Analysts Predict Apple Will Report Single-Digit Earnings Growth in 1Q 2014

BaldiMac said:

Again, proof of what? I said that had plenty of money in the short term. You haven't said anything to dispute that.



I guess you are shooting for a semantic argument here. Shareholders "choose" by deciding to invest their money in the company.



And yet, you didn't actually provide any evidence that what I said was incorrect. You simply disagreed based on semantics.

Click to expand...

Proof that they aren't spending the money as evidenced by the explosion in retained earnings. Any argument that they will suddenly need this vastly larger pot of money for something in the future requires something more than a private theory as evidence -- which I know you haven't got, so please stop trying fake it.

Not semantics, the truth. You are insisting that I disprove your unsupported theory. No thanks, not going to play.

IJ Reilly said:

Proof that they aren't spending the money as evidenced by the explosion in retained earnings. Any argument that they will suddenly need this vastly larger pot of money for something in the future requires something more than a private theory as evidence -- which I know you haven't got, so please stop trying fake it.

Not semantics, the truth. You are insisting that I disprove your unsupported theory. No thanks, not going to play.

Click to expand...

So no proof? I like the I will take my ball home and play with myself stratigey.

IJ Reilly said:

Proof that they aren't spending the money as evidenced by the explosion in retained earnings. Any argument that they will suddenly need this vastly larger pot of money for something in the future requires something more than a private theory as evidence -- which I know you haven't got, so please stop trying fake it.

Not semantics, the truth. You are insisting that I disprove your unsupported theory. No thanks, not going to play.

Click to expand...

You are just making up something to argue with here. I never said or implied any of those things.

BaldiMac said:

You are just making up something to argue with here. I never said or implied any of those things.

Click to expand...

Oh, really? He said:

Badandy said:

Apple has more money they can use.

Click to expand...

And you replied:

BaldiMac said:

In the short term.

Click to expand...

You persist in avoiding a disclosure of your theories about what these mysterious "non short term" uses might be that could required anything remotely like $158B. From experience I suspect that this because you can't think of a single one that survives the most basic plausibility test.

In the meantime, please refrain from saying that I am making something up when I am simply attempting to get you to stand by your own statements.

----------

nickcliborne said:

So no proof? I like the I will take my ball home and play with myself stratigey.

Click to expand...

Ah, no.

IJ Reilly said:

Oh, really? He said:



And you replied:



You persist in avoiding a disclosure of your theories about what these mysterious "non short term" uses might be that could required anything remotely like $158B. From experience I suspect that this because you can't think of a single one that survives the most basic plausibility test.

In the meantime, please refrain from saying that I am making something up when I am simply attempting to get you to stand by your own statements.

Click to expand...

All the I implied was that the long term is uncertain. The rest you made up to argue with. Unless you have some sort of proof that they have more money than they can use in the long term. Which seems pretty ridiculous to me.

The amazing thing is that after the MS/Nokia deal closes and MS pays $7.2 billion, Apple's cash hoard will be 2x as big. Now Microsoft's cash hoard is a monster pile too, but Apple has enough money to buy a country.