Corporations Raking In Money At Prerecession Levels, But Not Hiring:
It's a good time to be an American corporate executive, but not such a great time to be a job seeker.
That's because U.S. corporate profits have returned to prerecession levels, but hiring and investment have not, according to a report by the International Institute for Labour Studies released on Friday. Corporate profits, which keep hitting all-time highs, are back to their prerecession levels of about 15 percent of gross domestic product, according to the report.
Record company profits have come at the expense of investment and hiring, according to the report. Business investment is now hovering at about 16.5 percent of GDP -- far below the prerecession average of 20 percent, according to the institute. Corporations are holding onto an "unprecedented" amount of cash because of lingering concerns about the economy's weakness, the report stated.
U.S. employers added just 115,000 jobs in April, the Labor Department reported on Friday. These additions are keeping up with the population's growth but not making up for the 11.6 million jobs lost as a result of the recession, according to economists. The labor force participation rate plunged to its lowest level since 1981: 63.6 percent.
Kathy Bostjancic, director for macroeconomic analysis at the Conference Board, said in an interview with The Huffington Post on Friday that investment spending has been "among the slowest we've seen."
But corporate executives are in a "prisoner's dilemma," she said: Though corporations would benefit from the strengthening economy that would result if they all started investing and hiring at the same time, company officials are nervous about blazing a trail out in the open.
"It's very difficult to stand out like that and to be bold because if no one else is doing it, and you're proven wrong, you could be penalized," Bostjancic said. "If the economy does turn down, then you've over-hired, you've over-invested."
Even without hiring many more workers, companies have still managed to profit. That's because major corporations have been squeezing more out of their employees while letting their workers' inflation-adjusted wages fall. Meanwhile, worker productivity has spiked over the past few years as employees worked harder.
"Most of the productivity gains have gone to corporate America and stock prices," Bostjancic said. "The income gains are going more to corporate America and the top line than they are going to the worker."
All the posts are provided by me and any comments l provide are my own view of the markets and are not the views of the article writer and or news provider.#AceNewsServices
Saturday 5 May 2012
Bruce Judson: Let's Risk Destroying the Housing Market and Any Economic Recovery!
Bruce Judson: Let's Risk Destroying the Housing Market and Any Economic Recovery!:
The economic crisis began with the housing crisis, and it will only end when the housing crisis also ends. Unfortunately, the evidence of the past five years suggests that the Obama administration and Congress have never actually understood this connection. Despite massive numbers of foreclosures, the loss of almost $7 trillion in housing wealth (over one-half the nation’s home equity), and even unprecedented pleas from the Chairman of the Federal Reserve, there has been a shocking paucity of innovation or even policy activity in the housing arena.
Now there is a a very real chance that Congress will destroy the limited policies the Obama administration does have in place, prevent additional efforts, and further widen the gap between the haves and have-nots in America. Moreover, the net effect of this congressional failure could be to further undermine the weak housing market and risk sending the nation into another economic tailspin.
The administration’s signature housing policy effort is now aimed at mortgage principal reductions. This effort is at the core of the multi-state robo-mortgage settlement and central to the administration’s criticism of Edward DeMarco, the acting director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency. From the perspective of many analysts, myself included, the administration is finally on the right track, but its efforts are far too minimal to make a meaningful difference. Indeed, the nation’s total negative equity (the amount of mortgage debt owed which exceeds the value of the underlying properties) is presently in the range of $700 billion, and it's likely to increase.
Nonetheless, the administration’s principal reduction efforts are a step in the right direction. These efforts open the door for the far larger, far more creative efforts that will ultimately be needed to prevent millions of upcoming foreclosures and possibly massive walk-aways from the estimated 23 percent (and increasing) of all mortgage holders -- 11 million families -- who are underwater.
Here’s the issue: As a general rule, any debt forgiveness is income. This means that if a home buyer borrows to buy a house and the bank forgives a portion of the loan, whether in a short sale, through debt reduction (i.e. the settlement), or even foreclosure in states that allow banks to officially choose not to seek recourse, a taxable event has occurred. The income earned is the difference between the original mortgage borrowed and the amount ultimately repaid to the bank.
For example: A family borrows $300,000 for a mortgage. The home declines in value and the bank agrees to a short sale (where the sale price is for less than the amount of the homeowner’s mortgage debt) and receives a total pay-off of $200,000. The $100,000 difference between the amount borrowed and the amount ultimately paid back is the amount of the loan the bank has forgiven. This $100,000 is a type of principal reduction and generally subject to ordinary income taxes.
However, at the start of the housing crisis in 2007, Congress enacted the Mortgage Forgiveness Debt Relief Act of 2007, which exempts precisely this phantom income from federal taxation. The term of the law was extended in 2008. But the current law expires at the end of 2012, and it is by no means clear that it will be extended. Moreover, the seeming lack of public discussion about the need to extend it is shocking.
(There are a complex array of qualifying circumstances and exemptions surrounding this tax issue, including the laws of the individual state involved, the solvency of the homeowner, whether the homeowner is in bankruptcy, whether the sale involves a primary residence, refinancing associated with the property, and a variety of other factors related to qualifying for the federal exemption. In particular, short sales in nonrecourse states (which include California) are not considered debt forgiven and therefore, if no other income-generating activities apply, do not trigger federal taxes. But this article does not address the many nuances involved in these issues.)
It’s virtually impossible to imagine that struggling families who are selling underwater homes at a large loss (and have already lost a large chunk of their life savings as the value of their home equity, including their down-payment, was vaporized in the housing crisis) will go forward with short sales. The vast majority of homeowners will not be able to afford the resulting tax debt. So one consequence of a failure to extend this law is likely to be an immediate end to the vast majority of short sales, which have been increasing rapidly. Short sales constituted an estimated 24 percent of all January 2012 home sales and surpassed the estimated 20 percent of all January sales comprised of foreclosed homes.
For the same reasons, all efforts at principal reduction will be stopped cold at the end of this year. Homeowners who are struggling to meet their monthly obligations are unlikely to be able to accept sizeable principle reductions that will create large income tax obligations that they can't afford. This means Obama's debt principal reduction initiative will never get off the ground.
Congressional opponents of renewing this legislation estimate that the cost of extending the exemption at $2.7 billion, a large enough cost to lead them to oppose the measure. Members of Congress may also oppose extending the exemption as an unfair benefit to individuals whom they deem irresponsible, which is subsidized by taxpayers who did the right thing and paid off their mortgages. Finally, in this election year, it’s easy to imagine that legislation of all kinds could become hostage to partisan gridlock.
The source of this cost Congressional cost estimate is unknown. But, it is almost certainly wrong. It appears to assume that without this exemption short sales will continue to dominate the fragile housing market, thereby generating new income tax revenues. In fact, the best conclusion is that, if the exemption disappears, so will short sales and any accompanying tax revenues. The real cost of failing to extend this exemption is the unacceptable risks it poses to any housing recovery and the economy at large. The idea that tax revenues will be lost is a fiction.
Moreover, arguments related to individual responsibility are disingenuous. Over the past several years financial executives have avoided accountability for their actions. Indeed, there have been no substantive congressional hearings on massive law-breaking by financial executives, such as the congressionally sponsored Pecora Hearings in the era of the New Deal.
I would suggest that these disingenuous arguments by some members of Congress are a further indicator of the consequences of extreme inequality afflicting the nation. They demonstrate an unacceptable double-standard: One set of laws and permissive irresponsibility for those at the top of the society, and one set of rules for everyone else. They also vividly demonstrate a natural consequence of extreme inequality: Societies grow harsher. As inequality increases, those at the top lose empathy for the less fortunate, including the formerly middle class. As a result, the elites lose their view of the nation as one community, and rationalize actions of all types that they would find abhorrent if the shoe were on the other foot.
Congressional opponents of renewing this legislation are assuming a lack of potentially severe consequences. It’s impossible to predict what might happen, but the downside risks are unquestionably high. It raises the real risk of directly leading housing prices to decline further or even plummet for a variety of reasons. Efforts at principal reduction could come to a stop as the public loses confidence in a housing recovery, the end of short sales could have a strong negative impact on the housing market, or underwater homeowners fearing tax consequences could decide to walk away from their homes, leading to a massive increase in the inventory of newly empty homes that banks must ultimately resell.
None of this may happen, but the risks are real and unacceptable. A substantial drop in housing prices will almost certainly harm or destroy the already tepid pace of our economic recovery. Congress and the Obama administration are playing with fire. Sometimes those who do so remain unscathed, but sometimes they get burned.
Congressional inaction also fails the pro-capitalism test. As an economic system, capitalism is intended to build the overall wealth of a society. To properly function, capitalism requires an equal playing field, absolute accountability for business decisions, and rules ensuring that markets function fairly. As I have repeatedly argued, the many failures of lawmakers and administration officials to hold the financial services sector to a capitalist model has created a financial sector that is anti-capitalist and wealth-destroying. The current predicament of homeowners who might rely on this lifeline is a direct result of this failure. To now penalize the weakest link in the chain is a further demonstration that we have created an economic system that is not fair capitalism, where everyone lives up to their responsibilities and is accountable for their actions.
Capitalism only works when the citizenry believes it leads to fair outcomes. Our nation has already reached dangerous levels of anger. The lack of trust in our institutions is pervasive, and Americans who have always been regarded as optimists have turned cynical and lost hope. By taxing struggling families on phantom income, Congress will reinforce the belief that our economy is blatantly unfair and further wear away the remaining thread of our painfully frayed social fabric.
An earlier version of this articled appeared as part of the Restoring Capitalism series at The Next New Deal, a project of the Roosevelt Institute.
All the posts are provided by me and any comments l provide are my own view of the markets and are not the views of the article writer and or news provider.
The economic crisis began with the housing crisis, and it will only end when the housing crisis also ends. Unfortunately, the evidence of the past five years suggests that the Obama administration and Congress have never actually understood this connection. Despite massive numbers of foreclosures, the loss of almost $7 trillion in housing wealth (over one-half the nation’s home equity), and even unprecedented pleas from the Chairman of the Federal Reserve, there has been a shocking paucity of innovation or even policy activity in the housing arena.
Now there is a a very real chance that Congress will destroy the limited policies the Obama administration does have in place, prevent additional efforts, and further widen the gap between the haves and have-nots in America. Moreover, the net effect of this congressional failure could be to further undermine the weak housing market and risk sending the nation into another economic tailspin.
The administration’s signature housing policy effort is now aimed at mortgage principal reductions. This effort is at the core of the multi-state robo-mortgage settlement and central to the administration’s criticism of Edward DeMarco, the acting director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency. From the perspective of many analysts, myself included, the administration is finally on the right track, but its efforts are far too minimal to make a meaningful difference. Indeed, the nation’s total negative equity (the amount of mortgage debt owed which exceeds the value of the underlying properties) is presently in the range of $700 billion, and it's likely to increase.
Nonetheless, the administration’s principal reduction efforts are a step in the right direction. These efforts open the door for the far larger, far more creative efforts that will ultimately be needed to prevent millions of upcoming foreclosures and possibly massive walk-aways from the estimated 23 percent (and increasing) of all mortgage holders -- 11 million families -- who are underwater.
Here’s the issue: As a general rule, any debt forgiveness is income. This means that if a home buyer borrows to buy a house and the bank forgives a portion of the loan, whether in a short sale, through debt reduction (i.e. the settlement), or even foreclosure in states that allow banks to officially choose not to seek recourse, a taxable event has occurred. The income earned is the difference between the original mortgage borrowed and the amount ultimately repaid to the bank.
For example: A family borrows $300,000 for a mortgage. The home declines in value and the bank agrees to a short sale (where the sale price is for less than the amount of the homeowner’s mortgage debt) and receives a total pay-off of $200,000. The $100,000 difference between the amount borrowed and the amount ultimately paid back is the amount of the loan the bank has forgiven. This $100,000 is a type of principal reduction and generally subject to ordinary income taxes.
However, at the start of the housing crisis in 2007, Congress enacted the Mortgage Forgiveness Debt Relief Act of 2007, which exempts precisely this phantom income from federal taxation. The term of the law was extended in 2008. But the current law expires at the end of 2012, and it is by no means clear that it will be extended. Moreover, the seeming lack of public discussion about the need to extend it is shocking.
(There are a complex array of qualifying circumstances and exemptions surrounding this tax issue, including the laws of the individual state involved, the solvency of the homeowner, whether the homeowner is in bankruptcy, whether the sale involves a primary residence, refinancing associated with the property, and a variety of other factors related to qualifying for the federal exemption. In particular, short sales in nonrecourse states (which include California) are not considered debt forgiven and therefore, if no other income-generating activities apply, do not trigger federal taxes. But this article does not address the many nuances involved in these issues.)
It’s virtually impossible to imagine that struggling families who are selling underwater homes at a large loss (and have already lost a large chunk of their life savings as the value of their home equity, including their down-payment, was vaporized in the housing crisis) will go forward with short sales. The vast majority of homeowners will not be able to afford the resulting tax debt. So one consequence of a failure to extend this law is likely to be an immediate end to the vast majority of short sales, which have been increasing rapidly. Short sales constituted an estimated 24 percent of all January 2012 home sales and surpassed the estimated 20 percent of all January sales comprised of foreclosed homes.
For the same reasons, all efforts at principal reduction will be stopped cold at the end of this year. Homeowners who are struggling to meet their monthly obligations are unlikely to be able to accept sizeable principle reductions that will create large income tax obligations that they can't afford. This means Obama's debt principal reduction initiative will never get off the ground.
Congressional opponents of renewing this legislation estimate that the cost of extending the exemption at $2.7 billion, a large enough cost to lead them to oppose the measure. Members of Congress may also oppose extending the exemption as an unfair benefit to individuals whom they deem irresponsible, which is subsidized by taxpayers who did the right thing and paid off their mortgages. Finally, in this election year, it’s easy to imagine that legislation of all kinds could become hostage to partisan gridlock.
The source of this cost Congressional cost estimate is unknown. But, it is almost certainly wrong. It appears to assume that without this exemption short sales will continue to dominate the fragile housing market, thereby generating new income tax revenues. In fact, the best conclusion is that, if the exemption disappears, so will short sales and any accompanying tax revenues. The real cost of failing to extend this exemption is the unacceptable risks it poses to any housing recovery and the economy at large. The idea that tax revenues will be lost is a fiction.
Moreover, arguments related to individual responsibility are disingenuous. Over the past several years financial executives have avoided accountability for their actions. Indeed, there have been no substantive congressional hearings on massive law-breaking by financial executives, such as the congressionally sponsored Pecora Hearings in the era of the New Deal.
I would suggest that these disingenuous arguments by some members of Congress are a further indicator of the consequences of extreme inequality afflicting the nation. They demonstrate an unacceptable double-standard: One set of laws and permissive irresponsibility for those at the top of the society, and one set of rules for everyone else. They also vividly demonstrate a natural consequence of extreme inequality: Societies grow harsher. As inequality increases, those at the top lose empathy for the less fortunate, including the formerly middle class. As a result, the elites lose their view of the nation as one community, and rationalize actions of all types that they would find abhorrent if the shoe were on the other foot.
Congressional opponents of renewing this legislation are assuming a lack of potentially severe consequences. It’s impossible to predict what might happen, but the downside risks are unquestionably high. It raises the real risk of directly leading housing prices to decline further or even plummet for a variety of reasons. Efforts at principal reduction could come to a stop as the public loses confidence in a housing recovery, the end of short sales could have a strong negative impact on the housing market, or underwater homeowners fearing tax consequences could decide to walk away from their homes, leading to a massive increase in the inventory of newly empty homes that banks must ultimately resell.
None of this may happen, but the risks are real and unacceptable. A substantial drop in housing prices will almost certainly harm or destroy the already tepid pace of our economic recovery. Congress and the Obama administration are playing with fire. Sometimes those who do so remain unscathed, but sometimes they get burned.
Congressional inaction also fails the pro-capitalism test. As an economic system, capitalism is intended to build the overall wealth of a society. To properly function, capitalism requires an equal playing field, absolute accountability for business decisions, and rules ensuring that markets function fairly. As I have repeatedly argued, the many failures of lawmakers and administration officials to hold the financial services sector to a capitalist model has created a financial sector that is anti-capitalist and wealth-destroying. The current predicament of homeowners who might rely on this lifeline is a direct result of this failure. To now penalize the weakest link in the chain is a further demonstration that we have created an economic system that is not fair capitalism, where everyone lives up to their responsibilities and is accountable for their actions.
Capitalism only works when the citizenry believes it leads to fair outcomes. Our nation has already reached dangerous levels of anger. The lack of trust in our institutions is pervasive, and Americans who have always been regarded as optimists have turned cynical and lost hope. By taxing struggling families on phantom income, Congress will reinforce the belief that our economy is blatantly unfair and further wear away the remaining thread of our painfully frayed social fabric.
An earlier version of this articled appeared as part of the Restoring Capitalism series at The Next New Deal, a project of the Roosevelt Institute.
All the posts are provided by me and any comments l provide are my own view of the markets and are not the views of the article writer and or news provider.
One Upside To The Sluggish Economy: Cheap Wine
One Upside To The Sluggish Economy: Cheap Wine:
* Volume seen rising 3.5 pct to 4 pct this year
* Company launching new-flavored Svedka vodka
* Shares down 2.6 pct, market down 1.2 pct (Adds quotes, background, bullet points)
By Martinne Geller
NEW YORK, May 4 (Reuters) - The U.S. economy remains too delicate for Constellation Brands Inc to lead any attempt to raise wine prices, even as a smaller harvest is expected to make grapes more expensive, a senior executive said on Friday.
As a result, the world's largest maker of branded wine, with names like Robert Mondavi and Ravenswood, does not expect to raise prices this year -- unless other producers do so first.
"We're not going to lead the charge," said Constellation Brands Chief Financial Officer Bob Ryder in an interview.
Ryder said Constellation was paying close attention to what competitors were doing about prices, but said that as of yet, it was hard to see any big price increases this year. That could squeeze margins for the whole industry.
The latest evidence of how fragile the U.S. economic recovery is came Friday when the April employment report showed that the pace of hiring slowed.
Still, Ryder said consumers could see fewer discounts or promotions on wines as producers seek to offset expected increases in grape prices due to the smaller harvest.
While Constellation owns some vineyards, particularly in California's Napa and Sonoma regions, the vast majority of the wine it makes comes from purchased grapes.
Wine volume for the industry should grow about 3.5 percent to 4 percent this year, and Constellation expects to keep up that pace, Ryder said. He added though that more expensive wines are selling more swiftly than cheaper bottles.
Silicon Valley Bank, a banker to the wine industry, said last month that it expected vintners to raise prices as the supply of grapes declines.
Constellation last month forecast earnings for the fiscal year that were below Wall Street estimates as it spends more to market new products.
As opposed to growing primarily through acquisitions, as Constellation had done in the past, Ryder said the upstate New York-based company was now focusing inward on driving its own profitable growth organically.
In addition to new wines like Simply Naked and Primal Roots, Constellation is launching more flavors of its Svedka vodka, Ryder said.
Constellation shares were down 58 cents, or 2.6 percent, at $21.13 in morning trade on the New York Stock Exchange, slightly underperforming the wider market, which was down 1.2 percent. (Editing by Gerald E. McCormick and Leslie Gevirtz)
#AceNewsServices
* Volume seen rising 3.5 pct to 4 pct this year
* Company launching new-flavored Svedka vodka
* Shares down 2.6 pct, market down 1.2 pct (Adds quotes, background, bullet points)
By Martinne Geller
NEW YORK, May 4 (Reuters) - The U.S. economy remains too delicate for Constellation Brands Inc to lead any attempt to raise wine prices, even as a smaller harvest is expected to make grapes more expensive, a senior executive said on Friday.
As a result, the world's largest maker of branded wine, with names like Robert Mondavi and Ravenswood, does not expect to raise prices this year -- unless other producers do so first.
"We're not going to lead the charge," said Constellation Brands Chief Financial Officer Bob Ryder in an interview.
Ryder said Constellation was paying close attention to what competitors were doing about prices, but said that as of yet, it was hard to see any big price increases this year. That could squeeze margins for the whole industry.
The latest evidence of how fragile the U.S. economic recovery is came Friday when the April employment report showed that the pace of hiring slowed.
Still, Ryder said consumers could see fewer discounts or promotions on wines as producers seek to offset expected increases in grape prices due to the smaller harvest.
While Constellation owns some vineyards, particularly in California's Napa and Sonoma regions, the vast majority of the wine it makes comes from purchased grapes.
Wine volume for the industry should grow about 3.5 percent to 4 percent this year, and Constellation expects to keep up that pace, Ryder said. He added though that more expensive wines are selling more swiftly than cheaper bottles.
Silicon Valley Bank, a banker to the wine industry, said last month that it expected vintners to raise prices as the supply of grapes declines.
Constellation last month forecast earnings for the fiscal year that were below Wall Street estimates as it spends more to market new products.
As opposed to growing primarily through acquisitions, as Constellation had done in the past, Ryder said the upstate New York-based company was now focusing inward on driving its own profitable growth organically.
In addition to new wines like Simply Naked and Primal Roots, Constellation is launching more flavors of its Svedka vodka, Ryder said.
Constellation shares were down 58 cents, or 2.6 percent, at $21.13 in morning trade on the New York Stock Exchange, slightly underperforming the wider market, which was down 1.2 percent. (Editing by Gerald E. McCormick and Leslie Gevirtz)
#AceNewsServices
Thursday 26 April 2012
While Student Debtors Suffer
Ace News Desk,
,,
When it comes to spending other peoples' money, student loan executives have put in enough credit hours to earn a PhD.D. While college students were busy becoming tomorrow's doctors and lawyers, these predatory execs were learning the art of falconry and studying their 4,000 gallon shark tanks. These and other extravagant expenses are being funded from the pockets of today's college students, a new release from consumer advocacy site CreditCardAssist.com reveals.
Currently, the total student loan debt is sitting just atop $1 trillion, with numbers only expected to grow. These loans are, for the most part, unregulated – people who don't even qualify for a credit card are able to take out loans in excess of $100,000. “This is legalised entrapment,” says CreditCardAssist.com founder Bill Hazelton. “These lenders are fleecing a bunch of students who don’t know any better and couldn’t do anything about it even if they did. Something needs to change, and soon.”
Please email me at my blog at idadamchristian.newsandviews@blogger.com and let me know your news and views and l will publish it on my blog network need to view my profile at https://profiles.google.com/102638977070610790243/about?hl=en
Or share on the social media network using my discus box and let your followers in on your news and views on #Ace News Services
All the posts are provided by me and any comments l provide are my own view of the markets and are not the views of the article writer and or news provider.
Monday 26 March 2012
Are Shares As Good As They Look?
These sort of statistics are beginning to put the world in financial jeopardy and people seem to continue to ignore signs of the times. These types of comments are ignored in favour of doing a deal, selling shares or products off the back of other peoples debt misery. A typical comment maybe as follows with a heading starting
The grim signal that Apple just delivered to the markets - just to alarm the market and get interested parties to read more or investigate what it means. Next we reel in the [mug] sorry investor and this has to really get their interest like this - For much of the last 20 years, the prize for the biggest business on the globe has alternated between Microsoft, Exxon Mobil and General Electric. But now one company towers over everyone else – Apple.
Having hooked the [Fish] they follow up with - Then we read that Apple is going to release some of its amazing $100bn cash pile back to investors. The first dividend in 17 years. What should we read into that? (I’ll tell you in a second).
WAIT WAIT - we are now about to tell you a real FACT to make sure you do not wriggle off the hook they have you on, here it is -
After a remarkably eventful week, Apple then suffered its very own ‘flash-crash’ as shares dropped nearly 10% within minutes and forced a halt in trading.
By now you are staggering at the fact that a company so big can suddenly have such a problem, but wait for it the SALES PATTER STARTS like this - To me, the most important of the three stories is the one that was given least coverage. And that is the mini-crash. Today I want to tell you why I think this is so important and what it could mean for the market at large.
Time to put you in the keep net with -
There’s no doubt about it. Apple has become a money printing machine. The figures are just mind-boggling. According to The Economist, sales in the last quarter were almost double those the previous year. And forecasts suggest that sales for 2013 will be nearly triple 2010’s figures.
But we need a CLOSER AND HERE IT IS - No wonder the stock has been flying!
FOLLOWED BY-
There’s so much money coming in the door that management literally doesn't know what to do with it all. And that’s why, last week it announced not only a dividend, but also a $10bn share buyback (where the firm buys back its own stock in the market).
Some investors are saying that this shows Apple has reached the end of the road... that’s why it's handing back money to investors – it's got nowhere to invest it! The cynics also point out that management has a nasty habit of initiating share buybacks right at the top of the market. Surely, they say, now the only way for Apple is down.
FINALLY-
But I’m not so sure. In reality, the dividend is small, they’re giving shareholders back around $30bn over the next three years. At today’s share price, it’ll give investors a yield just below 2%. And the $10bn buyback is smaller still. Cash is rolling in quicker than these giveaways are paying out.
Convincing anyone that stocks can go up and down but by buying these shares at such a good price namely 10% less you as an investor could be the winner. But as with all shares they do go up and down and a final comment like this one just SEALS THE DEAL like this one -
With Apple’s shares trading on a relatively sober forecast p/e of less than 14 times for 2012, the market clearly isn’t expecting loads of growth. That could leave some upside for investors.
Last week it was announced that the value of Apple is now roughly the same as the whole US retail sector. Think about that for a second... there are some big businesses in the US retail sector – and Apple is worth the same as all of them put together!
These types of cases are putting people in a mess everyday and believe me not everyone makes money on the shares they buy, more rather than less make a lose.
So be careful do not believe everything you read as you may be being manipulated without even knowing it!
All the posts are provided by me and any comments l provide are my own view of the markets,with extracts from various articles and posts l have read.
http://acefinancenews.blogspot.com/
Wednesday 25 January 2012
" One Persons Story Of Being In Debt"
All the posts are provided by me and any comments l provide are my own view of the markets and are not the views of the article writer and or news provider.
" Pay Day Loans And The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
I will be writing more on this subject very shortly and providing in depth terms and conditions of lenders you should avoid and those that are not as bad.
All the posts are provided by me and any comments l provide are my own view of the markets and are not the views of the article writer and or news provider.
NB Please ignore the note about comments being closed as it applies to youtube and not our our comments box, you can log into any social media and share this we need to spread the word.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)