jagjit

One thing I am not sure about is how much reluctance foreign holders of US treasuries will have to buy more treasuries. My guess is both foreign government and commercial holdings will edge down quite a bit, even without any reciprocal activity. Just because they will have reduced US reserves, and in effect need for treasuries.

God knows what happens if reciprocal activity starts towards using another currency also for global trade.

This downgrade is just based on Nokia's current performance which is going to continue to be bad for a couple of quarters.

But their balance sheet is solid and looks like the Nokia Lumia 900 phones are getting very good reviews and selling well: http://www.amazon.com/Best-Sellers-Cell-Phones-Accessories-S...

I played with my wife's lumia 710 and it beats iphone in ease of use. If these phones sell well, which they seem to be doing, developers and apps will come too.

An ode to friends in Finland? The logo looks very much like flags of Finland, Sweden etc.

Well, the one thing I am suggesting for sure is that when I buy a stock in a company, I own a part of the company and as a result own a part of the profit.

And I am seriously implying that the managements in tech companies do not necessarily know better how to use the profits. And sharing the profits with stock holders is not to be looked down upon.

Well, a manifestation of the main reason I stay away from owning stocks of tech companies. They do not share profits with the stock holders and pretend to know better how to put cash to use, because their current business generates a lot of money.

Not only does Google not share any profit with the shareholders, it is now taking more debt. Google does not need the cash for its business. The only use this cash may be put to is to make acquisitions. Hubris of the highest order when company managements think they know much better than shareholders, how to best use the profits the company generates.

Of course, in technology business, it is very easy for management to claim that they can become irrelevant very fast if they do not do so and so acquisition - just look at Nokia or Microsoft. Which may be true. But it does not take away from the fact that, shareholders do not share much profit in tech companies.

The idea is scary at first. But really makes sense once you think about it. I agree, it makes the screening process more human.

I know the job market is not good right now for job seekers to be chosers, but if I have to apply with a video, I would feel more up to it if I see the hiring team's or manager's video too.

"If you ask me about barriers to entry, you don't understand the internet."

Asking about barriers to entry does not mean the potential investors don't understand internet. This comment says to me the author does not understand business or investing.

Do something you like. Life is too short not to spend on stuff that makes you happy. I believe chances are stuff you like will also pay you reasonably. 3 years is a long time to waste chasing a million dollars doing something you do not like.

I think more of such stuff is going to come in coming years. It is just a manifestation of changing economic profile of the world. I believe something similar might have happened at climate talks - http://www.upi.com/Science_News/Resource-Wars/2010/05/05/Lea...

How it plays out in the long term is anybody's guess. But right now the EU and US have run very high debts which are only increasing with the deficits. With not very good immediate economic prospects, the developed world is beginning to learn to have new folks at the table. When you are neck deep in debt and those new folks are your creditors, there really is no choice.

It is very heartening to know that many YC winter 2010 startups are already profitable.

Is more information available on profitable YC companies so far? And how they got to cash flow positive.

Now, this is just me imagining.

My guess is that part of the tussle with Chinese authorities which Google does not talk about may be demands made on Google for information on individuals. More than censorship, it may be the surveillance aspect.

It is maybe in this context that Eric Schmidt told users: "If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place."

Maybe the Chinese authorities told Google: "If you have something on users that you don't want us to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place." And Google did not want to stop keeping user information for just China....

DHH makes very good points about profit.

But he seems to imply that all other startups or majority of them do not get this basic point. He also thinks that 37 signals would be making the same kind of profits 20yrs later. These points do not fit in with how insightful and bang on he is with his business sense.

Does anybody have experience with scaling their Rails application on Dreamhost or Joyent? I have just started using Dreamhost VPSs with overall a good experience but have not reached the point where I start looking into scaling the app.

I see Linode and Heroku being recommended here a lot - will definitely explore them too.

What got me is switching buzz off does not disable people following you - you have to individually block people. They did a similar thing with searching through emails - there was no option to disable that feature.

It is like Google is saying - "We give you free services, so now we own all your data. And just so you know, we don't do evil - so pls don't judge."

Must be funny in the rich man's world. They are wasting away shareholders' profit share in their hubris or competitive fear.

Hmmmmm. This would explain it - but for the fact that dividends are generally supposed to be paid out of profits not out of cash in the bank. Aren't dividends a way of sharing profits with shareholders, not sharing the net worth of the company. If a company is not making any profits, it should not pay any dividends.

Your hypothetical example though is a very useful way of understanding these things. Infact it just helped me understand clearly why companies should keep as little cash as possible - unless they can generate returns better than atleast govt bonds.

I disagree with the notion that dividends paid lower the share price. Is there a theoretical reason? Or is it observed in practice? I would very much like to learn more about this if you could send pointers.

To me this looks more like a device used by managements to justify their practice of share repurchase. The options should be repriced not when dividends are paid but rather when stock repurchase is done. Like you mention, stock repurchase never affects the strike price of options. There is a very informative comment on stock repurchases by Warren Buffet in this 2005 annual report - http://www.berkshirehathaway.com/2005arn/2005ar.pdf

The tech companies, by not paying out dividends, are in effect telling shareholders that they can invest the profits better than them.

This belief I guess comes out in part due to the meteoric profit growth that successful tech companies witness which leads to hubris in the management. The other reason for this belief is the shareholders themselves who let management invest profits in any project they want in the hope of ever increasing profits and stock price.

About microsoft's dividends, one thing the article misses is that msft's payout is very high but most of it is via stock repurchases. The reality is that managements of all companies - tech or otherwise - concentrate on their own interests. That is why you see companies spending so much on stock repurchases rather than pure dividends. In theory it reduces the number of shares - but in practice it is a device to prop up the stock price so stock options or stock price linked benefits for employees and management are profitable. Microsoft spends disproportionately higher on stock repurchases compared to dividends. If they paid all that money as dividends, it would be a very decent dividend paying company.

Entrepreneurship is not limited to doing a tech startup. Also, going on your own is not worthwhile only for people with other comfortable options.

It is a pity that a PhD with such high credentials has such a narrow world view.

Edit: This article seems to be saying startups make sense when one has these desirable skills. In other words only start on your own if you are in a field where you need a difficult or highly prized degree. Well we all know where the highly desired financial engineering skills have led the economy.

The author is just risk averse. Which is OK. So a degree and other options - which are a hedge against startup failure - seem to him to be pre-requisites for going on your own.