Gewinnerbranchen der Jahre 2006 bis 2040 (Seite 2893)

[clearasil]

Do you think Microsoft, after this long period of no value increase, is more likely to go up in value, or more likely to follow Kodak? Unfortunately, there are few companies that make the transition. But there have been thousands that have not. Companies that had very high market share, once made a lot of money, but fell into failure because they invested in better, faster, cheaper rather than innovation.

If you are still holding Kodak, why? If you're still holding Microsoft, Abbott, Kraft, Sara Lee, Sears or Wal-Mart -- why?

[clearasil]

http://www.thephoenixprinciple.com/blog/2011/10/better-faste…

[clearasil]

29 February 2012
Microsoft's Crazy Windows 8 Bet - How you can invest smarter

This week people are having their first look at Windows 8 via the Barcelona, Spain Mobile World Congress. This better be the most exciting Microsoft product since Windows was created, or Microsoft is going to fail.

Why? Because Microsoft made the fatal mistake of "focusing on its core" and "investing in what it knew" - time worn "best practices" that are proving disastrous!

Everyone knows that Microsoft has returned almost nothing to shareholders the last decade. Simultaneously, all the "partner" companies that were in the "PC" (the Windows + Intel, or Wintel, platform) "ecosystem" have done poorly. Look beyond Microsoft at returns to shareholders for Intel, Dell (which recently blew its earings) and Hewlett Packard (HP - which says it will need 5 years to turn around the company.) All have been forced to trim headcount and undertake deep cost cutting as revenues have stagnated since 2000, at times falling, and margins have been decimated.

This happened despite deep investments in their "core" PC business. In 2009 Microsoft spent almost $9B on PC R&D; over 14% of revenues. In the last few years Microsoft has launched Vista, Windows 7, Office 2009 and Office 2010 all in its effort to defend and extend PC sales. Likewise all the PC manufacturers have spent considerably on new, smaller, more powerful and even cheaper PC laptop and desktop models.

Unfortunately, these investments in their core expertise and markets have not excited users, nor created much growth.

On the other hand, Apple spent all of the last decade investing in what it didn't know much about in 2000. Rather than investing in its "core" Macintosh business, Apple invested in the trend toward mobility, being an early leader with 3 platforms - the iPod, iPhone and iPad. All product categories far removed from its "core" and what it new well. But, all targeted at the trend toward enhanced mobility.

Don't forget, Microsoft launched the Zune and the Windows CE phones in the last decade. But, because these were not "core" products in "core" markets Microsoft, and its partners, did not invest much in these markets. Microsoft even brought to market tablets, but leadership felt they were inferior to the PC, so investments were maintained in traditional PC products. The Zune, Windows phone and early Windows tablets all died because Microsoft and its partner companies stuck to investing their most important, and best known, PC business.

Where are we now? Sales of PC's are stagnating, and going to decline. While sales of mobile devices are skyrocketing.

Tablet sales projections 2012-2015
Source: Business Insider 2/14/12

Today tablet sales are about 50% of the ~300M unit PC sales. But they are growing so fast they will catch up by 2014, and be larger by 2015. And, that depends on PC sales maintaining. Look around your next meeting, commuter flight or coffee shop experience and see how many tablets are being used compared to laptops. Think about that ratio a year ago, and then make your own assessment as to how many new PCs people will buy, versus tablets. Can you imagine the PC market actually shrinking? Like, say, the traditional cell phone business is doing?

By focusing on Windows, and specifically each generation leading to Windows 8, Microsoft took a crazy bet. It bet it could improve windows to keep the PC relevant, in the face of the evident trend toward mobility and ease of use. Instead of investing in new technologies, new products and new markets - things it didn't know much about - Microsoft chose to invest in what it new, and hoped it could control the trend.

People didn't want a PC to be mobile, they wanted mobility. Apple invested in the trend, making the MP3 player a winner with its iPod ease of use and iTunes market. Then it made smartphones, which were largely an email device, incredibly popular by innovating the app marketplace which gave people the mobility they really desired. Recognizing that people didn't really want a PC, they wanted mobility, Apple pioneered the tablet marketplace with its iPad and large app market. The result was an explosion in revenue by investing outside its core, in technologies and markets about which it initially knew nothing.

Apple revenue by segment july 2011

Apple would not have grown had it focused its investment on its "core" Mac business. In the last year alone Apple sold more iOS devices than it sold Macs in its entire 28 year history!

IOS devices vs Mac sales 2.12
Source: Business Insider 2/17/2012

Today, the iPhone business itself is bigger than all of Microsoft. The iPad business is bigger than the desktop PC business, and if included in the larger market for personal computing represents 17% of the PC market. And, of course, Apple is now worth almost twice the value of Microsoft.

We hear, all the time, to invest in what we know. But it turns out that is NOT the best strategy. Trends develop, and markets shift. By constantly investing in what we know we become farther and farther removed from trends. In the end, like Microsoft, we make massive investments trying to defend and extend our past products when we would be much, much smarter to invest in new technologies and markets that are on the trend, even if we don't know much, if anything, about them.

The odds are now stacked against Microsoft. Apple has a huge lead in product sales, market position and apps. It's closest challenger is Google's Android, which is attracting many of the former Microsoft partners (such as LG's recent defection) as they strive to catch up. Company's such as Nokia are struggling as the technology leadership, and market position, has shifted away from Microsoft as mobility changed the market.

Microsoft's technology sales used to be based upon convincing IT departments to use its platform. But today users largely buy mobile devices with their own money, and eschew the recommendations of the IT department. Just look at how users drove the demise of Research In Motion's Blackberry. IT needs to provide users with tools they like, and use platforms which are easy and low-cost to leverage with big app bases. That favors Apple and Android, not Microsoft with its far, far too late entry.

You can be smarter than Microsoft. Don't take the crazy bet of always doubling down on what you know. Put your focus on the marketplace, and identify shifts. It's cheaper, and smarter, to bet early on trends than constantly trying to fight the trend by investing - usually at an ever higher amount - in what you know.

[clearasil]

[clearasil]

Many analysts will examine a company’s earnings and make the case for a “value play” after growth slows. That’s a mythical bet. When a leader misses a market shift, by investing too long trying to defend its historical business, the late-stage earnings often contain a goodly measure of “adjustments” and other machinations. To the extent earnings do exist, they are wasted away in defensive efforts to pretend the market shift will not make the company obsolete. Late investments to catch the market shift cost far too much, and are impossibly late to catch the leading new market players. The company is well on its way to failure, even if on the surface it looks reasonably healthy. It’s a sucker’s bet to buy these stocks.

Rarely do we see such a stark example as the shift Apple has created, and the defend & extend management that has completely obsessed Microsoft in the wake of this shift. But it has happened several times. Small printing press manufacturers went bankrupt as customers shifted to xerography, and Xerox waned as customers shifted on to desktop publishing. Kodak declined as customers moved to film-less digital photography. CALMA and DEC disappeared as CAD/CAM customers shifted to PC-based Autocad. Woolworths was crushed by discount retailers like KMart and WalMart. B.Dalton and other booksellers disappeared in the market shift to Amazon.com. And even mighty GM faltered and went bankrupt after decades of defend behavior, as customers shifted to different products from new competitors. Buying into any of the losers as a “value play” meant you lost money.

Not all earnings are equal. A dollar of earnings in a growth company is worth a multiple. Earnings in a declining company are, well, often worthless. Those who see this early get out while they can – before the company collapses.

Update 5/10/11 – Regarding announced Skype acquisition by Microsoft

That Microsoft has apparently agreed to buy Skype does not change the above article. It just proves Microsoft has a lot of cash, and can find places to spend it. It doesn’t mean Microsoft is changing its business approach.

Skype provides PC-to-PC video conferencing. In other words, a product that defends and extends the PC product. Exactly what I predicted Microsoft would do. Spend money on outdated products and efforts to (hopefully) keep people buying PCs. Instead of paying its cash to investors, to invest in growth opportunities, that $8.5B will soon be gone into hands of Skype investors.

Meanwhile, soon all smartphones and tablets will support video chat from the device; built in. And these devices are already connected to networks – telecom and wifi – when sold. They don’t need the IP networking Microsoft lacks, and acquired with Skype. The future for Microsoft/Skype does not look rosy. To the contrary, we can expect Skype to become one of those features we recall, but don’t need, in about 24 to 36 months. Why boot up a PC to do a video chat you can do right from your hand-held, always-on, device?

[clearasil]

[clearasil]

Why Not All Earnings Are Equal; Microsoft Has the Wal-Mart Disease
For the first time in 20 years, Apple‘s quarterly profit exceeded Microsoft‘s (see BusinessWeek.com “Microsoft’s Net Falls Below Apple As iPad Eats Into Sales.) Thus, on the face of things, the companies should be roughly equally valued. But they aren’t. This week Microsoft’s market capitalization is about $215B, while Apple’s is about $365B – about 70% higher. The difference is, of course, growth – and how a lack of it changes management – including Microsoft

According to the Conference Board, growth stalls are deadly. Slide1
When a company hits a growth stall, 93% of the time it will be unable to maintain even a 2% growth rate. 75% of the time we can expect it will fall into a no growth, or declining, revenue environment. And 70% of the time it will lose at least half its market capitalization. That’s because the market has shifted, and the business is no longer selling what customers really want. No matter how hard management tries to recapture the past, customers have decided to move on.

At Microsoft, we see a company that has been completely unable to deal with the market shift toward smartphones and tablets:

The overall PC market declined by 2% last quarter
Consumer PC shipments dropped 8% last quarter
Netbook sales plunged 40%

When revenues stall earnings become meaningless.

Even though Microsoft earnings were up, it wasn’t because they are selling what customers really want to buy. Microsoft has caught the “Wal-Mart Disease” – constantly trying to do more of what it always did, hoping it can regain old results – even as the market keeps shifting. In stalled companies, executives cut costs in sales, marketing, new product development and outsource like crazy in order to prop up earnings. They can outsource many functions. And they go the resorvoir of accounting rules to restate depreciation and expenses, delaying expenses while working to accelerate revenue recognition. While Microsoft had higher earnings than last quarter, it wasn’t because customers were excited about their products!

Stalled company management will tout earnings growth, even though revenues are flat or declining. But smart investors know the ongoing effort to “ manufacture earnings” does not create long-term value. They want “real” earnings created by selling products customers desire - creating incremental, new demand. Success doesn’t come from wringing a few coins out of a declining market – but rather from being in markets where people prefer the new solutions.

Mobile phone sales increased 20% (according to IDC), and Apple achieved 14% market share – #3 – in USA (according to MediaPost.com) last quarter. And in this business, Apple is taking the lion’s share of the profits:

alles hier

http://www.forbes.com/sites/adamhartung/2011/05/03/why-not-a…

[clearasil]

http://www.forbes.com/sites/adamhartung/2012/05/12/oops-5-ce…

[Depotmahlzeit]

Zitat von Stromgegner: Italien will eine Softdrink-Steuer in Höhe von €0,03 je Dose einführen. Die jährlichen Einnahmen werden auf rund €250 Mio geschätzt.

[...]

Es soll auch die Dummheit von Politikern besteuert werden, das bringt am meisten.

Grundsätzlich finde ich das naheliegender als das deutsche Pfandsystem auf Einwegverpackungen und nicht abwegiger als die deutsche Sektsteuer, die seit Kaisers Flottenträumen besteht. Zu beachten ist allerdings, dass die Steuer letztlich dann doch so gering ist, dass keine signifikante Veränderung des Konsumentenverhaltens zu erwarten sein dürfte, die Steuereinnahmen damit gesichert sein dürften.

Das Pfandsystem hat hunderttausende von Menschen die sonst keine Möglichkeiten haben, einen Verdienst durch Dosensammeln gegeben. Das muß man sehen!
"Unter dem Kaiser" betrug die Einkommensteuer 0,5 bis 3,5 %.
Es gab keine Mehrwertsteuer.
Es gab keine Körperschaftsteuer und keine Quellensteuer!
Sekt haben nur die "Reichen" getrunken oder anders, man konnte der Zahlung der Steuer legal ausweichen, eben keinen Sekt trinken, aber weichen Sie mal legal der Zahlung der Mehrwertsteuer aus. Es wurde eben ganz bewusst Sekt und nicht Wasser oder Obst besteuert, insofern war das Kaiserreich liberaler als die Republik.

[investival]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 43.158.130 von investival am 13.05.12 09:11:29

> VFs <
CFs natürlich