Anyone who's serious about taking a position in the stock, for or against, do yourself a favor and go look at the Skullcandy display that dominates the headphones section of your local Radio Shack. See for yourself how sharp and attractive the packaging is.
Obviously placing Skullcandy headphones at thousands of college bookstores will boost sales. That's a no-brainer. The complaint about multiple brands being on display somehow neutralizing the additional sales doesn't make sense to me. What electronics store ever sold only one brand of headphones??
Hard to say why anybody would honestly believe a successful brand of headphones is a "fad" in this time of rapidly expanding mobile device volumes. Smart folks are asking themselves what's the driver to get this stock under $5. Because if it *isn't* going under $5, most of the remaining possibilities are good.
Nice list hc.
Comment section is hilariously typical of financial message boards. Overall mood: making money is meh. MEGO. What we really do here, our core competency, is we tell complete strangers we know more than Bernard Baruch did.
People who were yawning in the low 80s have come out of the woodwork to preach about what a great value Berkshire is at 112. This is how it works every time Berkshire runs up.
If it does hit 125, Geepod will be back, going all-in and starting work on drafts of his later posts saying nobody ever warned him buying high was dumb.
Pretty much everything you post here about Berkshire would also apply to the S&P 500. I wonder why that is? Isn't that a weird coincidence? Maybe somebody with a good strong academic background should look into it.
After every big run-up on this stock we get the pumpers running in and telling us how cheap the stock is. Anybody who can't see the humor in that has got a big blind spot.
The factual question is simple are Beats at the $300 price point is relevant to SKUL, whose products are virtually all sold at much lower price points? Seems obvious the answer is no.
It's not cheaper now that it was for much of the past decade. One easy way to see that is to look at the 10-year price chart.
Obviously Beats is a red herring, SKUL has very little skin in the $250-and-up price range. Otherwise good comments.
"Lasted about 2 years."
Well, depends on when you start the clock.
The key element every time is how we don't care about share price because there's a platonic ideal called "dividend yield" that is not dependent on Mr. Market (can be true) and that is therefore not risky (laughable).
I'm pretty sure his position is even simpler than that.
Mvmitchell is simply stating that IBM's dividend will increase with 100% certainty. In Berkshire land, that's the end of the discussion. The dividend will increase, and any future share price drops can only be the result of market stupidity. Price is irrelevant because he's "never" going to sell.
But, you say, what about the common (ok, nearly universal) situation where a severe share price drop more or less coincides with a severe dividend drop? That is not important. That doesn't happen to us here. We hedge that possibility by sounding very very very sure of ourselves when we post on the board.
On taxes, he's just using an oversimplified picture of a retirement account: no tax ever.
Remember this is the internet, so if you don't agree with some goat roper's jaw-droppingly simplistic argument, that is *never* because you know something he doesn#$%$ *always* because you're too stupid to understand the simple argument.
This same exact argument (dividend yield uber alles) has been used here over and over, most hilariously on subprime mortgage originators in 2005 shortly before they all went bankrupt. (Ok, to be fair some went bankrupt, some just stopped coming in to the office & didn't even file for bankruptcy protection.) Same exact argument back then: share price doesn't matter because last year's dividend is already in. Next year's dividend is I TOLD YOU IT GOES UP. The go-getters had 15% yield on that #$%$; the conservative types had REITs and locked in 8.5%. It was all totally future-proof for eternity. Lasted about 2 years.
No. I'm making an extremely simple point that you can not understand:
I am LMAO at the ignorance, insanity and arrogance of someone who brags about how the fixed nature of *last year's* dividend payout is going to safeguard his investment in the future.
Now you can go back to screaming your lunacy on the streetcorner, and I'll go back to ignoring you for another few years. Mmmmkay?
Yes, last year's dividend is amazingly stable.
(I'm backing away making calming motions, ok? Relax. I'm your *friend*.)
Lol, no, I pretty much avoid crazy people. I know you feel uniquely brilliant and special, but financially illiterate folks who think coattailling Buffett guarantees them a profit are a dime a dozen here.
?? You say you control IBM's dividend. I haven't "clarified" anything.
I've talked to lots of folks who've said with total confidence that last year's dividend guarantees them some future yield. In hindsight that mistake looks very obvious but for beginners it's a normal error to make. OK, yeah, this is the first time I can recall someone claiming his own say-so actually determines the payout, so that's a smidge more overconfidence than the usual newbie, but otherwise nothing interesting is going on here.
Well, good for you! As long as you also control IBM's future dividend policy & their ability to pay, you're all set.