haleygk74: How to Making Money

Every time I listen to NJ Chris Christie I want to stand up and salute. Today is no different.

Please watch this 4 minute video where Chris Christie blasts LeRoy Seitz, Superintendent of Schools for the Parsippany School District about Seitz's threat to leave the state if his salary is reduced to $175,000.

NorthJersey.com has more details in Governor sets sights on Seitz contract

Last week the Parsippany-Troy Hills Board of Education voted 6-2 to renew Superintendent LeRoy Seitz's contract, which included a 2 percent per year salary increase.

What made the contract noteworthy, aside from the dozens of people that spoke out against it and the tongue lashing the Board and the Superintendent received from Gov. Chris Christie was that the contract Seitz is currently working under doesn't expire until July 1, 2011.

The Board began contract negotiations during the summer, at about the same time the Christie administration released information about a plan to cap chief administrator's salaries and tying the numbers to the enrollment in the district.

By finalizing the contract now the Board effectively agreed to give Seitz a salary well above the governor's proposed cap for almost five years.

At the Board meeting Mark Tabakin, the Board attorney, told the gathering of about 90 people that the cap is still in the proposal form, that the contract was approved by the County Executive Superintendent Kathleen Serafino and that it is a legal action. "People are upset," he acknowledged, "but it's up to the will of the Board."

The controversial contract drew township residents and protesters from as far away as Clifton and Hackettstown, who were outraged over the Board's end run around the proposed cap.

At times the dissenters were so vocal Board President Anthony Mancuso, who remained calm and in control throughout the proceedings, had to call for a 10-minute recess to let the outbursts subside. The police were also called during one of the breaks though they never had the need to take action.

When the public was allowed to speak the floodgates opened. Taking a sarcastic tact the first speaker Roman Hoshovsky said, "How can anyone be expected to live on $200,000?" Then he produced an empty canister and proposed using it as a collection jar in businesses around town to raise money for Seitz.

Barbara Hackling pointed out the Board had laid off teachers and refused to negotiate with the paraprofessionals, "but found money for him."

Karen Blunt, a 36-year Parsippany resident and a paraprofessional in the district said, "He is looking out for his future. I haven't had a raise in 4 years who is looking out for my future?"

The day before the meeting Seitz is quoted in the Daily Record as saying, "Because of the proposed salary caps, I have to look at my future and the financial welfare of my family. I certainly would have options if I didn't feel the compensation in this district, or New Jersey, is appropriate."

The governor reacted to Seitz's veiled threats to leave New Jersey and go to a nearby state where there is no state salary. "I will say in response to Mr. Seitz, 'Let me help you pack.' We have real problems in our state that we have to fix and we don't have the time, nor the money, nor the patience any longer for people who put themselves before our citizens," Christie railed.

I Applaud LeRoy Seitz

A tip of the hat goes to LeRoy Seitz for being such an arrogant SOB that that the meeting to discuss the new contract overflowed with citizens fed up with school board greed.

It is not easy standing up to thugs who want nothing more but to raise your taxes. But the voters did. That's how riled up they were.

I recommend voters in the Parsippany School District send a message to the ignoramuses who agreed to give LeRoy Seitz a new contract. Vote them off the school board.

Fortunately it takes approval from another level to agree to that raise, so the raise is not a done deal yet.

New Jersey taxpayers are fed up, and rightfully so. If LeRoy Seitz thinks he can get $212,000 elsewhere, more power to him. The same holds true for every public "servant". If you can get more in the private sector, shut up and do it.

Mike "Mish" Shedlock
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com
Click Here To Scroll Thru My Recent Post List

To support a margin compression theory, the article begins by using institutional selling as proof and presents increasing Android market share as an argument. Let’s take a closer look.

1. Institutional Selling

The two examples provided (one institution selling and another expressing worry) are insufficient to support the conclusion that big money has started to dump Apple. What’s happening in the aggregate? Might other institutions have initiated positions or increased their holdings? Unless this table (http://www.nasdaq.com/asp/holdings.asp?symbol=AAPL&selected=AAPL&FormType=Institutional) is out of date (It does include Capital Growth Management’s sale.), there is no significant net change in the number of shares held by institutions.

Now, one could argue that CGM’s Heebner and FEAM’s Obuchowski are such stellar managers that their opinion warrants special attention. Well, Heebner’s CGM Focus fund is only a two-star Morningstar rated fund (http://finance.yahoo.com/q/pr?s=CGMFX+Profile). Heebner “knows how to count”, as the author writes, I suppose, but he doesn’t know how to outperform; Obuchowski’s FEAM50 (http://www.1empiream.com/FEAM50_Q3%2010.pdf) and APA125 (http://www.1empiream.com/apa.htm) funds have beaten their benchmark. However, he’s expressed concern about holding Apple two years from now. He hasn’t sold yet.

The article hence doesn’t provide either quantitative (as the number of shares held has not changed significantly) or qualitative (as no star manager is cited as selling) evidence of big money starting to dump Apple because of margin compression. For the one under performing manager cited for selling, no reason is provided. As a matter of fact, there’s no evidence for net institutional selling of Apple, period.

2. Increased Android Market Share

With a 35% profit share in 2009 (http://www.businessinsider.com/chart-of-the-day-revenue-vs-operating-pro...), the hardware industry's highest, hasn’t Apple been successful in the personal computer market? I would say so, and yet it had only captured a 7% market share. How has it accomplished this feat? By offering something different that consumers value at a premium.

The author writes: “Jobs also (understandably) failed to mention that the “commodity’ Androids materially outperform the iOS products in terms of features and functionality. This is pretty much in direct contravention to the concept of the term “commodity”, isn’t it???? I don’t think many Samsung Galaxy S, Droid X or HTC Evo owners will characterize their devices as “commodities”.”

A product’s characterization as a commodity is not a function of the quality of its features and functionality or user opinions thereof. The Android clones are commodities because there’s fundamentally little difference between them. One might have a bigger screen, another longer battery life, and yet another a thinner form factor, but they all run the same OS and hence offer the same functionality. If an innovative feature proves popular, it can quickly be duplicated. There’s little that sets one phone apart from the other. They are interchangeable. As such, they must compete on price. You might prefer the Galaxy S, but settle for a Droid if its price is sufficiently lower to sway you. Their makers will generate lower profit margins, just like Windows PC makers.

The iPhone, on the other hand, offers something different: superior aesthetics, greater ease of use, no bloatware, superior integration with related products (Mac & iPad), a certain prestige, but mainly a distinct OS. It offers the whole package. Its hardware competitors might best or equal some features, but not the whole. If you value this different product, you can only buy from Apple. By maintaining full control of the iPhone experience, Apple prevents it from becoming a commodity like all the Android clones and, so long as it’s able to produce a superior experience on the whole, ensures premium pricing and high profit margins.

The author also writes: “…its business model may prove unassailable unless Apple makes some drastic changes (ex. allowing cloning)…”

What if Apple did pursue the Google model and licensed its OS? If it allowed iOS clones, it would cannibalize its sales and its margins would be obliterated, as it would lose its main differentiator. Would it be able to keep generating a $238 profit per phone (http://www.asymco.com/2010/10/31/making-it-up-in-volume-how-to-view-unit-profitability-vs-volume-in-handsets/)? In light of the fact that Google is giving Android away, it’s highly unlikely.

Android has already won. The battle for market or unit share, that is. Apple will henceforth never sell as many phones. That’s OK because Apple will probably keep generating the lion’s share of profits (http://www.asymco.com/2010/10/30/last-quarter-apple-gained-4-unit-share-22-sales-value-share-and-48-of-profit-share/) by executing a business model proven successful with the Mac.

As it reaches critical mass, Google’s model might indeed become unassailable. No other company will beat Google at its game. Apple has chosen to play a different game that might also be unassailable. They’re two different ways to win. Google will attempt to monetize Android through market share dominance, while Apple will maintain its profit share dominance among hardware makers through innovation and differentiation. Apple’s margins will suffer significantly only if it’s unable to keep offering something different, valued at a premium by consumers.

In short, the article fails to show an institutional dump of Apple shares. It doesn’t even show that the one (marginally competent) institutional manager mentioned for selling did so because of expected margin compression. Moreover, it is misguided in using Android’s unit share dominance to deduce margin compression at Apple. Apple’s profit margin will only suffer significant compression if it fails in the execution of its business model.

To further the analysis, is Google’s licensing model superior to Apple’s integrated model, as many seem to believe? In the personal computer market, Microsoft made money by selling Windows to hardware makers. In the mobile phone market, Google is giving Android away, while planning to monetize market share dominance through services (search and others). The hurdles it faces with this model are not insignificant. Its lack of control over its OS is a liability: witness Verizon’s pre-installation of Bing on some Android phones (http://www.broadbandreports.com/shownews/Verizon-Bing-Wont-Be-Exclusive-On-All-Android-Phones-110294). Its platform is a customizable OS that hardware makers and wireless carriers can tailor to suit their own ends, which may be to Google’s detriment, and they don’t have to pay for it. Its success is far from assured. Might Google be going back to producing its own branded phone because its current strategy is proving difficult to monetize (http://www.engadget.com/2010/11/11/this-is-the-nexus-s/)?

Apple, on the other hand, is already monetizing the iPhone. As a matter of fact, it made as much money in Q3 2010 as all other phone makers combined (http://www.asymco.com/2010/10/30/last-quarter-apple-gained-4-unit-share-22-sales-value-share-and-48-of-profit-share/), in spite of commanding only 4% market share. Apple won both the unit share and profit share battle in MP3 players with the iPod, as no worthy competitor came forth. This is not the case in smart phones with the emergence of Android. Nonetheless, the Mac, with 35% of PC profit share in spite of only 7% market share, has proven that Apple’s model can thrive even in the face of strong competition.

bench craft company rip off

bench craft company rip off
bench craft company rip off

bench craft company rip off

Last week the Parsippany-Troy Hills Board of Education voted 6-2 to renew Superintendent LeRoy Seitz's contract, which included a 2 percent per year salary increase.

What made the contract noteworthy, aside from the dozens of people that spoke out against it and the tongue lashing the Board and the Superintendent received from Gov. Chris Christie was that the contract Seitz is currently working under doesn't expire until July 1, 2011.

The Board began contract negotiations during the summer, at about the same time the Christie administration released information about a plan to cap chief administrator's salaries and tying the numbers to the enrollment in the district.

By finalizing the contract now the Board effectively agreed to give Seitz a salary well above the governor's proposed cap for almost five years.

At the Board meeting Mark Tabakin, the Board attorney, told the gathering of about 90 people that the cap is still in the proposal form, that the contract was approved by the County Executive Superintendent Kathleen Serafino and that it is a legal action. "People are upset," he acknowledged, "but it's up to the will of the Board."

The controversial contract drew township residents and protesters from as far away as Clifton and Hackettstown, who were outraged over the Board's end run around the proposed cap.

At times the dissenters were so vocal Board President Anthony Mancuso, who remained calm and in control throughout the proceedings, had to call for a 10-minute recess to let the outbursts subside. The police were also called during one of the breaks though they never had the need to take action.

When the public was allowed to speak the floodgates opened. Taking a sarcastic tact the first speaker Roman Hoshovsky said, "How can anyone be expected to live on $200,000?" Then he produced an empty canister and proposed using it as a collection jar in businesses around town to raise money for Seitz.

Barbara Hackling pointed out the Board had laid off teachers and refused to negotiate with the paraprofessionals, "but found money for him."

Karen Blunt, a 36-year Parsippany resident and a paraprofessional in the district said, "He is looking out for his future. I haven't had a raise in 4 years who is looking out for my future?"

The day before the meeting Seitz is quoted in the Daily Record as saying, "Because of the proposed salary caps, I have to look at my future and the financial welfare of my family. I certainly would have options if I didn't feel the compensation in this district, or New Jersey, is appropriate."

The governor reacted to Seitz's veiled threats to leave New Jersey and go to a nearby state where there is no state salary. "I will say in response to Mr. Seitz, 'Let me help you pack.' We have real problems in our state that we have to fix and we don't have the time, nor the money, nor the patience any longer for people who put themselves before our citizens," Christie railed.

To support a margin compression theory, the article begins by using institutional selling as proof and presents increasing Android market share as an argument. Let’s take a closer look.

1. Institutional Selling

2. Increased Android Market Share

The author also writes: “…its business model may prove unassailable unless Apple makes some drastic changes (ex. allowing cloning)…”

bench craft company rip off

Monday, November 15, 2010

How to Making Money

No comments:

Post a Comment