A Power Grab by Google and Verizon? [View article]
Alan - - -
My article was perhaps too brief . I assumed that readers who had an interest would read the NYT article. The problem I framed referred to assuring net neutrality for wired services rather than allowing content providers to purchase preference on wirelss networks as proposed by GOOG and VZ. That was the analogy I intended to infer with my dial-up vs broadband example.
I have to acknowledge your criticism that I did not make that clear.
On your second major point, the thing that I criticize is the idea that content providers could have control of what is available on wireless networks. This could squeeze out entrepenuerial efforts to bring new forms of content and services to the internet. The problem would be draconian if wireless networks were to displace wired networks in the same way that broadband has substantially displaced the old dial-up.
Nowhere did I intend to imply that receivers of content and services should not be subject to charges for what they receive. You wrote:
<<< So the dispute is, should we guarantee neutrality for wireless services? That is, if I buy a smartphone, will there be only one, universal data-access plan everywhere, or will I be able to choose one that meets my modest needs for voice and e-mail without the streaming video that would double the price? ... because all this broadcast bandwidth isn't free, and may become very scarce indeed if no constraints on demand are allowed.>>>
The dispute is not with me. The user should pay for what he needs. But what is available to the user should not be restricted to what the content provider can afford to pay for access. It should be limited by what the user is willing to pay.
You have inferred a position that I do not support. Again, I will accept the fault for not being clearer.
1. I actually did point out that HPQ was acquiring Palm.
2. I did not elaborate on the potential for competition for Apple from that new combo, which you have done well.
3. All this discussion may be missing the possibilty of something (somebody) completely new in this space, as you suggest. History is replete with new Davids arising to slay established Goliaths.
4. You said: "Besides, there's enough market for all the biggies to make money." Be careful - as new technologies evolve they trend toward commodity status and profit margins in saturated markets are squeezed to pennies. This is not a market situation that would favor the current Apple business model. For that model to work, Apple must stay in front of the curve. Fanboy worshippers seem to assume that will continue to happen. As long as Apple does not fall into the same trap they may continue to have great success.
It is important to remember that a leader must earn it's stripes anew every day. Past examples of firms that did not successfully recognize that:
Well articulated high level summary. GOOG and MSFT may well be the battle of the titans when it comes to cloud computing. I use some centralized Microsoft Office functions (net accessed function rather than resident on my local machine) and find a number of very cumbersome characteristics. If MSFT can not do better in future cloud offerings they will lose business to someone who does (do better).
It is entirely possible that the future king of the cloud may not even be on our radar today. But right now GOOG and MSFT appear to be in the running to be big players.
I thought he brought a number of differing opinions together in a succinct manner. You are welcome to dismiss his conclusions as a secondary feature of his column.
I don't take investment advice from Friedman either.
I am preparing a longer piece on this subject in which I will point out some of the things others are cautioning about emerging markets, especially China. I will address some of the strategy I am pursuing for some emerging markets. It would have been ready by now but my broadband access went down for about six hours so I won't finish until tomorrow.
One of my sources discusses the China real estate situation at some length. Link will be provided.
Wall Street Breakfast: Must-Know News [View article]
Axelrod - - -
Very well constructed comment on the dichotomy between the treatment of the auto industry and the financial sector. Edward Harrison has a good article today on this topic: Obama's GM Plans: Good Moves, Poor Optics
My take on the primary problem with respect to the financial sector is that there has been a misjudgement: The health of the finacncial sector has been confused with the health of individual financial enterprises. I like to use a forestry management metaphor.
It is sometimes much better to remove diseased trees and treat the healthy trees (prophilaxis) to get a healthy forest. Treating and leaving the diseased trees in place can merely provide more fuel for forest fires, as well as increase the possiblity of infection of healthy trees.
Wall Street Breakfast: Must-Know News [View article]
Should we start looking at whether or not we might be allowing some drug companies to become "too big to fail"?
Economies of scale are good to a point, but when these "economies" freeze out competition, the resulting behemoths can become anchors on the economy because lack of competition allows them to become obese and prone to manipulation by the few for their own benefit.
Canaccord Adams on Four Likeliest Economic Scenarios for 2009 [View article]
I, for one, appreciate the perspectives of the author. I guess that puts me in a minority of one so far in this comment stream.
I see several stocks I have owned in the past but been out of for nine months and longer. One stock I do own (and haven't seen commentary on) is HOLX. I have been short against the box for six months to protect past capital gains because my analysis indicates much higher fair value. If we have recession (depression?) that lasts more than 18-21 months, my fair value estimates will be too high. But, even then, my assessment is the current price is too low.
You both touch on truths and what you each say is not excluding the other.
Fred Wilson - - -
I found your premise interesting: many great things are created, seemingly, from nothing but human ingenuity. It brings to mind some history: the technology revolution grew out of the recovery from the last deep recession in 1981-82. Not that Microsoft grew entirely out of the creative genius of Bill Gates, the programmer. In fact it was someone else's creative genius and Bill Gates' business genius that got things started. Gates succeeded in getting a contract from IBM to provide a disc operating system for the (then in development) PC and then bought the DOS system from its creator. The IBM contract was worth many millions; I have read reports that Gates paid $50,000 for DOS.
Fred, you are not saying anything specific about what the needed changes are. I think the needed changes are in the area of wealth distribution. Whenever, wealth is concentrated in too few hands, be it Wall Street, Washington or Moscow, credit needed by the entreprenuer is frozen out. The Soviet Union fell because it could not find the flexibility to overcome this problem. When income is concentrated too much with a few wealthy executives, it freezes out compensation rewards for many who actually have more to contribute in terms of innovation and entreprenurial ventures. All these points may or may not relate to the situation of bonae. I can't say because I don't have the details.
If we are to truly come out of the current crisis stronger, I feel it will be because we find a way to prevent giving hundreds of millions in compensation to executive failures, find a way that government can move from directing commerce to enabling commerce and establish a set of rules that put boundaries on the use of leverage to compound money but do not unduly hinder the use of leverage to build the means of production.
I have heard the term "class warfare". I think we have had a battle of class warfare in the past few decades and the wealthy class (not only the financial sector, although they are the most conspicous at the moment) has won the battle. But I firmly believe they have not won the war. At least I hope not.
The changes we need will result in a system where the innovative have access to the resources to develop and implement their ideas, and a system that will reward the successful with wealth WHEN THE LONG-TERM RESULTS show that the success has lasting merit.
No longer would we have a system where a CEO can receive $100 million in compensation the year before his corporation goes bankrupt.
Then we would have a system where wealth would be created for those who EARN IT and not for those simply in a position to grab it.
Wall Street Breakfast: Must-Know News [View article]
tom 1234 - - -
Why is Apple down? Try valuation. Expected 2008 earnings are $5.20; 5 year expected annual growth rate 24%; high volatility (Beta = 2.88). If I assign 5% annual growth starting in six years and continuing forever, fair value today for AAPL is $44.
By the way, I own Apple. However, I do put short position hedges on that holding at every pullback. The potential for Apple to double keeps me an owner. The potential for Apple to go down 50-75% keeps me guarded.
A Power Grab by Google and Verizon? [View article]
My article was perhaps too brief . I assumed that readers who had an interest would read the NYT article. The problem I framed referred to assuring net neutrality for wired services rather than allowing content providers to purchase preference on wirelss networks as proposed by GOOG and VZ. That was the analogy I intended to infer with my dial-up vs broadband example.
I have to acknowledge your criticism that I did not make that clear.
On your second major point, the thing that I criticize is the idea that content providers could have control of what is available on wireless networks. This could squeeze out entrepenuerial efforts to bring new forms of content and services to the internet. The problem would be draconian if wireless networks were to displace wired networks in the same way that broadband has substantially displaced the old dial-up.
Nowhere did I intend to imply that receivers of content and services should not be subject to charges for what they receive. You wrote:
<<< So the dispute is, should we guarantee neutrality for wireless services? That is, if I buy a smartphone, will there be only one, universal data-access plan everywhere, or will I be able to choose one that meets my modest needs for voice and e-mail without the streaming video that would double the price? ... because all this broadcast bandwidth isn't free, and may become very scarce indeed if no constraints on demand are allowed.>>>
The dispute is not with me. The user should pay for what he needs. But what is available to the user should not be restricted to what the content provider can afford to pay for access. It should be limited by what the user is willing to pay.
You have inferred a position that I do not support. Again, I will accept the fault for not being clearer.
Can Google Swallow Apple? [View article]
Good comment.
Here are some additional clarifications:
1. I actually did point out that HPQ was acquiring Palm.
2. I did not elaborate on the potential for competition for Apple from that new combo, which you have done well.
3. All this discussion may be missing the possibilty of something (somebody) completely new in this space, as you suggest. History is replete with new Davids arising to slay established Goliaths.
4. You said: "Besides, there's enough market for all the biggies to make money." Be careful - as new technologies evolve they trend toward commodity status and profit margins in saturated markets are squeezed to pennies. This is not a market situation that would favor the current Apple business model. For that model to work, Apple must stay in front of the curve. Fanboy worshippers seem to assume that will continue to happen. As long as Apple does not fall into the same trap they may continue to have great success.
It is important to remember that a leader must earn it's stripes anew every day. Past examples of firms that did not successfully recognize that:
1. Xerox
2. Eastman Kodak
3. IBM 1988-94
4. Dell
There are many more examples - I'll stop here.
Thanks again for a well developed comment.
Can Google Swallow Apple? [View article]
Well articulated high level summary. GOOG and MSFT may well be the battle of the titans when it comes to cloud computing. I use some centralized Microsoft Office functions (net accessed function rather than resident on my local machine) and find a number of very cumbersome characteristics. If MSFT can not do better in future cloud offerings they will lose business to someone who does (do better).
It is entirely possible that the future king of the cloud may not even be on our radar today. But right now GOOG and MSFT appear to be in the running to be big players.
Emerging Markets Are Emerging [View article]
You are correct. My extrapolation from Edward's discussion was that such action would not be good for China's stocks.
Emerging Markets Are Emerging [View article]
I thought he brought a number of differing opinions together in a succinct manner. You are welcome to dismiss his conclusions as a secondary feature of his column.
I don't take investment advice from Friedman either.
Emerging Markets Are Emerging [View article]
I am preparing a longer piece on this subject in which I will point out some of the things others are cautioning about emerging markets, especially China. I will address some of the strategy I am pursuing for some emerging markets. It would have been ready by now but my broadband access went down for about six hours so I won't finish until tomorrow.
One of my sources discusses the China real estate situation at some length. Link will be provided.
Wall Street Breakfast: Must-Know News [View article]
seekingalpha.com/artic...
Wall Street Breakfast: Must-Know News [View article]
Very well constructed comment on the dichotomy between the treatment of the auto industry and the financial sector.
Edward Harrison has a good article today on this topic:
Obama's GM Plans: Good Moves, Poor Optics
My take on the primary problem with respect to the financial sector is that there has been a misjudgement: The health of the finacncial sector has been confused with the health of individual financial enterprises. I like to use a forestry management metaphor.
It is sometimes much better to remove diseased trees and treat the healthy trees (prophilaxis) to get a healthy forest. Treating and leaving the diseased trees in place can merely provide more fuel for forest fires, as well as increase the possiblity of infection of healthy trees.
Wall Street Breakfast: Must-Know News [View article]
Economies of scale are good to a point, but when these "economies" freeze out competition, the resulting behemoths can become anchors on the economy because lack of competition allows them to become obese and prone to manipulation by the few for their own benefit.
Canaccord Adams on Four Likeliest Economic Scenarios for 2009 [View article]
I see several stocks I have owned in the past but been out of for nine months and longer. One stock I do own (and haven't seen commentary on) is HOLX. I have been short against the box for six months to protect past capital gains because my analysis indicates much higher fair value. If we have recession (depression?) that lasts more than 18-21 months, my fair value estimates will be too high. But, even then, my assessment is the current price is too low.
Turning Nothing Into Something [View article]
You both touch on truths and what you each say is not excluding the other.
Fred Wilson - - -
I found your premise interesting: many great things are created, seemingly, from nothing but human ingenuity. It brings to mind some history: the technology revolution grew out of the recovery from the last deep recession in 1981-82. Not that Microsoft grew entirely out of the creative genius of Bill Gates, the programmer. In fact it was someone else's creative genius and Bill Gates' business genius that got things started. Gates succeeded in getting a contract from IBM to provide a disc operating system for the (then in development) PC and then bought the DOS system from its creator. The IBM contract was worth many millions; I have read reports that Gates paid $50,000 for DOS.
Fred, you are not saying anything specific about what the needed changes are. I think the needed changes are in the area of wealth distribution. Whenever, wealth is concentrated in too few hands, be it Wall Street, Washington or Moscow, credit needed by the entreprenuer is frozen out. The Soviet Union fell because it could not find the flexibility to overcome this problem. When income is concentrated too much with a few wealthy executives, it freezes out compensation rewards for many who actually have more to contribute in terms of innovation and entreprenurial ventures. All these points may or may not relate to the situation of bonae. I can't say because I don't have the details.
If we are to truly come out of the current crisis stronger, I feel it will be because we find a way to prevent giving hundreds of millions in compensation to executive failures, find a way that government can move from directing commerce to enabling commerce and establish a set of rules that put boundaries on the use of leverage to compound money but do not unduly hinder the use of leverage to build the means of production.
I have heard the term "class warfare". I think we have had a battle of class warfare in the past few decades and the wealthy class (not only the financial sector, although they are the most conspicous at the moment) has won the battle. But I firmly believe they have not won the war. At least I hope not.
The changes we need will result in a system where the innovative have access to the resources to develop and implement their ideas, and a system that will reward the successful with wealth WHEN THE LONG-TERM RESULTS show that the success has lasting merit.
No longer would we have a system where a CEO can receive $100 million in compensation the year before his corporation goes bankrupt.
Then we would have a system where wealth would be created for those who EARN IT and not for those simply in a position to grab it.
What To Look For Next in This Market [View article]
Outstanding observation. Energy is the future of our economy.
Wall Street Breakfast: Must-Know News [View article]
Why is Apple down? Try valuation. Expected 2008 earnings are $5.20; 5 year expected annual growth rate 24%; high volatility (Beta = 2.88). If I assign 5% annual growth starting in six years and continuing forever, fair value today for AAPL is $44.
By the way, I own Apple. However, I do put short position hedges on that holding at every pullback. The potential for Apple to double keeps me an owner. The potential for Apple to go down 50-75% keeps me guarded.
Wall Street Breakfast: Must-Know News [View article]