 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Obviously if the company is
>> successful the shares will become more valuable and you can make a
>> profit by selling them later.
>
> This is not obvious to me.
Which bit? You own a fixed proportion of a company, if the company
becomes hugely more successful, the value of your proportion increases.
> Now you're talking. You mean to say that you can make money simply by
> owning a share? (As opposed to trading it.)
Yes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dividend
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> This is not obvious to me.
>
> Which bit?
The bit where a piece of paper has value because the company who's name
is printed on it has value.
>> Now you're talking. You mean to say that you can make money simply by
>> owning a share? (As opposed to trading it.)
>
> Yes.
Right. So a share has value because you can earn money from it. And the
value varies according to how profitable the company is because that
money comes from the company's profits.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 2/9/2011 10:43 AM, Invisible wrote:
> On 09/02/2011 04:09 PM, Darren New wrote:
>> Invisible wrote:
>>>> Oh man, that's expensive! ;-)
>>
>> Hopefully you realize that each of these costs probably less than a
>> week's salary of the person using it, right? :-)
>
> ...there are people who use colour-calibrated monitors?
I do... Though I can't afford one with built in calibration, I use an
external device to calibrate my monitor. It gets close, but no exact. I
just switched from one with a fluorescent backlight to one with an LED
backlight, and am still getting used to the color rendering of it (I'm
not sure, but I suspect my colorimeter may be trying to compensate for
the fluorescent green peak when set to measure an LCD.
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 2/10/2011 3:25 AM, Invisible wrote:
> I'm having a hard time believing that just because somebody is a
> "professional photographer" they can afford to blow £1k on a monitor.
> And let's face it, it isn't actually going to help them take better photos.
An individual would probably not purchase said monitor, but a marketing
department, advertising company, photo studio or lab would definitely
have one on hand.
I wish I could afford such a monitor, it would be nice.
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 2/10/2011 10:50 AM, Invisible wrote:
> Well, hypothetically you can match them. But sure, I have to wonder how
> close the match would actually look...
>
CMYK gamut is quite a bit narrower than sRGB (what most monitors are, I
don't know about the high-end monitors, but I imagine they are close to
sRGB, or AdobeRGB) The tricky part is setting up your proofing
environment to match the black and white points accurately.
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 2/11/2011 2:58 AM, Invisible wrote:
> Well, apparently $850 works out to about £500. That I could just about
> afford. Maybe. (At the end of a long list of other stuff I still want to
> buy...)
:D I own a Canon 7D, a 40D, a few lenses. Tam 17-50 f/2.8, Canon 70-200
f/4, Sigma 10-20 (I forget the aperture range on this one, I want to say
f/3.5 5.6, doesn't matter, that isn't relevant when there's so few
designs with such a focal length range, some extender tubes, a few
flashes, a 50mm f/1.8, and some various adapter rings and polarizing
filter.
Actually, If I didn't spend so much on camera gear, I could probably
afford the monitor, but built-in calibration isn't a priority, and I'm
not doing any serious marketing work. Besides, my wife would be out for
blood if I dropped $1500 on a monitor :D
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le 14/02/2011 13:12, Invisible a écrit :
>>> Now you're talking. You mean to say that you can make money simply by
>>> owning a share? (As opposed to trading it.)
>>
>> Yes.
>
> Right. So a share has value because you can earn money from it. And the
> value varies according to how profitable the company is because that
> money comes from the company's profits.
Well, the initial value of the share is the portion of the capital it
represents: If the company has a registered capital of 10 Millions, and
the original owner want to put 40% on the market, the initial emission
of the capital stock will be valued for 4 Millions. The number of shares
simply divide that amount.
It is sometimes more efficient to make many share at 4€/$ than just a
few at 4000€/$ : the market is more receptive (the small traders cannot
afford a 4000€/$ one, whereas they can take a lot of 4$/€ ones!)
One second after the delivery of the share to the market, a share is
worth only what other traders are ready to buy it at. They usually
forget the initial price and looks only at the ratio of dividend/price.
Dividend: each year (usually), the benefit from the company get
distributed (re-invested, salary-raise and share holders). The part for
the share holder is the dividend. The dividend may be paid in cash or
with more shares! (company's choice, not share's holder unless company
decides so). Which means that no dividend is bad for the value of the
share...
Let's look at a case: Eurotunnel (tunnel under the channel)...
Introduced at about 8, IIRC, while the tunnel was not yet done.
No dividend before the tunnel could exist, but large promise of benefits
in future (including free pass...).
Price went up to 76 over a few years.
(so, if you had bought at 8 and were selling at 76... yummy! that was
about 900% benefit! Your house of 1 Million became a castle of 10
Millions (with a park!) ! Even with inflation, very yummy...).
Events happened...
Shares get bought back (or forever lost) at 0.02 !
If you bought at 8, from 1 Million only remains 2500.
If you bought at 70 (oh, lucky, get on the wagon now!), from 1 Million
only remains less than 300!
I have the 300, can I get the million please ?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 2/11/2011 3:14 AM, Invisible wrote:
>> If your local paper has any colour pages then surely they will, the
>> advertisers will demand it to ensure their company colours are correct.
>
> Surely you don't actually need an expensive specially calibrated monitor
> just to ensure that IBM Blue comes out as IBM Blue. Presumably there are
> standardised ways of describing specific print colours, and the
> advertisers will just tell you what colour they want according to some
> such standard.
>
No, they could give you the coordinates in CIE L*a*b, either that or you
take a photospectrometer to a swatch they sent you, which would cost
roughly the same as the monitor with built-in calibration.
> Now there's something I hadn't thought of... For most magazines, exact
> colour probably isn't critical. But how about those huge colour
> photographs that shops sometimes have on their walls? I guess you
> *might* conceivably want precise colour matching for that.
Really, any time you have a photo (or really, anything else) printed
(even, say someone's portrait) you want to use calibrated color. Here's
the deal: When adjusting the color balance and tone density of a photo,
you want to be sure that 1) the picture will appear on paper without
losing any detail in shadows or highlights, 2) [Most critical to have a
calibrated monitor for] the color balance is correct. If you're
adjusting color on an LCD monitor and that monitor has a green cast,
your perception will shift, once you have the picture balanced the way
you think it should be, and you send it to a press or lab for printing,
or e-mail the image to a friend, you'll soon discover that on all of the
other media, even though the picture looks fine on your screen, the
shadows are blocked up, the midtones are too dark, and everything looks
like it was tinted with a bit of pepto-bismol (everything's magenta).
That is why you want a calibrated screen.
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 2/10/2011 10:42 AM, Darren New wrote:
>
> Compliant Standards - TUV, CCC, RoHS, CE MDD
>
> I'm guessing MDD is medical diagnostic device, for example.
>
Not only that, but for use in a medical context, every component in that
device must be certified for medical use. This means extensive testing
and underwriting. Lots of salaries being paid on that one, Medical has
some extremely strict standards for reliability. Ever notice when you
look at datasheets for electronic components, they have a disclaimer on
most that state they are not intended for use in military and medical
applications. Usually mil-spec has extended requirements for stability
at different environmental and voltages, Medical, too. And in some
cases, they'll need even tighter tolerances on output and stability.
Though, you can buy some mil-spec components they are quite a bit more
expensive. Medical-level screening would probably be even more
expensive. People get a little touchy when lives are at stake.
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 14/02/2011 01:51 PM, Le_Forgeron wrote:
> I have the 300, can I get the million please ?
Required XKCD quote: http://xkcd.com/592/
(Check out the alt text.)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
