 5 years, a buyout of Sony from Apple, in that market, or some kind of buyout, then they could certainly increase their valuation a lot. I never had any apple stock, so I clearly missed it, and I don't think I'm going to jump on it, however, I would not write them off yet.

I think the next thing for Intel would be a processor to replace the ULV line, used in ultra portable business laptops. The i series is to energy consuming and the atom series to weak. It's certainly not a dying market considering the relatively short life of todays laptops.

[c1ue]

Re: Gold in a bubble and/or going to $3,000

I recently read an article, it was about apple, and if they could make it to 1 trillion in market cap.

Clearly you don't do enough critical thinking when reading.

Apple at 1 trillion market cap is right up there with Dow 100,000

[nero3]

Re: Gold in a bubble and/or going to $3,000

Clearly you don't do enough critical thinking when reading.

Apple at 1 trillion market cap is right up there with Dow 100,000

You need to be more humble. You would had had the same opinions on Cisco if we had carried this discussion in another time. Of course it can happen. I'm not saying I think it's likely, but I'm not excluding anything.

[c1ue]

Re: Gold in a bubble and/or going to $3,000

You need to be more humble. You would had had the same opinions on Cisco if we had carried this discussion in another time. Of course it can happen. I'm not saying I think it's likely, but I'm not excluding anything.

I don't need to be humble in this respect - no doubt I could be more humble in others.

Apple - barring a hyperinflation - will NEVER hit $1 trillion in market cap.

For that matter Cisco's market cap is $117B - or slightly over 1/3 that of Apple.

Are you going to tell me that Apple is more fundamental to everyday survival, or has wider markets, or has a stronger market position than Cisco?

For that matter, in the year 2000 there was one analyst who wrote that Cisco who achieve a market cap of $1 trillion.

http://www.bizjournals.com/sanjose/s...20/story2.html

It would be incredibly amusing if the article you wrote was based on the same "analysis" by the same analyst.

The analyst who wrote Cisco -> $1 trillion in 2000 was wrong.

The analyst (and you) who thinks Apple -> $1 trillion (outside a hyperinflation) is equally wrong.

[nero3]

Re: Gold in a bubble and/or going to $3,000

I don't need to be humble in this respect - no doubt I could be more humble in others.

Apple - barring a hyperinflation - will NEVER hit $1 trillion in market cap.

For that matter Cisco's market cap is $117B - or slightly over 1/3 that of Apple.

Are you going to tell me that Apple is more fundamental to everyday survival, or has wider markets, or has a stronger market position than Cisco?

For that matter, in the year 2000 there was one analyst who wrote that Cisco who achieve a market cap of $1 trillion.

http://www.bizjournals.com/sanjose/s...20/story2.html

It would be incredibly amusing if the article you wrote was based on the same "analysis" by the same analyst.

The analyst who wrote Cisco -> $1 trillion in 2000 was wrong.

The analyst (and you) who thinks Apple -> $1 trillion (outside a hyperinflation) is equally wrong.

What you don't seems to get is this:

In 1995 the money supply was roughly a third of today, the dollar was weak, yet Cisco went to almost half a trillion. You are basically saying Apple can't go to a trillion. Of course it can. If it was to go as nuts as Cisco did back then it would go to 1.5 trillion.

Had I asked you (or any of the guys in LTCM) in 1995 if Cisco could go to half a trillion I know what the answer would be, that's why I'm saying you need a more humble attitude.

[c1ue]

Re: Gold in a bubble and/or going to $3,000

What you don't seems to get is this:

In 1995 the money supply was roughly a third of today, the dollar was weak, yet Cisco went to almost half a trillion. You are basically saying Apple can't go to a trillion. Of course it can. If it was to go as nuts as Cisco did back then it would go to 1.5 trillion.

Had I asked you (or any of the guys in LTCM) in 1995 if Cisco could go to half a trillion I know what the answer would be, that's why I'm saying you need a more humble attitude.

What you don't get is Cisco was a gigantic bubble.

Or what else do you call a drop in market cap by more than 4x despite the company's revenues growing?

So you can smoke all the crack you want, and you can buy into Apple thinking they will triple from this point.

But unless we go Weimar, it ain't gonna happen.

[nero3]

Re: Gold in a bubble and/or going to $3,000

So you can smoke all the crack you want, and you can buy into Apple thinking they will triple from this point.

But unless we go Weimar, it ain't gonna happen.

That is unknowable. That's your mistake in this argument. You can't know that Apple wont perform as Cisco in 2000, making it 1,5 trillion. Just as I think gold at 6000 is becoming increasingly unlikely , given it's recent moves and the huge list of "experts" cheering for it, I'm not so ignorant I'm completely writing it off. That kind of ignorance is what gives you blow ups similar to LTCM.

[c1ue]

Re: Gold in a bubble and/or going to $3,000

That is unknowable. That's your mistake in this argument. You can't know that Apple wont perform as Cisco in 2000, making it 1,5 trillion. Just as I think gold at 6000 is becoming increasingly unlikely , given it's recent moves and the huge list of "experts" cheering for it, I'm not so ignorant I'm completely writing it off. That kind of ignorance is what gives you blow ups similar to LTCM.

Again, incorrect. It is completely knowable, because for Apple to triple its present market cap it will have to take over the entire world's cell phone, iPod, and every other mobile electronic device market share.

Because in fact Apple even now is already a significant percentage of ALL the world's mobile electronic device makers total market cap.

This is unlikely given that Apple's market share in the US has stalled. All its present growth is abroad, and that too is a limited upside.

Cisco - on the other hand - is the Intel of the digital telephony age. It DOES pretty much own all the world's trunk station telephony, at least in 2000.

Your LTCM example is ridiculous as are most of your assertions: LTCM was a gigantic Ponzi scheme relying on massive leverage.

It was bound to fail as no one has ever been able to predict currency movements to such a degree such as to avoid the 2% shift that would wipe out their capital.

You continue to show your ignorance with your gold assertions: gold isn't a company, it is instead a representative of value. Gold's valuation isn't based on a multiple of revenues or profits, rather it is based on its inherent scarcity and the relative valuation of currency.

I've already challenged you straight out to back up your statements and you failed.

Care for another round?

[nero3]

Re: Gold in a bubble and/or going to $3,000

Again, incorrect. It is completely knowable, because for Apple to triple its present market cap it will have to take over the entire world's cell phone, iPod, and every other mobile electronic device market share.


Care for another round?

You are really just repeating your nonsense. You can't know what the valuations will be 5 years from now. In 1995 the nasdaq was trading at less than 800 and the money supply was a third of what it was today. If things were to repeat, companies such as apple would go to a 1,5 trillion and the Nasdaq would go to 14000.

What you are basically saying is that your intelligence is to god damn high that you know apple won't turn into a huge bubble, and I'm saying that your not that smart. I'm not saying it's likely apple will go that high, in fact i'm not owning or planning to buy apple shares, however, i'm not betting my house against it happening. As history have shown, the markets can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent.

[c1ue]

Re: Gold in a bubble and/or going to $3,000

You are really just repeating your nonsense. You can't know what the valuations will be 5 years from now. In 1995 the nasdaq was trading at less than 800 and the money supply was a third of what it was today. If things were to repeat, companies such as apple would go to a 1,5 trillion and the Nasdaq would go to 14000.

What you are basically saying is that your intelligence is to god damn high that you know apple won't turn into a huge bubble, and I'm saying that your not that smart. I'm not saying it's likely apple will go that high, in fact i'm not owning or planning to buy apple shares, however, i'm not betting my house against it happening. As history have shown, the markets can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent.

No, I'm saying Apple IS a bubble NOW. And that is will POP before it ever approaches $1 trillion.

And I'm not the only one.

And I'm also saying that you are a poser and I am challenging you to demonstrate something other than trolling around and saying provocative things with no background whatsoever.

[nero3]

Re: Gold in a bubble and/or going to $3,000

No, I'm saying Apple IS a bubble NOW. And that is will POP before it ever approaches $1 trillion.

And I'm not the only one.

And I'm also saying that you are a poser and I am challenging you to demonstrate something other than trolling around and saying provocative things with no background whatsoever.

I'm backing my arguments up, however this argument just becomes one of atheist vs agnostic.
I'm not denying that apple could be in a bubble from a psychological view, but if you look at old P/E ratio's for those stocks during the dot-com bubble 1,5 trillion would really fit the picture of what Apple's price would be in a future version of that same environment, even with todays earnings. It's just nonsense that they would have to take over the market totally. What i'm reacting to is just your certainty on something that's not sure, and not knowable. What's important is to have a humble attitude and realize your limitations.