PobreCarlos
Well-Known Member
1989;
Here's the direct quote from you...
"10 years ago the market more than doubled the value of the stock"
..yet now you're saying that (1) you "value stock by it's earnings" (i.e. - "the market" doesn't do it), and (2) "no company has a market-based valuation prior to the IPO".
H.m.m.m.m....if the way to value the stock is by it's earnings, but the market "doubled" it's value, but there was no "market based valuation prior to the IPO", then just what the Hell are you saying....other than pure gibberish? How can something be "doubled" if it didn't exist before? How can what you term "value" in one post not exist as "value" in another? Rather curious, don't you think?
Face it, "1989", you not only don't know what "value" I'm talking about, but what ANY reasonable person who refers to "value" is talking about, either.
BTW, I'd be interested in seeing that "2-4% monthly return plus 4% dividend" you're talking about. You *do* know what that would translate into on a yearly basis, don't you? [smile]
Sorry guy, but as perhaps you can tell, I'm getting rather sick of clownish comments about "60,000,000 million out of work", or "10 years ago the market more than doubled the value of the stock", or represent UPS as consistently offering-up a "2-4% monthly return". and such.
Here's the direct quote from you...
"10 years ago the market more than doubled the value of the stock"
..yet now you're saying that (1) you "value stock by it's earnings" (i.e. - "the market" doesn't do it), and (2) "no company has a market-based valuation prior to the IPO".
H.m.m.m.m....if the way to value the stock is by it's earnings, but the market "doubled" it's value, but there was no "market based valuation prior to the IPO", then just what the Hell are you saying....other than pure gibberish? How can something be "doubled" if it didn't exist before? How can what you term "value" in one post not exist as "value" in another? Rather curious, don't you think?
Face it, "1989", you not only don't know what "value" I'm talking about, but what ANY reasonable person who refers to "value" is talking about, either.
BTW, I'd be interested in seeing that "2-4% monthly return plus 4% dividend" you're talking about. You *do* know what that would translate into on a yearly basis, don't you? [smile]
Sorry guy, but as perhaps you can tell, I'm getting rather sick of clownish comments about "60,000,000 million out of work", or "10 years ago the market more than doubled the value of the stock", or represent UPS as consistently offering-up a "2-4% monthly return". and such.