In a weird sense, ketchup and food companies may want you to throw out your bottle with a food left and buy a new one. Unless this method is seen as a competitive advantage.
http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2011/07/12/s-e-c-and-pension-sys...
A few searches reveal that the apt complex may have been right. Something fishy, but in his hedge fund: "The public pension systems were allowed to earn a return in the range of 12 percent to 18 percent, they said in a statement. If the fund earned less than 12 percent, other investors, not the three pension systems, would absorb the losses. As a tradeoff, the pension systems’ agreed to forgo any return above 18 percent."
Then there was the case of having pledged $50 million to charity but not actually given them or something.
Sweet said analysts at firms that are not underwriting IPOs often change forecasts at such times. However, he said it is unusual for analysts at lead underwriters to make such changes so close to the IPO.
This makes zero sense. Aren't research analysts supposed to be separate from investment bankers? If so why is this odd. MS should not be able to tell its analysts to tone down a report or time it just because...
In other words, Google is willing to share its users’ contact information with Facebook, but only if Facebook is willing to do the reverse.
No doubt those 900 million users are a juicy target. Sorry, I don't think Google is being altruistic here and it's perfectly fine, since they're a for-profit corp.
On the other hand the reality is that divorce does happen and for people with $20 billion fortunes is different. I wonder if the Google founders have prenups in place.
Chan's ring featured only a "very simple ruby," a source authorized by the couple to speak told the AP.
That explains why she isn't smiling :) . Seriously people, smile for crying out loud. You know billions of people will see that picture over the years.
Two appeal courts have said yes and DOJ said yes too. Personally I'd be more afraid of getting my @ss kicked for "resisting police" and having my video erased, than being arrested for taping cops.
Let's just say that, generally speaking, Russian and Chinese companies work very differently from those in USA. If their "CIA" shows up and wants something added, you either add it or you may be out of business...and that's if they're feeling generous. You can't exactly file a whistle blower lawsuit or go public with the info.
Still, this isn't necessarily a negative for Facebook. They optimized their take, and Zuckerberg won't be needing the market's approval or capital again for a while.
Technically, but the minute you go public you have to worry about the stock price. If the stock drops (IMO, it will drop here) expect a deluge of doom and gloom stories from the media questioning their business model and everything else in between. Then you may have unhappy employes due to the stock drop, harder time hiring, higher expenses since the stock price isn't rising and so on. Bezos did it so far, but it isn't easy. Zuckenberg sold a nice chunk of his $100 Billion company, buyers will be vocal if the price drops.
FB will have to do everything right for a few years just to justify the $100 billion price tag. It's not easy as ads can drive people away.
You're assuming Google would do that and/or that it will be allowed to do that once sites find out. They are a lot of businesses who have zero incentive to give their data to Google.
This "AI" is just scrapping and replacing wikipedia while serving ads.
Google gets 100% of Google.com ad money vs 30% or so on Adsense. A major difference I'd say. Plus, some sectors are worth a lot more and you can bet Google is aware of that.