I think we are, though not necessarily on all products. We can now stream videos and download e-books. You used to pay for long distance calls by the minute, but now they don't cost any more than a local call. Even manufacturing costs have come down with the use of robotics. The marginal cost is now the energy and raw materials to produce the product. If renewable energy becomes a significant portion of our energy source, even energy will be at near zero marginal cost. The only scarcity will be the materials needed to produce the solar panels and wind blades.
Bought this on Amazon and author contends that we are moving closer to zero marginal cost for many products, especially those that are delivered electronically. When marginal cost is near zero, potential profits also decline since the competition increases. You'd think that would make profits explode, but it drives down price and there is a point where consumers are saturated.
As it is, much of the value of AMZN and social media is provided by users. We read the user reviews of books and we go to FB not because of the product, but rather the people we hope to communicate with. Since that is free, the advertisers are the only ones producing revenue for the company. With complete information and transparency, we are able to make much better decisions and do so at the best possible price.
I love AMZN (buy all my books there), but I am much more price sensitive than I used to be. If there are 2 books on a similar topic and with similar user ratings, I'll select the lower priced one. That can't be good for AMZN's long term profits, but it is certainly good for society as a whole.
Why do people listen to the analysts? With all of the the other sources of information (including this board), you'd think that analyst estimates would be discounted. It seems to me that we no longer invest on the basis of company performance, but rather on the basis of what we think the analysts will think of the performance.
I gave up on LNKD some time ago. I still get updates, but I found that communicating with others on LNKD wasn't any better than an old-fashioned e-mail.
They can't afford higher revenue. Last year they had 400K in revenue and even though that was a 100% gain over the prior year, margins were NEGATIVE. Their tests have been approved and on the market for years and still haven't generated the sales of a typical McDonald's!
Let's see. 11 hours since your post and no responses. My assumption is that nobody cares anymore about this stock. With markets near all time highs, even a superspike won't make up for ROSG's dismal performance. If there is a spike, I suspect you'd be among the first take profits. Every other spike has been sold off; why should the next one be different?
Any news lately seems to be perceived as bad news. The termination of the CSO can't be thought of as positive, especially since there is no announcement of a replacement. Unfortunately, if we do get any really positive news, too many current holders will see it as an opportunity to get out with a somewhat reduced loss.
Sympathy? OK, but why doesn't that make me feel better? Puma is up 300% and ARIA is up about 1/20th of that. I guess I should be happy that people didn't pull money out of ARIA to buy Puma.
Only reasonable price targets are thought to be reliable. When someone comes out with a target that is double, too many people see it as pumping. After all, the market surely knows something about the value of a company. Who is selling if they really think that a 50% or greater gain is likely?
Today's news is driving the market cap higher. 4 cent gain is about $450,000 in market cap. Now if I had 10% of the shares, I might call this a good day. Since I don't, it isn't a good day. At least it isn't a really bad day.
Every day recently, selling at the open has proven to be a good strategy for day traders. For once I'd like to see them punished so that they are not tempted to repeat the cycle.
I wonder how those folks who bought the secondary at 38 are feeling. Stock would have to double for them to just break even. What did they miss when they read the offering?
I agree. Now why didn't she mention sectors that were undervalued? In fact, how about mentioning specific companies? If this is all it takes to move the market, then perhaps she might also suggest that companies are understaffed to meet the coming demand and should therefore hire more people at higher rates right now.
A sign of the times, I guess. Gov't policy and commentary is the driver of the economy rather than the combined efforts of private business.
Getting too easy to call the pattern on this stock. Sell in the first 30 minutes of the open unless there is some positive news (not just an upgrade). Then buy to cover before 3 pm (that's when bargain hunters seem to be buying.)
Even with the market up today and IBB up as well, SRPT is not attracting enough buyers.
Shorts are in charge. As long as you think you're fighting against a stronger force, it is best to stay out of the game. Sure, add some more on the way down, but do so in minimal amounts. It is highly unlikely that you'll pick the bottom.
On the one hand, the Fed is keeping rates at historic lows. On the other hand, federal agencies are limiting the loans the banks can make by putting in place rules about capital and loan quality. Net result is that only the best, most financially sound clients can get loans and do so at rock-bottom prices.
Yet people who want to save money are paid nothing in interest.
No wonder this economy is screwed up. Loan policies favor the rich and savings policies hurt the people with the least money. Housing recovery? Sure, but only in the most expensive neighborhoods.