Actually in this regard you could argue poker is fairer due to its transparency. Poker has a fixed rake that everyone knows about and can see. Brokers can charge variable commissions and time their trades to their advantage, all while the investor has no visibility to his broker's actions.
Even those who make money during a stock market crash (which is actually extremely rare and very difficult to do considering the cost of shorting a position or holding extremely costly derivatives, like CDOs) really shouldn't enjoy it.
And I don't have a problem with futures/forwards at all. I have a problem with people arguing there is less risk with naked futures/forwards (especially commodities/currencies) than there is playing poker; therefore poker, IMO, should be no less legal.
Ah, good question. I should have been more clear. I meant futures/forwards on commodities and currencies, not stocks. Most investors don't use futures/forwards in the stock market unless they are hedging something. They just don't add value (if naked positions) compared to buying outright. Hopefully my comparison to poker is easier to see now.
And those both seem awfully similar to the stock market. If you're good at poker over the long-term, then you may be better off "gambling" than "investing." And hey, at least when you lose at poker, you may have still enjoyed it -- no one enjoys a stock market crash.
Oh, and don't get me started on naked futures/forward positions...
The key here is the context of inflation risk. In an inflationary environment, his point holds with the rational investor. Most people would rather invest in something than effectively lose money by holding cash.
Nature of the business. Amazon is a growing company and invests heavily in itself to stay relevant, to grow, to achieve long-term success in a very competitive environment. Amazon's customers care mainly about price. Apple has been successful in high-quality innovation and has created a remarkably valuable brand. Apple's customers care mainly about quality and are willing to pay a high price for it. Also, geographies: Apple has achieved far greater economies of scale than Amazon, and Apple will continue to enjoy the benefits of global scale combined with high margins so long as its products stay ahead of the competition.
Some companies certainly split their stocks to encourage demand, but I don't think any do it for "desperation." As for Apple, they've proven time after time they don't really care about short-term expectations.
A split has absolutely zero impact on the worth of your shares. The primary reason companies do it is to attract investors who are more comfortable paying lower prices for the shares, thus increasing demand and driving a higher price.
I think he's agreeing with the absence of low value comments near the top but suggesting that comments that may add value are being forced from the top.
This only happens when management is poor. Good management will simply fire incompetent people unless they would in fact make good managers. In my experience, underperformers are:
1) fired,
2) transferred to a department that doesn't matter, or
3) admitted to a training program to develop their skills.
Second question needs an answer. If there really was an arbitrage opportunity, it couldn't have lasted more than a few seconds. I doubt the "arbitrage opportunity" is taking into account all relevant factors.
Actually, it's most likely that software development is capitalized and amortized over the life of the product (GAAP standard is typically 3 years). Basically, accounting rules allow you to spread the cost of software developers over a few years, so the impact of 34 employees (assuming they are all developers) may only be in the $25-35k/each range
Simple guess is there's software outside of your google account that tracks the location. Then, once you're google account is assigned to that phone, the google account is mapped to that software and therefore assigned to all of that phone's location history.
Not necessarily true. Just look at gold - you can say the same thing about competing metals, but gold was the original and is seen by people as the true de facto metal currency. This has been the case for hundreds of years.
I worked in Treasury for a Fortune 500 with operations in 80 countries, responsible for FX hedging, and I can say that ALL banks are absolutely terrible currency forecasters. I can't blame them for being inaccurate, since there are so many variables that can impact an exchange rate between currencies, but it's important to note that forecasted currency rates have no merit.
Since it's decentralized, it doesn't need banks to prosper. That's the beauty of bitcoin. It can function as a currency while still being seen as a commodity in the eyes of the law.