International Business Machines CorporationIBMNYSE
If your horizon is 20+ years and risk tolerance high then you can look into: ARKG (etf for biotech), PATH, SSYS and something like IBM. IBM ofcourse is considered a “value stock” but its kinda a hedge - they pay 5%+ dividend and now are growing again and generate enormous free cashflow. Its kinda a hedge to manage overall portfolio (50k investment) risk level.
Lots of good answers here already. I'll try to not repeat them. Part of the answer comes from history: since the industrial revolution, the UK hasnt really been involved in technology. That was probably compounded by the world wars and such. It was just a different story in the USA though.... just before the wars, you had the Wright Brothers testing the Kitty Hawk and Henry Ford demonstrating the production line, and, not to mention, a little ol' company called IBM being founded between these two events.
When the dust(bowl) of the great depression settled and the USA was being called to enter WW2, its basically been a nonstop arms race since. The cold war meant they needed rockets to the moon, satellites that could stop nukes, etc. and out of this came ARPANET, the precursor to the internet.
I don't wanna post a whole-ass lecture and these two paragraphs are lengthy enough, but history definitely tells us at least a little bit about why the UK isn't as engrossed in tech as the USA is.
It wouldn't be able to contain itself from shitting on IBM stock
>SAUDI DATA, AI AUTHORITY (SDAIA) AND MINISTRY OF ENERGY PARTNER WITH IBM TO ACCELERATE SUSTAINABILITY INITIATIVES IN SAUDI ARABIA USING AI
^First ^Squawk ^@FirstSquawk ^at ^2022-09-27 ^00:17:40 ^EDT-0400
It could certainly become another IBM, but at current prices that’s a risk I’m willing to take.
No matter how regarded you are, at least you’ll never be as regarded as /r/valueinvesting. Those ding dongs literally pick the worst stocks out of any sub.
Intel, Verizon, IBM, META (new), etc.
You can hire reliable people off of 4chan and get get shafted by the likes of IBM consulting. If you don't manage your supplier, it's gonna be a crap shoot.
Some lessons are more expensive than others, but going forward I'd suggest you choose a partner that has experience in outsourcing software development if you don't want to rely on luck alone.
There's a lot of miles of I-495 west of Boston that might fit that bill. Prices might be too high there for you, though.
I would think Rochester would still have something. There's of course IBM in upstate New York.
Given the electronicificaton of automobiles I have to think Detroit area should be on your list.
It's unethical when you misrepresent who is going to be fulfilling the task. At that point, not only are you misrepresenting the qualifications of the person doing the task, but you're also misrepresenting the security and liability risks commonly associated with most proprietary office work.
It's like if you go to a fresh-squeeze lemonade stand and you agree to pay for some lemonade on the condition that the kid washed their hands before squeezing the lemons. They go into a back-room and come out with lemonade and you find out after-the-fact that his little brother squeezed the lemons and definitely made no promise about washing his hands.
The contract between the parties makes certain stipulations that are nullified by sub-contracting without permission in no small part because you don't have a contract with the sub-contractor.
When doing business at clorox or IBM or a car wash or wherever, the contract that you agree to almost literally always stipulates that a vetted employee will carry out the company's duties on behalf of the company. Without that vetting process, you're subject to much greater risks and liabilities.
That misrepresentation is not only violating the terms of the contract, but it's also lying about violating the terms of the contract.
>It most certainly is unethical, not the least to accept a contractual obligation that will not actually be fulfilled by the person agreeing to the contract
Man, this is the weirdest take to see in this sub of all places. Virtually all business of any size, everywhere in the world, is exactly this: a person or entity undertakes a contractual obligation, whether to wash windows or make a hamburger, or whatever, and they then *hire somebody else to do the labor.* Of course the obligation is not "personally" fulfilled by the person who makes the deal, or no business could ever scale. Is that unethical? Or is it somehow just fine when Clorox and IBM and Tesla do it, and only "unethical" if an individual does it?
INTC looks undervalued and pays a large dividend. The long term future of Intel looks bright, though it might turn out to be another IBM, which actually also looks undervalued. I think the problem with the mega caps stocks here: they've had a very good long run and now are essentially mature companies. Does rebalancing this portfolio strike anyone as a good idea? I actually like this portfolio, but it looks like there are too many semiconductor stocks and they're might be more pain for them in the short term because of the economic downtown. So many legal & privacy issues could disrupt META, too; I like the company, but it's why I've always bit a bit leery of its stock.
You are equating blockchains and crypto currencies.
While cryptos are built in top of blockchains (80% of them anyway, some use static tree mechanisms and others infinite trees) the intrinsic features belonging to cryptos are much more varied than that.
Cryptos like Ethereum have smart contracts that are programs that execute based on certain conditions being met in the digital space. Others have multi-tiered reconciliation mechanisms that work on blockchain and with already established banking backends like SWIFT. Some are tied to hashing elements that give us NFTs. None of that has anything to do with blockchains, they are intrinsic to only cryptos.
Whereas on the other hand I can use a blockchain to say keep track of insurance contracts, that isn't a crypto currency. Or I can use a blockchain as a decentralized authentication mechanism for say passports (already in progress at some smaller countries). I can do what IBM is currently doing and track produce from farm field to end consumer.
They're just vary different things and to say that a "decentralized public ledge is the only unique thing about them" is just inherently false and shows little knowledge of the space.
Being in the investment sector doesn't make you magically educated in the FinTech space.
Cisco holders in 99' were in the same boat...It was today's "MSFT" or "AAPL"....People said IT infrastructure is never going away... It never went away, but the stock never recovered to its highs...
Same thing can be said of IBM and many others.
So much of this is dependent on the bank. They would rather get paid as opposed to selling the debt to a credit agency at pennies on the dollar. But if an account has already been sent to a collection agency, usually a bank won't deal with you anymore. Not always, though. Some banks will withdraw the debt from a collection agency. Go get the letters and read them so you know where you stand. I'm assuming this is all credit card debt. Communicate with the bank. That's important.
As far as the collection agencies go, make sure you understand your rights. Google "my rights when dealing with a collection agency". You can ask that they not contact you by phone. You can actually ask them to not contact you at all. There are many shady collection agencies that count on people not knowing their rights.
As far as the phone calls go, when I got in trouble I set up my phone so only my contacts would come through and all other calls went straight to voicemail. If it was from someone important, they could leave a message.
I'm happy to hear you aren't living on the streets. That's what I pictured when you said "homeless".
A quick explanation of punch cards. This was in the early to mid 80's and PC's were just coming out. I believe the first language that could be used on a PC was Basic. Microsoft also wrote a Basic program you could run on a Mac. The Mac came out in 1984. Many people don't realize that the Mac wouldn't have succeded if it weren't for Microsoft.
A punch card was a little bigger than a check. You would use one punch card for each line of code. You would go to a machine and type in each line of code and the machine would punch holes in the card. When you were finished, you would take the stack of cards over to a machine reader and load the stack of cards. (A stack of cards could be over a foot high with more complex programs). The machine would read the cards and send the program to an IBM mainframe computer and it would run the program. Then you would pick up the printout from a guy behind a counter. There was standard coding required at the start of each program that would print your name at the top so they would know whose program it was. There was also coding required at the end of each program giving a time limit on how long your program would run, in case you had accidentally created an endless loop in your program or something that would cause the computer to run away. (It took 20 minutes or more to reboot that computer if they had to stop it for any reason). Then you would troubleshoot your program and do it again. You'd often have to wait in line to get to the punch card machine again.
Anyway, coding is a good skill to have.
Keep trying to see what you can do with your debt. Good luck! It will get better.
Most of it you can find with Google- but use their old name - "National Oilwell Varco" - they changed to NOV a few years ago.
Lol? How did you miss that one? Lol. It has all the investor info. Annual reports,.etc. on "investors" tab from its main menu.
Check out all the "National Oilwell Varco" apps on Google play store to get an idea. There's like 10 different apps.
Then if you know the products better- you can read through some transcripts from investor days and earnings calls. Companies usually talk more color on those banker conferences- investor days, etc.
NOV had a presentation at World Economic Forum. https://www.weforum.org/organizations/national-oilwell-varco-nov
https://www.ibm.com/case-studies/national-oilwell-varco you might learn something new from this IBM article.
Not all Lenovo's are equal.
Thinkpad was previously IBM. These are working beasts... That's why I was specific about the life's x220 and x230. I also had another cheap model which did not even have a docking station port...
yes. you can see the difference with apple's killing it with imessage, vs googles 15 chat programs in 5 years.
"start up" culture doesn't do well at scale hen you need to be fully behind one product across the company. Unfortunately when they do that, you have something like chat which is a joke compared to discord or slack.
I'm not sure whether they're turning into IBM or microsoft.
Hey I'm old and I found a bug in FORTRAN years ago. Got the letter from IBM to prove it. Apparently I was the Only User Ever to need a certain feature to work.
Narrator: It didn't work.
This is terrible cherry-picked advice that takes absolutely nothing into consideration about the winners that you would have also bought given a wide breadth of market drawdowns. Spreading your bets amongst things that were beaten down collectively: Nortel, RIM, AMZN, WM, IBM, CSCO, XOM, AAPL, MSFT, MMM, HON, MRK, MO results in an entirely different outcome. Heck, $1k in AAPL in 2001 is worth over $600k today. Exxon Mobil? That same 1k is worth 4.3k today; Honeywell? $6.9k; 3M? $3.6k; MSFT? $20k; AMZN? Well over $160k on your $1k investment.
Your example of a person picking 2 stocks that failed is illogical. A person who's picking stocks would also have picked some of the "hot names" which is what I included in the list above (3M, Cisco, IBM, Honeywell, etc. were all popular back in 2000). Likely what would have happened is that you would have lost on Nortel, RIM, Webvan, and stuff like that. You would have also gained on a few of the other companies you invested in.
In times of sweeping drawdowns, picking good companies with strong balance sheets is usually an OK position to be in, especially if your horizon is measured in a 10 year window.
sure its hard to see MSFt, GOOG AAPL fail but truth is, some big stocks from the past never recovered.
IBM, GE, GM, Nokia, Kodak, just to name a few
Exactly, for any asset! I bought IBM shares in 2000 and I’m not selling it any time soon and I’m gonna pass it to my grandchildren.
I would have went with 60k in Google and 60k in ibm, but u do u.
I guess that makes sense.
It does seem to rely on the idea that some companies are "too big to fail." 2008 showed us that's not really the case, though government may be willing to step in to rescue certain large companies if the problem is widespread enough. We still see significant failures of large businesses, such as GE, so reducing diversification seems like an increasingly bad idea. I could see Exxon fall once EVs stop being supply constrained, IBM could fail if enough startups eat their lunch, etc.
If you're looking for stable returns, bonds are even more consistent since they're essentially 100% dividends. Instead of overweighting toward dividends, I think it makes more sense to rely on bonds and sell as needed to rebalance.
> Bill Gates
He is from money. "Bill Gates was the son of wealthy parents, his father was a partner in the law firm Preston Gates & Ellis, his mother was on board of directors for First Interstate BancSystem and the United Way. Bill got a sweetheart deal from IBM, in part due to his mother serving on the United Way board with Jon Opel, chair of IBM."
It's those connections that really help.
> Elon Musk
Emerald mine. I know he says he would "never ask his father for money" but he had his own computer as a child and no other responsibilities to take care of. Coming from money, you always have a safety net even if you swear you'll never need it. You are in an entirely different risk class.
Bezos and Jobs, maybe. But Jobs at least grew up around Silicon Valley and his parents paid for his education. I don't think he would have had the same success had he been born in Appalachia.
The argument I've heard, and that makes sense to me, is that dividends don't tend to go up and down as much. If the market is down, companies like IBM or Exxon Mobil don't want to decrease their dividend payouts or it makes them look weak. So rather than having to sell some of your stocks when they're not worth as much, you just ride out the ups and downs on dividend payouts.
This is the third article in three days I've seen using IBM as the example stock you should by, after not seeing the company mentioned in months. There were also a few comments talking about it in Yahoo Finance comments the past few days.
This suggests to me that there's some attempted manipulation going on with IBM stock.
Not a fair comparison, since IBM is basically Redhat these days.
The old IBM is Kyndryl, which is IBM's legacy businesses they spun off late last year, that's down 75% since then.
Bond tents are a great idea. Buying IBM, probably less so.
If I recall correctly IBM is actually a solid business that actually hit an all time high in like May…
A good stock market investing editorial in today's Wall Street Journal by Burton G. Malkiel.
Two paragraphs from it that I completely agree with:
For retirees who need to sell some of their investments to meet living expenses, dollar-cost averaging of their sales isn’t the optimal strategy. Periodic sales would involve liquidating more of their shares just when prices were low. The appropriate approach is to hold a broadly diversified portfolio, including limited-duration fixed-income instruments that can be liquidated without loss to fund consumption.
While equities should also be held to provide inflation protection, they should be tilted toward stocks that pay high dividends. A stock like IBM pays a dividend of 5%, so living expenses can be financed without the need to sell shares. Low-expense-ratio mutual funds and exchange-traded funds of “dividend growth stocks” are the appropriate equity vehicle to provide both liquidity and inflation protection for those living off retirement savings.
You are right, I asked him.
He told me that IBM had a plan where employers could get stocks via Computershare and reinvest them.
The dividends probably was reinvested in new IBM stocks.
He really forgot about it, because he only bought because he was in the USA at that time, and you could get a nice certificate to show to all his Brazilian IBMers friends that he own part of the company.
IBM isn't their own transfer agent. ComputerShare would maintain the shareholder register, not IBM.
He would have because he didn't had a broker account, he bought from someone who had them and IBM just changed the owner in their internal database, considering he was a IBMer he would know how to do it.
Do this day you can still buy stock certificates from IBM.
🤔 its almost like they are a big player in the industry or something. 🤔
Maybe there are Companies out there that cater to buisnesses not private persons?
Its almost like being supprised IBM is still in business.
Or looking into the petro chem industry and wondering why you never heard of Saudi Aramco.
Maybe tomorrow you'll learn about these wee little Buisnesses called blackrock and vanguard?🤯
To be honest managment is probably going to reject a total buyout. The reason is because ATOS offered a deal for $40 about a year ago and managment didn't bite. Obiously these private equity guys know that so either they've offered more money or they want to do some sort of partial deal where DXC sells some assets. There was another rumor on Twitter a couple of weeks ago that IBM and DXC both had a meeting the same day DXC canceled the DB investment conference. According to Twitter a private jets service tracked both of their planes to the same location. Also rumors on employee message boards suggest that DXC has restructured their sales team to follow IBM's structure and I've also heard from IBM messageboards that IBM wants to get back into the IT infrastructure space even though they just spun out Kyndryl however they lack the funds nessisary. So IMHO these are the pices of the puzzle but I'm not 100% sure why IBM is involved. To be honest unless they get something crazy like $60 plus for I want them to reject an outright buyout. I know that sounds crazy but DXC is projecting free cash flow of $1.5 Billion next year and the market cap is only something like $7 Billion. You factor in that they're currently buying back 10% of the shares outstanding and I think you're looking at a 10x in 2-5 years Ie $270. Its no wonder a private equity firm wants to buy it....
A friend who worked at IBM bought a few stocks when he traveled to the USA for a few months in early 2000s, there's anyway he could have dividends to be received?
I will them him to look at it.
This exactly, parents had some IBM stock information I found in an old file cabinet. Couldn’t find any other info on it but checked with the state they used to live in to see if it was in their unclaimed property database. Sure enough, it was. And after almost a dozen stock splits, they owned about 1200 shares of IBM. You never know what you may find OP, definitely give it a look
In early 2000s you could buy Apple, Microsoft or IBM shares and receive a certificate. One of my friends worked at IBM and bought a few shares this way. He's up only 30%, I don't know if he received any dividends in this time frame.
I don't think anything is an 'instant' buy, but $100 is a decent margin of safety given the free cash flow (hence share buybacks) and stable moat of Google. I certainly think GOOG is at a better price than AAPL is right now, and I expect a larger return.
Whether it beats the S&P 500 over 10 years is harder to say. My bet is yes. The biggest threats are probably regulatory in nature. I think the AI and software talent GOOG has built up for its advertising, search engine, and various moonshot projects will continue to propel the company forward.
I remember reading an interesting article on how there was this protein folding modelling problem pharma companies were pouring money and people into, and a small team from GOOG with no experience came and just solved the whole problem easy-peasy. Here's a blog post about it
My favorite quote:
> What is worse than academic groups getting scooped by DeepMind? The fact that the collective powers of Novartis, Pfizer, etc, with their hundreds of thousands (~million?) of employees, let an industrial lab that is a complete outsider to the field, with virtually no prior molecular sciences experience, come in and thoroughly beat them on a problem that is, quite frankly, of far greater importance to pharmaceuticals than it is to Alphabet. It is an indictment of the laughable “basic research” groups of these companies, which pay lip service to fundamental science but focus myopically on target-driven research that they managed to so badly embarrass themselves in this episode.
> If you think I’m being overly dramatic, consider this counterfactual scenario. Take a problem proximal to tech companies’ bottom line, e.g. image recognition or speech, and imagine that no tech company was investing research money into the problem. (IBM alone has been working on speech for decades.) Then imagine that a pharmaceutical company suddenly enters ImageNet and blows the competition out of the water, leaving the academics scratching their heads at what just happened and the tech companies almost unaware it even happened. Does this seem like a realistic scenario? Of course not. It would be absurd. That’s because tech companies have broad research agendas spanning the basic to the applied, while pharmas maintain anemic research groups on their seemingly ever continuing mission to downsize internal research labs while building up sales armies numbering in the tens of thousands of employees.
ibonds, for as much as that will take, if you can wait the year.
For the rest, standard advice is a savings account, but I differ and say a brokerage account and some index funds. My thinking is the house is more of a want than a need, and the time is variable, so between variable amount and time, you can stand a little risk. If you lose 20%, that's less house or more time waiting.
The time waiting has a cost, but only maybe a few hundo a year vs. renting, so that wait cost is not as big as the potential to get 10%+ should the market rebound. People here seem to think you'll lose it all in stocks, but if you do lose, more likely it will be a percentage, not all.
A savings account at 3% if you could even get that, would be losing to inflation, or to any opportunity you might have had should the market go up.
Some dividends are paying better than savings account rates, and some low PE blue chips might not lose much at all. For that matter gain either, but you still get the dividend. Thinking might be conservative in stocks.
Like IBM, selling at 2010 levels, and paying out 5% dividends, but might be overvalued. Or Ford, considered under valued, paying 4% dividends, and going big with EV like Tesla that is the darling of the stock market. Or US Bank, set to capture more interest as the fed rate rises, also paying 4% dividend.
There is value in the stock market if you look around, esp. with a 3-4 year horizon. If you're in savings, and the stocks come up, it's too late, you're too close then. If you're in stocks, and they come up, you might be able to move that much sooner.
With gifts from their parents. I would love a $250,000 gift to start a business. Wasn’t it Gates’ mom who got his first deal with IBM to launch his career? Not exactly self made wealth when your mom is holding the door open for you.
I think they did that with XOM 15 years ago, and IBM like 40 years ago?
All dinasaurs eventually die.
Rate my current portfolio:
Currently 18 years old
MSFT - 22.57% - $255.88/share
AVGO - 11.51% - $516.27/share
GOOGL - 9.48% - $112.14/share
VTI - 9.04% - $214.38/share
JNJ - 7.69% - $168.51/share
QCOM - 5.83% - $133/share
JEPI - 5.02% - $55.05/share
SCHD - 3.30% - $73.04/share
HD - 3.21% - $276.88/share
VALE - 3.10% - $12.99/share
IBM - 2.94% - $128.61/share
JPM - 2.71% - $113.50/share
AIRC - .93% - $41/share
MSFT is highly dependent on legacy clients. They did have a near monopoly on that for about a decade but that has been decaying ever since thanks to cloud computing (dont need IIS/AD any more). They struggle to get new companies to join their environment because historically, they are both expensive and their services (enterprise side) are pretty rigid.
They do make some excellent products like Visual Studio and one can argue, the Xbox. Video games are still predominantly made for Windows as well and their OS isnt too bad if you can just block all the creepy spyware and lame tablet GUI which doesnt work well with a kb+m.
But yea. In some ways they remind of IBM in the 80s. Still dominant but you can see the luster fading a bit. Not saying they end up the same way, but thats what it looks like to me right now. Lots of dependence on legacy. A lot of "me too" products rather than innovation. Still growing but by the late 80s IBM start to crack.
I am holding Apple, Google, TSMC, Intel, IBM, Shell and Disney for long term since they will always be needed. I have few medium holds, like Paramount and T (to take advantage of Warner Bros split; free WBD shares woo!).
My bets now are on RKLB and MAPS. MAPS is way more speculative, so not as many shares as RKLB. That is shovel/pick of the next following decades.
Instead of FAANG what about BITCHNO
BBBY IBM TSLA COIN HYLN NEGG OPEN
ME definitely isn't outdated if you specialize in something high demand. My dad is an ME and specialized in fire protection engineering later in his career (like the past 10 years or so), and even though he's supposedly semi-retired now, I feel like he works more than I do (his choice, he won't stop accepting projects). He works on some cool projects, too. Lots of major theme park and airplane hangar work.
Anyway, I think it's an evolving career path much like SWE evolves. My grandparents were IBM programmers using COBOL; today's languages are Java, Python, and C, and there's probably some new language on the rise that I don't even know about because I'm in data analytics. All that is to say, I think you can find satisfaction and money in traditional engineering.
Shantanu Narayen, Adobe Inc Satya Nadella, Microsoft Punit Renjen, Deloitte George Kurian, NetApp Sanjay Mehrotra, Micron Revathi Advaithi, Flex Niren Chaudhary, Panera Bread Sundar Pichai, Alphabet Arvind Krishna, IBM Sandeep Mathrani, WeWork Sonia Syngal, Gap Shar Dubey, Match Rangarajan Raghuram, VMware CS Venkatakrishnan, Barclays Parag Agrawal, Twitter These all are indian ceo you guys work for them 🤣🤣 & in 2000 you were struggling indian software engineers solved the problem 1 dollar=1 rupee will soon take place because we are going to bring BRICS US dollar will no longer be the #1 currency 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
I’m 43, in the US ~90K/yr depending on the year. I’m an independent contractor so having 6mo of living expenses liquid is a must but I have $5000 now and likely more soon to invest. I have an E*trade account and have a small amount in IBM (my dad suggested is and I’m originally from Binghamton). Any suggestions?
I also have education funds for my kids, an old trad IRA and a Roth.
> • Jeff bozos got a 200k loan from his parents
From his parent's retirement fund.
>Bill gates mother served on the board with the ceo of IBM. His parents owned multiple propertie
His mother was a lawyer and Bill Gates was a child prodigy who was hired by his school to make schedules for every student in the school.
All of the people you mention worked 100 hour weeks to get their business of the ground. The only way you can think that they didn't work hard is if you are purposely shoving your head up your ass.
This isn't you looking at reality, this is you looking for an excuse not to bother trying.
>Most of the "elites" were people who started businesses that ended up being successful.
No. No no no no
Jeff bozos got a 200k loan from his parents
Elon musk's dad owned an emerald mine
-Bill gates mother served on the board with the ceo of IBM. His parents owned multiple properties
None of these people worked hard - they were born to rich parents and got lucky, none of them took any substantial risk because the worst thing that happened was "having to become working class"
you've been fed a noble lie to justify the criminal inequality. It's the modern day "divine right of kings" nonsense
Naw the issue us no one knows how to place value to stock these days, your buying his farts. Telsa is the IBM, you know you can't get fired for losing your clients money on telsa!!!
Fundamentals are constantly changing per macro economic and a great company may become so-so company when the rule of game changes (i.e IBM)
Sure it's not going to bankruptcy but it's not gonna give alpha compared to SPX then the question is why do we even bother to invest anymore when our investment strategy is underperforming than indexes? Aka opportunity cost.
I agree that all strategy comes with loss and that's just the game rule but we also know those great companies will not be forever for rest of our lives and if so, then underperforming than SPX should be considered negatively
Feeling very IBM-entering-the-90s-ish. Deeply entrenched in enterprise due to legacy support, which almost ensures their survival for the next decade. Bungled massive cap ex on entering the gpu market, perhaps irreparably if internal leaks are to be trusted. 13th gen CPUs are likely to beat AMD in pure performance but get roflstomped in power efficiency. Good for PC sector, less so for the future of laptops and mobile.
INTC will either have another historic comeback and become like MSFT or it will be another IBM.
People don't seem to realize - Industry/ vertical doing well in future doesn't mean current market leaders will do well.
Example- someone could have easily guessed in 2000 that digital photography will take off. If they invested in Kodak, they wouldn't be too happy today.
Same goes for Blackberry/Nokia and the cellphone revolution.
People who invested in INTC, IBM 20 years ago aren't the richest people around. :)
Openshift, but don’t go buying IBM because they’re going to run it without paid support most likely. Anyone big enough and this concerned about cost isn’t paying. I work for a company that also hasd 200k redhat licenses and some years back c-suite said fuck it you guys are going centos without support.
Honestly, not sure. Maybe everyone is thinking that it's getting long in the tooth and overrun by corporate bureaucracy, much like IBM was...
I got books from Amazon in 98. They had double screens at IBM at the time?
I dumped my IBM puts for a loss before they actually made some massive moves. I think I’m getting the idea of WSB style trading
> The Dow decreased during that time period but whatever.
Index prices treat dividends as lost, and stocks had high dividend yields at the time.
The Dow Jones Industrial Average is also a problematic index due to its concentration & price weighting. The removal of IBM from the DJIA in 1939 turned out to have significant consequences on subsequent returns of that index.
> I think that ibonds are at 9.62% right now.
Yes, annualized for the first 6 months. In the neighborhood of 6% for the subsequent 6 months if CPI-U is relatively flat in September compared to August.
> why not just put the money into ibonds for now and resume DCA’ing VTI/VTAX whatever when we’re closer to the floor?
I bonds aren’t available in tax-advantaged accounts like an IRA or 401(k). Choosing to purchase I bonds instead of investing in tax-advantaged accounts may imply an opportunity cost around missing out on limited contribution allowances. Tax-deferred or tax-free growth over a long enough time frame is likely to be more predictably advantageous than differences in short-term returns when the investment is at its smallest.
For an investor maxing out all tax-advantaged accounts, purchasing I bonds instead of investing in taxable might be a reasonable decision, particularly if transitioning an emergency fund to I bonds or as an alternative to a lower-yielding bond allocation. As an alternative to stocks, it’s more of a toss-up, especially when considering the after-tax interest for the first year might be in the 6% neighborhood (depending on marginal tax rate).
Sounds like IBM, no bankruptcy, but no chance of outsized returns either.
Think of EV'S in terms of the PC personal computer boom in the late 80's and 90's.... IBM thought the hardware was key, Gates and others knew the software was key.... anyone could assemble the hardware and make a computer...that's where we are...anyone can make an EV but who is working on the software that's going to hit the market down the road and be the software that dominates the EV market....that's what I'm searching for....
I'm not that savvy about stock investing yet, but I'd say to look into the S&P 500 tech sector. There are a lot of companies working on automation, and with giants like Apple, Microsoft, and IBM, you surely won't be wrong. Also, I noticed that many technology index funds have many common positions with the S&P in their investing list, so I'd say it's worth trusting.
Besides, the S&P 500 companies are the safest way to invest your money. At least that is one of the most popular pieces of advice for beginners I read about on sites like https://investorjunkie.com/investing/how-to-invest-50000/ when I was researching where to put my savings.
But if you're an experienced investor and don't want to pay the funds' high fees, you can simply look at their pick and choose individual stocks for your portfolio.
Every single investment is a statement.
When you buy 100 shares of IBM @100, you're making a statement: "IBM's better than $100/share. I expect it'll go up."
When you short 100 shares of IBM @100, you're making the opposite statement.
When you put $500,000 into a 2-year treasury bond @ 3.75% you're making another statement: "I think interest rates are high and likely to go lower."
If interest rates go up, then you need to make up the shortfall. Let's take a very very simple example:
- You put $100,000 into a 1-year treasury bond @5%. In 1 year you'll receive $105,000.
- Five minutes after you buy it, interest rates rise to 10%.
- Five minutes later you decide to sell it. It would sell, on the open market, for $95,454.54
That's because the prevailing rate is now 10% per year, and your bond is going to return 10% or people won't fucking buy it. 1.10 * $95,454.54 = $105,000. The moment you buy that bond, it stops being a thing with an interest rate at all, really. Merely a guarantee that 730 days from now (2 years), you'll get 1.0764x what you bought it for. (1.0375^2 = 1.0764)
You asked, is it risky, what are the downsides? There's your risk & downside. There is no early withdrawal from a treasury bond. There's merely selling it to someone else, on the open market.
Honestly there is no right answer. Your only mistake was taking the dividends as spending money. They can’t compound if you take them. I don’t know why you won’t say the stock name but with no movement in 25 years I’d guess they aren’t going places. They probably pay 4-6% like duke ibm or att. So at this point you should have sold it and transferred to voo or other etf. If you are not interested in actively monitoring your stock you should be in a broad etf.
Anyway the general rule is if the interest rate is low you’re better off using your free cash to make more money. Imagine losing your job and needing that 10k to survive. Now it’s in a car that went down 25%. Now if the rate is high you want to pay it down asap. If you have no credit paying the car off will build that if you pay over time. You also have to consider your emotions and perhaps paying it off will keep you happy even if it’s not the best decision. Honestly it’s 10k this is not a make or break decision. Do what you feel is right, prioritize saving, keep living life
Legally speaking rewards for credit cards are considered rebates and not taxable according to the IRS. I own a small business so can’t speak for IBM or Amazon but I can tell you want the auditor told me when I asked.
Actually, Gates already had a deal to license BASIC to IBM but didn't have an OS, so he put them in touch with Gary Kildall, the developer of CP/M. Gary couldn't seem to make it work, so Gates got involved again, licensing QDOS/86-DOS from Seattle Computer Products. The author of 86-DOS, Tom Paterson, graduated magna cum laude from Univerity of Washington and to the best of my knowledge there are no deserts in SeaTac metro area.
True, but I took “exploit” liberally, as in, exploiting an opportunity — technically you’re right, Gates didn’t really screw anyone over. However, he used deception and trickery to exploit the ignorance of others. If IBM had known better, they wouldn’t have done the deal. And, had the hacker guy known better, he would’ve asked for a much better deal (although DOS was pretty crappy — according to my source, the hacker guy was elated when he heard the price Gates was offering.)
Bill Gates. He went to IBM with absolutely nothing but big talk. Promised them an OS to run their machines on. Steve Balmer asks him after the meeting if he’s crazy. They drive to the desert and for $50K buy a shitty OS from a hacker dropout guy living in a trailer. Gates takes that OS and licenses it to IBM for God-tier money.
That may be an indicator of personality type of ambition, though. Programmers aren't buying the $2k hoodies if they want to stay in IBM ranks.
> It's how Microsoft, Adobe and IBM operate. If you have some cool new idea they'll either clone it and run you out of business, or they'll buy you for a pittance.
None of those companies would be in business 10 minutes after software patents and copyright were ended. Non-problem.
Same is true of google and apple.
>It costs them endless amounts, and even becomes a way a big company runs out of money by constantly having to overpay for small startups.
It's how Microsoft, Adobe and IBM operate. If you have some cool new idea they'll either clone it and run you out of business, or they'll buy you for a pittance.
because no one ever expects Oracle to do well. it's like betting on IBM.
I won't be tired because I have no business to wait but it would be a nice satisfying signt once they'll start degrading like IBM.
Yes but the years of MSFT at $35 were great for many long term investors - I bought 20 shares back then, my parents bought 200... we both still own them (and all the splits) today.
But your right - MSFT and APPL are not going to simply fade away or go away anytime soon, they are our version of the big blue decades at IBM but only at a much larger scale.
Yes companies can sneak up on them - take zoom versus MSFT teams product... for a year or two zoom really popped. Then suddenly numbers went down for zoom, why? Only 40% of workers are back in the office (and I doubt that 40% is 5 day a week, and it will never get back to prepandemic levels) but look what MSFT dud when that happens - they blasted a message through off365 - "hey all Off365 admins - your company can now use Teams which is now included in your subscription..." and zoom fizzles...
Put 10k in IBM and keep it there forever, then sink the rest in GME and have fun.
First, the VR hardware market isn't really profitable yet. Reality Labs (the branch that owns Oculus) loses money every single quarter. Facebook doesn't really have a way to lock in a software market, they need to create a marketplace that rivals Steam (they won't/can't pull that off). They are banking heavily on the Metaverse and NFT sales within it. Their Metaverse looks like shit, is an absolute joke, and could easily be replaced by a competitor.
Second, hardware companies can come and go. Sega, Atari, IBM, etc all were giants within electronics. A company like Sony or Microsoft could easily join the VR market once the technology has progressed enough to become both affordable and profitable. There's absolutely no reason to believe Facebook will have any sort of market dominance in either hardware or VR software in the future. They MIGHT, but they probably won't.
ibm. their stock recovers every other month so right now should be a good time to buy in
Exactly. It’s hard for someone to comprehend those companies not translating into excellent stock returns, but when a company’s products become that ubiquitous, their growth may be peaking and/or they may be reaching market saturation. It’s also hard to comprehend that things could be radically different in 20 years. In 2002 you might have had an AT&T phone, an IBM computer, GE appliances, shop at Wal Mart every day, drive a Toyota, work at AOL (Time Warner) and are thinking- these would be great companies to make a portfolio. Sure, you would have made some money, and even been ahead for bit, but eventually you would have vastly underperformed the benchmark (see backtest). Holding today’s biggest companies is picking the last cycle’s winners but is a losing strategy - unfortunately you can’t buy past returns.
A rarity. No other business gets to keep 30% of other peoples work just because it’s running inside their operating system.
Regulators aren’t interested in regulating it because their retirements all depend on it propping up the NASDAQ. Heh.
I’ve been doing this a lot longer than ten years. They’ll get their ass handed to them eventually. I’m old enough to remember the same sentiment about IBM. Hahaha.
But yes, the Apple mafia does demand the rent to run your own software on their OS. Completely silly. Hides their lack of innovation since Jobs keeled over.
Cook is the nicest mobster on the planet! Heh.
I really don't know what you want from me bud. It's OK if someone doesn't agree with your opinion on a company.
Yes, they make a LOT of $$$. Well aware. But IMO they lost the innovation and initiative. You can coast on reputation and momentum for years. And in fact, profits can look even better, cuz you know, not innovating saves a lot of money.
It happened to IBM. It happened to Intel. Kind of happened to Boeing. And for much of Ballmer's time it happened at Microsoft.
Just because I think, being in tech, I see the signs earlier than you, is not a good reason for you to be a pompous prick. You aren't a genius for noticing their stock went up. Good for you!
More like "real experiments" are being conducted.
It looks like IBM TradeLens got 15 "customers" in 2019, since then nearly zilch outside of a couple press releases from 2020.
All these experiments will eventually migrate back to SQL databases due to the massive limitations and costs of the blockchain.
IBM had not really fully collapsed when he bought it, so that isn't a fair comparison. It would be better to compare that to Buffett buying Intel at $60/share
I own Google stock and am disappointed they aren't investing in people.
This will cause the good to leave and the bad to dig in. Same thing happened at IBM and HP in the 90s/00s
Thanks for the reply. He didn’t specify that he was chasing top performers though.
Outperformance with individual securities can be continual over an extended period of time. Costco, for example has a 13% CAGR for the past 36 years. UNH runs at a 24% CAGR year over year (30 years and counting).
Using your idea to buy the large companies as a standalone thing carries quite a bit of risk but has also generally outperform (eg MCD, WMT, BMY, KO, HAL, GE, PG, MRK, DIS, TXN, IBM in an equally weighted basket); of course you’re going to capture some duds in there too (I’ve explored this with the Nifty 50 stocks as well, and including bankruptcies you still end up ahead with monthly contributions vs simply buying the index). Commissions wouldn’t have made buying 50 assets at a time viable previously, so the mentioned strategy would never have been executed in practice.
One basket that I actually run which has outperformed for the past 28 years is simply: MSFT, INTU, and WM.
We will see how it does in the future.
Good luck with your investments too!