throw-qqqqq
E.g. the observable universe is finite. Its observable age is finite. The number of known elementary particle types is finite. The number of particles within the observable universe is finite (according to the current understanding). Etc.
There are many examples.
Do we disagree on this, or am I perhaps misunderstanding your position here?
https://www.riotinto.com/en/news/releases/2026/rio-tinto-adv...
Yes mostly. The West outsourced this market due to heavy environmental and financial costs of extracting it. It’s sort of the same story as for a lot of the rare earth elements.
Currently trading at 3-4x historical valuation (20y typical range of forward P/E).
> They bailed out Intel and the stock recovered.
I don’t think the stock (or the company) has recovered at all. Neither profits nor revenue (see my links above).
But hey, who knows what the future brings.
IIUC, yes they do. They don’t “spend it” as such, they require higher serum levels overall (compared to sedative individuals, all else equals).
Intel’s revenue is currently worse than 10 years ago, and gross profits are 2/3 of what they were around 2012.
The temporary price hike was caused by a huge temporary jump in relative valuation (probably because the US Gov started subsidizing).
See the historical graphs:
- https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/INTC/intel/pe-rati...
- https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/INTC/intel/revenue
- https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/INTC/intel/gross-p...
For a seasoned C developer, I’d agree with you, but parent declares himself
> As someone who only writes C or C++ occasionally
… so I think it’s fair enough to not know such details.
C semantics has a few details that often surprise non-regulars, despite being such a small and simple language.
I would do it exactly like you suggest, but using an explicitly sized type like uint32_t instead.
If I write firmware or low-level code, I almost exclusively use integers with explicit bitwidth.
I agree. My wording was imprecise. I was trying to give an idea of the size of the company/ecosystem, using BNB’s market cap as a proxy.
As Binance doesn’t publish their financial statements, it’s difficult to get the more relevant metrics, like FCF.
I also know Binance is a privately held company that doesn’t publish financial statements. If you can tell me their P/E, go right ahead.
Not that I think P/E would have much use here. P/E is a relative valuation metric (how cheap/expensive).
The relevant metric would be something like FCF, as gizajob wrote, but again: not available.
I was trying to give an idea of the size of the company, that is all.
Nuclear power in China peaked around 2021 at ~5% of the total electricity mix. I don’t think it’s a factor.
China likes renewable and batteries because it’s the cheapest way to generate power. It’s cheaper to build solar plus battery storage, than building new coal plants.
Also if you adjust for inflation? (Which exploded after COVID)
He even takes it a step further:
“Why settle for turning back time just one hour? Think about how much we f*cked up the world in the past 30 years! Let’s turn time back 30 years and fix that mess!”
You seem to ignore that.
The economy is not based on the stocks, but on the value the underlying companies produce. E.g. Tesla makes cars, Google runs a search engine. Such companies impact the real world - Baseball cards collect dust.
It’s a broken comparison.
It’s no more “a piece of paper”, than a deed over a piece of land is. Would you also consider that “a collectible”?
You’re entitled to have your opinion, but I disagree with you on this.
Completely agree about this part. I find it unethical that capital earns more than labor.
I don’t think that will ever change though, as capital also buys political power (in many countries).
That was my initial motivation for getting into dividend investing: If you can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em.
Totally agree!
A collectible card doesn’t have paying customers; many publicly traded companies do. They are real businesses that make money. When they make more, the price goes up.
Buying shares means you own some of that; that is the value.
These companies likely pay their employees, and as a shareholder you get to partake and harvest value, without having to work for it.
If the company earns more than last year, the stock should be worth more. But of course, valuation clouds the picture, where dividends are usually simpler to model.
IMO, it’s much more practical to thoroughly learn and understand the simpler techniques. There is often more depth to it, than you’d think.
Analogy: Many (most?) MMA matches are won with techniques you learn in the first year.
Aside: I’ve gotten much more mileage out of simple statistics in the 16 years since I graduated, than advanced algorithms.
EDIT:
IMO, theories and techniques can be easy enough to learn. Figuring out applications can be much more difficult. It requires some creativity.
Lol that cracked me up :D I love that job title!
Buybacks raise the EPS/earning-per-share by lowering the denominator (number of outstanding shares).
EDIT:
If P/E stays the same, but the E (earnings) grows, the P (price) has to grow too.
I think it’s quite uncontroversial to equate buybacks with dividends. Personally, I prefer dividends, even if they’re suboptimal tax-wise.
How do you see that as a Ponzi scheme?
I read your response as “okay then, if we can’t ask that question, we have to spy” etc. which I think did not follow from my post - I misunderstood you, thanks for clarifying.