There are many religions when it comes to calculating the “right” price for the shares of a publicly traded company. At a basic level, buying a share is an act of faith in the company’s future earnings. The strength of this belief manifests itself in the company’s P/E (Price/Earnings) ratio. The stronger the faith, the higher the P/E, an expectation of increased profit.
Sometimes, an extreme P/E number beggars belief, it invites a deeper look into the thoughts and emotions that drive prices.
One such example is Amazon. On the Nasdaq stock market, AMZN trades at more than 174 times its most recent earnings. By comparison, Google’s P/E hovers around 17, Apple and Walmart are a mere 14, Microsoft is a measly 11.
This is so spectacular that many think it doesn’t make sense, especially when looking at Amazon’s falling profit margin (from this Seeking Alpha post):
Why do traders bid AMZN so high in the face of a declining .5% profit margin?
In his May 5th PandoDaily piece, “Nobody Seems to Understand What Jeff Bezos is Doing. Does He?”, Farhad Manjoo questions Jeff Bezos’s strategy and Amazon’s taste for obfuscating statements:
“Amazon is not merely “willing” to be misunderstood, it often tries to actively sow widespread misunderstanding. This works [to] its advantage; if competitors don’t know what Amazon is up to, if they can’t even figure out where and how it aims to make money, they’ll have a harder time beating it.”
…and he concludes:
“Is Bezos crazy like a fox? Or is he just plain crazy? We have no idea.”
He’s not alone: Year after year, critics have challenged Bezos’ business acumen, criticizing his grandiose views and worrying about the company’s bottom line. But the top line, revenue, keeps rising. See this chart from a Seeking Alpha article by Richard Bloch:
The answer to Farhad’s question, the cold logic behind the seemingly irrational share price is clear: Amazon sacrifices profits in order to gain size and, in the process, kill competitors.
That’s step one.
Step two: After having cleared the field, Amazon will take advantage of what is delicately called “pricing power”. As the Last Man Standing, they will raise prices at will and regain profitability. This isn’t Amazon’s only game. The breadth of their offering, their superior customer service and awesome logistics, make life difficult for poorly managed competitors such as Best Buy, or the undead Circuit City, to name but a few companies whose weaknesses where exposed by Amazon’s superbly efficient machine.
But traders recognize the wink and the nod behind today’s numbers, they are willing to pay a high price for a share of Amazon’s future dominant position.
Apple’s share price sits at the other end of the P/E spectrum. Revenue and profits grow rapidly: + 58% profit year-to-year, + 94% net income. “Normal” companies in their league are supposed to fall to the Law of Large Numbers: High percentage growth becomes well-nigh impossible when a company achieves Apple’s gigantic size. A $100B business needs to dig up $25B in new business to grow 25%. $25B is roughly half the size of Dell. When Apple’s revenue grows 58%, that’s more than one Dell on top of last year’s business.
Apple is the nonpareil of fast-growing, prosperous companies. They’re in a young market: smartphones and tablets. They can easily break the Law. With only 8% of the mobile phone market, the iPhone enjoys considerable headroom. And the iPad’s +151% year/year unit growth shows even greater potential.
So why isn’t Wall Street buying? Why do they think Apple has so much less room to grow than Amazon?
First, a big difference: Apple’s founder is no longer with us while Bezos is very much in command. This is no criticism of Tim Cook, Apple’s new CEO. A long-time Jobs lieutenant, the architect of Apple’s supremely effective Supply Chain, a soberly determined man, well liked, respected and healthily feared inside the company, Tim Cook is eminently credible. But traders are cautious; they want to see if the Cook regime will be as innovative, as uncompromisingly focused on style and substance as before.
Second, the much talked-about iPhone subsidy “problem”. The accepted notion is that Apple has strong-armed carriers into paying “excessive” subsidies for the iPhone, some say as much as $200 more than carriers pay other handset makers. (See “Carriers Whine: We Wuz Robbed!” of March 11, 2012.) Carriers rattle their sabers, they let everyone know they’re looking forward to the day when they will no longer be fleeced by the Cupertino boys.
The numbers are impressive. Take about 150 million iPhones this calendar year (37M units in the last quarter of 2011); assume that 80% of these iPhones are subsidized by carriers…that’s $24B in subsidies. For people who are betting on Apple’s future profits, these are big numbers that could go either way: Straight to Apple’s bottom line as they do today, or back to the carriers’ coffers “where they belong”. For Apple, with today’s P/E of 14, a swing of $24B in profits would result in a change of $336B in market cap. (Today Wall Street pegs AAPL at $525B.)
I’m not saying such a shift is likely, or that it would happen in one fell swoop. I use this admittedly caricatural computation to make a point: Carrier subsidies have a huge impact on Apple’s bottom line, and the perceived uncertainty over their future gives traders pause.
I’ll now take the opposite tack with this Horace Dediu tweet:
In my venture investing experience, it sometimes happens that the top salesperson makes more money than the CEO. In most instances the exec is happy to see big revenue come in and doesn’t begrudge the correspondingly large commissions. But, in the rare case of the CEO turning purple because a lowly peddler makes more money than him (it’s a male problem), we take the gent aside and gently let him know what will happen to him if he does it again.
Carriers sound like the bad CEO complaining about excessive sales commissions racked up by their star revenue maker. Carriers are contractually obligated to keep iPhone figures confidential so we can’t make a direct ARPU comparison — but we have anonymous leaks and research-for-hire firms, they’re curiously silent on the question of actual ARPU by handset. In the absence of a clear case made to the contrary, we’ll have to assume that the iPhone is the carriers’ top revenue generator, and that the subsidies will continue.
This said, if Apple comes out with a mediocre iPhone, or if Samsung produces a distinctly more attractive handset, the salesman’s commission will disappear, Apple’s revenue per iPhone (about $650 in Q1 2012) will drop precipitously, and so will profits.
That’s the scenario that makes traders cautious: Large amounts of profit are at risk, tied to carrier subsidies. They wonder if Apple’s lofty premium is sustainable and, as a result, they assign AAPL a lower P/E.
But “caution” may be too weak a word. In a May 7th 2012 Asymco post, Horace Dediu plots Apple’s share price as a function of cash:
This is troubling. It implies that cash is the only determinant of Apple’s share price.
Put another way, and recalling that share prices are supposed to reflect earnings expectations, it appears Wall Street puts little faith in the future of Apple’s earnings [emphasis mine]:
“Given this disconnect from the income statement, the pricing by balance sheet multiple seems to be a symptom of something deeper. Reasons vary with the seasons, but the company is not perceived to have sustainable growth.”
Fascinating. The collective wisdom of Wall Street is that one of the most successful high-tech companies of all times, with three healthy product lines, strong management, generally happy customers and employees is not perceived to have sustainable growth.
We’ll see.
(In the interest of full disclosure, I’ll repeat something I’ve stated here before: I don’t own publicly-traded stocks, Google, Microsoft, Apple or any other. I consider the stock market a dangerous place where, across the table, I see people with bigger brains, bigger computers, and bigger wallets than mine. I can’t win. The casino always does…unless you don’t trade but, instead, invest–that is buy shares and keep them for years, the way Warren Buffet does.)
And Facebook?
I’ll wait for the dust of this botched IPO to settle before I try to figure out what Facebook’s share price reflects. I agree with Ronal Barusch in his WSJ blog piece: I’m not convinced that Facebook or its bankers will suffer irreparable damage.
Still, rumors and accusations are flying. Following Nasdaq’s disastrous handling of Facebook’s opening trades, we hear that the New York Stock Exchange is discreetly suggesting that the company move to a more sophisticated trading platform. This is a great opportunity for Facebook to change its FB stock trading symbol and adopt one that more accurately reflects its opinion of Wall Street.
I have a suggestion: FU.
Related columns:
- Google and Apple are robbing us! TweetThat’s the cry of anguish heard in the executive suites of cellular carriers, poor things. Why the sorrow? Nuances removed, it boils down to this: . ISP (Internet Service Providers) don’t sell content, they bill at a flat rate regardless of what you download, music, e-mail, video. ISP don’t decide which computer you can and [...]...
- You Cheat. We Cut Prices TweetSurprise: To boost its circulation, Rupert Murdoch’s Wall Street Journal Europe engaged in massive channel stuffing. No kidding. It sounds like everyone discovers, all of a sudden, how medias (old and new) actually work. Granted, when it comes to cheating, News Corp is in a class all by itself. The phone hacking scandal pushed the [...]...
- Facebook: The Revenge of the Nerds TweetWe’ll look at the other side of the coin in a moment, but first let’s give credit where it’s due and admire the obverse: I’m delighted to see Facebook going public, just deserts for Mark Zuckerberg and his group of very smart techies. If you have the time and inclination, take a walk through Facebook’s [...]...
- Twitter, Facebook and Apps Scams TweetHere is the latest Twitter scam I’ve heard this week. Consider two fictitious media, the Gazette and the Tribune operating on the same market, targeting the same demographics, competing fort the same online eyeballs (and the brains behind those). Our two online papers rely on four key traffic drivers: Their own editorial efforts, aimed at [...]...
- The Facebook Micropayment System TweetThis week’s question: Will Facebook launch a so-called “PayPal killer”, a micropayment system for members to pay for goods real or virtual? To me, this is a Flat Earth debate, meaning there is no debate, Facebook is ideally placed to become a powerful payment system player. First, a bit of history: the Minitel. Once upon [...]...
34 Comments
An excellent blog. I find myself agreeing with everything you’ve said. I’m looking forward to the FaceBook analysis. My take is that it should be valued around $7 bucks a share (in a few years time). I’ll be interested to see what you think.
Great commentary overall. The only thing I take note with is the part about Apple making a mediocre iPhone or Samsung making a more attractive one. I do agree this is a concern of several analysts and investors. However, those that are worried about this don’t truly understand what has made the iPhone so successful. No single product will be able to compete with iPhone/iOS. If there is a dismantling, it will take a combination of media services, apps/app stores, and cloud services in addition to more attractive physical devices.
IOW, for Samsung to make a more attractive phone they will have to build on a competitive ecosystem. Maybe Android will catch up or maybe it will be Windows Phone. But it’s not like Apple is standing still on any of these fronts. I’d bet the iPhone’s demise will be much more like MS Windows. Slow and drawn out but still crazy profitable as the mindshare around the product and technology dwindles.
Intuitively for me, cash seems a reasonably decent proxy to judge Apple’s ability to extract rent from its monopoly over the ‘Apple market’.
If I read your chart right, consider the share price as 5* present income. With a $12 premium for the value of its moat.
Fascinating piece. I for one can’t figure out Wall Street but pay particular attention these days to the Gang of Four. In The Age of the Platform, I look at why these companies are successful. Sure, they bully. They cajole. They use questionable practices. On a different note, I find it fascinating that Amazon’s P/E is so high while Apple’s is so low.
If the carriers really wanted to get rid of the iPhone subsidy, they could start by offering service without a contract at significantly lower monthly rates to customers who purchase full-price unlocked iPhones.
It seems to me they could easily drop $20 per month off their rates, and offer no-contract service to entice customers. Such a move would be revenue neutral because they don’t have to amortize the cost of the iPhone. They’re not hurt financially if the customer walks in less than two years because they don’t have any sunk cost in his iPhone.
So why aren’t they doing this? Seems to me they want it both ways. They do want the customer to be locked in by contract. They want to be in control of the relationship rather than the customer being in control.
Suppose they did offer no-contract service with $20 per month savings on the monthly bill. Would many people sign up for it? It is speculation on my part but, yes, I think people would sign up. I know I would. A deal like that would have some significant advantages to the customer. You could more easily sell your iPhone after only one year and upgrade to a newer model. You could travel internationally with your unlocked iPhone buying pre-paid microsim cards in the countries you visit. You could switch carriers. It really wouldn’t cost you any more over the life of the phone.
Great post, JLG. Merveileux.
Re: “Carriers sound like the bad CEO complaining about excessive sales commissions racked up by their star revenue maker.”
I’d add that the carriers are doing everything they can to avoid becoming dumb pipes. Trying desperately to prevent their inevitable fate as ISP-like commodity conduits.
The “real 4G” will combine voice and data into a single IP stream in a few years, so it’ll be hard for the carriers to justify big-minute voice plans separate from high-cost data plans (and usurious text message fees.) And Apple could threaten to become MVNO-like. Some future iPhone could pick the carrier with the strongest signal wherever you happen to be, or pick the carrier with the lowest rates at the moment you make your call or connect to the internet.
Every month, you’d pay Apple instead of the particular carrier that happened to have locked you in. And Apple, in turn, would prorate payment to each carrier whose service you happened to use during the billing interval. I’d gladly pay Apple 10% more every month for that service. The carriers would hate it because they would become generic commodity providers with no differentiation. And worse, no lock-in.
Two additional data points on this one. One is the basic precept that no good deed goes unpunished.
For all of the bashing about Apple’s walled garden mentality, it is refreshingly transparent with investors on things like unit counts, product and geo segment breakdowns, margins, virtual channel metrics (iTunes/App Store) and real channel metrics (Apple Store), to name a few.
In other words, this is a company that wants to be understood AND pays the price for it.
By contrast, Amazon’s metrics are all about not wanting to be understood, and they are awarded deeply for it.
I suspect this is in part because we have all been trained that the naysayers in phase one of Amazon’s life as a public company were left embarrassed, and fear of humiliation when you know that the guy on the other side of the table is smarter than you is a potent force.
The second point is that if you consider companies like Amazon and Apple as the “gold standard” companies for which no analyst or investor, professional or otherwise, would lose their job or feel the need to apologize for claiming as a holding, there should be “some” relativity in P/E, right?
Along these lines, I have tracked what I consider the “gold standard” peers across all segments, a list that includes Google, Amazon, Berkshire Hathaway, Coca Cola, Southwest Airlines, Procter & Gamble, McDonald’s, Disney and Nike.
The P/E for this group is an ungodly 36.69 if you count Amazon, but if you remove them, it’s 19.30, a full 40% higher than Apple at 13.70. Something’s gotta give.
Here’s some fodder on this last point: http://bit.ly/whatisappleworth
Regards,
Mark
“But the top line, revenue, keeps rising. See this chart from a Seeking Alpha”
Yes, nice growth, EXCEPT, Apple’s top line growth is better! And, it’s bottom line growth is phenomenal, as you note. Why invest in something that might happen, Amazon making monopoly-like profits, when Apple is already doing it?
“Amazon will take advantage of what is delicately called “pricing power”. As the Last Man Standing, they will raise prices at will and regain profitability.”
But can it kill everyone, including WalMart? Isn’t their “pricing power” capped by retailers like WalMart? If so, they’ll never make the kind of margins the current share price implies.
“Apple’s founder is no longer with us while Bezos is very much in command”
This might be plausible if the data showed that Apple was priced higher when Steve was alive.
“these are big numbers that could go either way: Straight to Apple’s bottom line”
Actually, the subsidies do not drop straight to Apple’s bottom line. And, even if there were subsidy pressure, which there isn’t as long as the iPhone is the most popular, the subsidy would follow supply-demand, in that it would change incrementally. It wouldn’t likely go to zero, suddenly, due to the length of contracts Apple has with carriers, rather it would slot in somewhere along the sliding scale of subsidies. The risk is calculable and not an all or nothing gamble, so one wouldn’t discount the $24B in subsidy to zero.
The highly correlated relationship between share price and cash is strange. I can only think that the market is confused by Apple (not surprising really), doesn’t believe the numbers at hand and has fallen back to cash on hand as a reliable metric. Strange.
I’ve stated before that a good thought experiment would be for Apple to buy Amazon, and see what the market thinks. Can Bezos use his RDF to give the new Applezon a 100PE on $50+B in earnings?
From the perspective of East Asia the enthusiasm for Amazon seems parochial, even bizarrely so. The company has little presence in Korea or China and only a bit more in Japan. Apple, by contrast, has cracked the cell phone market here and gained sufficient cachet to provoke buying frenzies in China. Apple is a global company, with bright prospects in the fastest growing and most competitive markets in the world. Amazon has yet to grow decisively beyond its North American and Btitish base and faces huge hurdles in so doing.
Isn’t there anything that Apple can do to change investors’ belief that it can’t sustain earnings growth? Maybe, an extra product line or major acquisition? It just seems a rather crooked way to decide what a company is worth based solely on belief. If that’s the case, then there’s no point in having such things as fundamentals because they’re worthless. Dediu said that Apple’s value is based on cash yet everyone is complaining that Apple has too much cash. So, if Apple somehow spends the cash, then the stock is worth that much less. It just seems to me as though Apple’s share price is going nowhere fast no matter how much money or industry strength they get.
Apple has clearly disrupted the smartphone industry with the iPhone and the computer industry with the iPad and is still gathering strength. Apple is still opening new stores while other companies are laying off and yet Wall Street doesn’t have any belief that Apple can continue growing. I’m sorry, but it just doesn’t make any sense. Maybe it doesn’t have to, though. Belief is belief, whether it’s misguided or not. There’s no reason that Apple’s value should be modeled for $0.00 long-term growth. That’s highly unlikely to happen.
KenC: JLG did not even suggest that subsidies might go to 0, just that they might drop by $200, or more spefically that Apple will lose their preferential subsidies compared to Android or Windows Phones. So this is about only a part of iPhone revenues. Consider that total iPhone revenue will be over $100 billion this year. $24 billion could indeed be at stake.
…If it were the case that Apple is enjoying that level of subsidies on all postpaid carriers worldwide. I have the impression that they are not. Browsing through the websites of European and Asian/Pacific carriers, the iPhone is mostly available at a premium compared to high-end Androids.
I would claim that the US may be the only market where Apple has been able to negotiate preferential subsidies and the only market where an iPhone is not more expensive than an Android. Unless somebody can find some counter examples from other countries?
If my observation is correct, some pricing pressure in the US would force Apple to lower their wholesale prices, would hurt their margins (which are over 50 % today), but would be very beneficial in international markets both postpaid and prepaid. Apple would reach pricing parity with (medium to high end, branded) Android not just in the US, but worldwide. That would give them more than enough growth to make up for the lower margin.
>>This is troubling. It implies that cash is the only determinant of Apple’s share price.
Fooled by statistics and pretty charts?
Anything correlated to Apples’ earnings will appear correlated to the stock price. In fact the opposite is likely true – not only cash is not a determinant of Apple’s share price, but in fact the low PE indicates that cash is discounted to zero.
@Steffen Jobbs: “Isn’t there anything that Apple can do to change investors’ belief that it can’t sustain earnings growth?”
Apple doesn’t need to. All it has to do is concentrate on making the best products possible and keeping their customers happy — the rest will take care of itself. I view their decision to do a dividend and stock buy back as a mistake — there is no appeasing the Wall St. idiots who think Amazon is worth a P/E of 174. If they undervalue Apple enough, Apple could take itself private with the ever growing cash pile. Of course I don’t think that will happen, because ultimately Apple’s success, and its competitors collective failure, quarter after quarter will be impossible to ignore.
It would be great to know what evidence anyone has to believe that Jeff Bezos will cash in on a dominant market position. It’s counter-culture for the company and would invite regulatory intervention. It’s hard not to see this as a game of brinkmanship where the likely outcome is a crash in the share price.
@Ted T.
>>I view their decision to do a dividend and stock buy back as a mistake — there is no appeasing the Wall St. idiots
Alas, so little understanding…
..
It is not “WS Idiots” that Apple is “appeasing” with dividends/buybacks – Apple owners are legally and morally entitled to the un-investable earnings suplus which belongs to them. If anything, the continued management excuses for hoarding such excessive amounts at zero return are inexcusable…no private owner would allow this to continue.
Regarding Apple’s share price vs. cash: correlation does not equal causation. Also your implicit assumption that the market can’t be painfully and significantly wrong in its valuations seems questionable. Apple’s share price fluctuations appear as likely to result from collective mania followed by fear tempered with confusion and a healthy dose of manipulation. As for Amazon, the numbers make the case for a future textbook case of irrational exuberance. They will never reasonably clear the field of Walmart or even Target, and should they choose to try turn their market position into profit they are likely to be quite surprised at how quickly their customers abandon them for a better price. Their inability to turn exploding revenues into at least growing profits is a very telling sign, and not for the better.
When Apple grows to 10 times its current size over the next 10 years, it is going to get a bunch of Wall Street guys fired.
We passed peak oil in the 1970′s, and ever since then we have used less. We are nowhere near close to peak computing. It may not even be possible to hit peak computing and then start using less. But even if it is possible, it is decades or centuries away. And the part of the market that is the least-saturated is the not-a-nerd part that only Apple has ever shown any ability to comprehend and serve.
If you just run the basic numbers on how many computers and phones and so on that are needed over the next 10 years, Apple HAS to grow by 10 times its size or the world will not have enough computers.
So there is a basic misunderstanding by the general population of what is happening in the computer industry. They think it is Typewriter Market, Part 6. It is not. Computers replaced typewriters in the 20th century, but in the 21st century they replace EVERYTHING: music players, paper (iPad,) cars, credit cards, TV’s, and so on. It will take almost unimaginable amounts of design work to get that done. It will take incredible amounts of technology, layers of software and hardware and networking. It will require devices that need almost no user training, because that costs more than the computers. If Apple fell asleep and had a dream, it would be to wake up in a world that is this hungry for computing, and this poorly-served by everyone other than Apple.
JLG,
This post of yours was brilliant!
-humu
Most countries does not subsidize the iPhone (or any other phone). That is mostly a US habit that needs to die. Most countries have instead cheaper tariffs and better cell coverage. In my country 5 gig data/month cost 5 dollars.
Instead of subsidizing, carriers offers free payments plans for the phone when they sign up for a long term contract. If I for example want an iPhone, the tariff + a 25 dollar monthly payment for the iPhone. 24 month contract.
The more threatening thing for the iPhone business is innovation. The telephones can do almost anything today. What new killer features is there to add?
iPhone next gen have 4G, iOS6 with 3D maps, updated Siri, better camera. A bit taller screen 3.99 inch. Maybe NFC.
But after that?
When will phones be good enough that people feel that they don’t need to upgrade each 12-24 month?
On other hand, mobile phones will someday replace desktop computers. Already today the average iPhone costs over 200 dollars more then the average PC. The feature is to just have your phone. Airplay to the monitor. Wireless keyboard/mouse and you have a setup that is enough for 95% of users today.
@ Hamranhansenhansen
Peak oil passed 1970? You have no clue. The world uses more oil then ever. That is not strange since the population on this planet have doubled since 1970.
Peak computing?
The thing is that Apple is/was unique. They had a fanatical leader that was obsessed about details. He demanded perfection, he often demanded things that was not possible to do. He believed in doing the greatest products ever, and then making money. That was why he was so obsessed with hoarding money. To never have to make compromise.
At the end, those values payed off. Apples customers are unique. They are not only loyal customers, but evangelists. These are the best customers. They preach how great Apple products are.
We are now in a new era. The Tim Cook era. He is willing to do compromise to make profit. He is willing to release non perfect products. This can hurt Apple in the long run. But we have many companies that are huge that releases crappy products. Microsoft have never done a good product, and they still are ranked 3 most valued brand.
Apple maybe are so large that customers accept crap.
But I want a company that is fanatical about doing the greatest products possible at any price. That work, have great support and are beautiful. Like Steve said: Art, science and religion, all into one.
That am I prepared to pay a 30-40% premium over competing products.
@Shawn:
“The Tim Cook era. He is willing to do compromise to make profit. He is willing to release non perfect products.”
I don’t think so. In multiple Interviews i heard Tim Cook saying that it’s mostly about focus, focus, focus. He gets what Apple makes unique, and to “compromise to make profit” is just not Apple’s DNA in which he marinated in the last 15 years. And look what he did to Apple’s supply chain in the last years. I personally have great faith in this soft-spoken guy …
DrFu: I have to agree with you on this one. Compromising might mean losing customers that rely on Apple exactly because it has been able so far to express a unique vision (one could also say that the focus was placed mostly on marketing strategies, but it doesn’t change the fact that they indeed create an image and a reputation that placed the company high above the competition).
Reading your op bits JLG, I am reminded of Brecht’s many insightful comments: ” Every day, to earn my daily bread I go to the market where lies are bought. Hopefully I take up my place among the sellers. ” 8>]
Greetings! This is my first visit to your blog!
We are a collection of volunteers and starting a new
project in a community in the same niche. Your blog provided us valuable information to
work on. You have done a wonderful job!
Hi there to every , as I am actually keen of reading this weblog’s post to be updated daily. It includes pleasant stuff.
Merci pour l’info. Cela me paraît fort intéressant. Continuez !
prix référencement google http://1erexpertseotips.wordpress.com référencer son site sur yahoo
Some may well even consist of that herbs like Thyme and Sage are
utilized for cooking. Nike have revitalized this
vintage coach premium all courts trainer. Nike Air reshape the
overall Nike manufacturer, permit Parker grew to become a star designer.
air max 90 from the very first generation, utilizing a substantial stone
design. http://visualdivxcovers.com/gallery/userinfo.
php?uid=5488
What’s Going down i am new to this, I stumbled upon this I’ve found It positively useful and it
has helped me out loads. I am hoping to give a contribution & aid other customers like its aided me.
Great job.
This website was… how do I say it? Relevant!
! Finally I have found something that helped me. Kudos!
Anti-monopoly and predatory marketing laws should be used to attack Amazon.
peeg [url=http://www.daininkimeganeheyokoso.com/]レイバン メガネ[/url] [url=http://www.kakuyasubagguheyokoso.com/]paul smith 財布[/url] [url=http://www.utsukushiimeganewaribiki.com/]レイバン サングラス[/url] [url=http://www.honmonomeganekan.com/]レイバン サングラス[/url] [url=http://www.tokukakumeganeya.com/]レイバン サングラス[/url] kanp
[url=http://www.daininkimeganeheyokoso.com/]レイバン メガネ[/url] [url=http://www.kakuyasubagguheyokoso.com/]paul smith 財布[/url] [url=http://www.utsukushiimeganewaribiki.com/]レイバン サングラス[/url] [url=http://www.honmonomeganekan.com/]レイバン 眼鏡[/url] [url=http://www.tokukakumeganeya.com/]レイバン サングラス[/url] czre
[url=http://www.daininkimeganeheyokoso.com/]レイバン [/url] [url=http://www.kakuyasubagguheyokoso.com/]paul smith バッグ[/url] [url=http://www.utsukushiimeganewaribiki.com/]レイバン 眼鏡[/url] [url=http://www.honmonomeganekan.com/]レイバン [/url] [url=http://www.tokukakumeganeya.com/]レイバン メガネ[/url] gdaj
[url=http://www.daininkimeganeheyokoso.com/]レイバン サングラス[/url] [url=http://www.kakuyasubagguheyokoso.com/]paul smith バッグ[/url] [url=http://www.utsukushiimeganewaribiki.com/]レイバン 眼鏡[/url] [url=http://www.honmonomeganekan.com/]レイバン サングラス[/url] [url=http://www.tokukakumeganeya.com/]レイバン メガネ[/url] eogj
[url=http://www.daininkimeganeheyokoso.com/]レイバン メガネ[/url] [url=http://www.kakuyasubagguheyokoso.com/]paul smith バッグ[/url] [url=http://www.utsukushiimeganewaribiki.com/]レイバン [/url] [url=http://www.honmonomeganekan.com/]レイバン サングラス[/url] [url=http://www.tokukakumeganeya.com/]レイバン サングラス[/url] dbie
fukq
mskv [url=http://www.daininkimeganeheyokoso.com/]ray ban メガネ 新作[/url] [url=http://www.kakuyasubagguheyokoso.com/]ポールスミス バッグ メンズ[/url] [url=http://www.utsukushiimeganewaribiki.com/]ray ban サングラス アウトレット[/url] [url=http://www.honmonomeganekan.com/]ray ban サングラス 格安[/url] [url=http://www.tokukakumeganeya.com/]ray ban サングラス 新作[/url] svrb
[url=http://www.daininkimeganeheyokoso.com/]ray ban メガネ 通販[/url] [url=http://www.kakuyasubagguheyokoso.com/]ポールスミス バッグ 店舗[/url] [url=http://www.utsukushiimeganewaribiki.com/]ray ban アウトレット[/url] [url=http://www.honmonomeganekan.com/]ray ban サングラス 激安[/url] [url=http://www.tokukakumeganeya.com/]ray ban サングラス 新作[/url] joqa
[url=http://www.daininkimeganeheyokoso.com/]ray ban メガネ 格安[/url] [url=http://www.kakuyasubagguheyokoso.com/]ポールスミス バッグ 激安[/url] [url=http://www.utsukushiimeganewaribiki.com/]ray ban サングラス アウトレット[/url] [url=http://www.honmonomeganekan.com/]ray ban サングラス 通販[/url] [url=http://www.tokukakumeganeya.com/]ray ban サングラス 新作[/url] qyyy
[url=http://www.daininkimeganeheyokoso.com/]ray ban メガネ 新作[/url] [url=http://www.kakuyasubagguheyokoso.com/]ポールスミス バッグ 店舗[/url] [url=http://www.utsukushiimeganewaribiki.com/]ray ban サングラス 2013[/url] [url=http://www.honmonomeganekan.com/]ray ban サングラス 格安[/url] [url=http://www.tokukakumeganeya.com/]ray ban メガネ 店舗[/url] ubbr
opdc [url=http://www.daininkimeganeheyokoso.com/][/url] [url=http://www.kakuyasubagguheyokoso.com/][/url] [url=http://www.utsukushiimeganewaribiki.com/][/url] [url=http://www.honmonomeganekan.com/][/url] [url=http://www.tokukakumeganeya.com/][/url]
Genuinely no matter if someone doesn’t understand then its up to other users that they will help, so here it happens.
Wonderful items from you, man. I’ve have in mind your stuff previous to and you’re just too wonderful.
I actually like what you have bought here, really like what you’re stating and the way through which you assert it. You are making it entertaining and you continue to take care of to keep it wise. I can not wait to read far more from you. This is really a terrific site.
Thank you for sharing your thoughts. I really appreciate your efforts and I am waiting for your next post thank you once again.
8 Trackbacks
[...] more here: Decoding Share Prices: Amazon, Apple and Facebook | Monday Note This entry was posted in Blog Search and tagged basic, buying, calculating, company, level, [...]
[...] for the shares of a publicly traded company. At a basic level, buying a share is an. Read more: Decoding Share Prices: Amazon, Apple and Facebook | Monday Note Posted by ma3yoof at 9:51 pm Tagged with: a-basic-level, a-publicly-traded, [...]
[...] Decoding Share Prices: Amazon, Apple and Facebook | Monday Note [...]
[...] a P/E of 174 could be valued so high. The prescient former Apple CEO Jean-Louis Gassée has a theory that he lays out in his Monday Note: After having cleared the field, Amazon will take advantage of what is delicately called “pricing [...]
[...] management, generally happy customers and employees is not perceived to have sustainable growth.« [Monday Note] – Jean-Louis Gassée macht sich seine Gedanken zu den Börsenkursen von Amazon und Apple.»The [...]
[...] the share picks that they supply you with, and then commit. Click here for more information… Anytime you are investing in any type of share it is important to have a technique or map to comply …promising technique, you will be prepared to repeat your great outcomes much more often than. [...]
[...] Decoding Share Prices: Amazon, Apple and Facebook | Monday Note Pretty good, and interesting, analysis on amzn and aapl [via twitter.com ] [ money, research, stocks ] permalink [...]
[...] Decoding Share Prices: Amazon, Apple and Facebook - http://bit.ly/KGq0Zb [...]