Ownership of Microsoft

Robin T Cox wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 20:45:01 +0000, Tim Smith wrote:
>
>> 59% of Microsoft stock is owned by institutional investors and mutual
>> funds.
>>
>> 14% is owned by insiders and 5% owners.
>
> Link?

http://finance.yahoo.com/q/mh?s=MSFT

"Nedd Ludd" <1313 DeleteThis @Mockingbird.ln> wrote in message
news:P9idnQ6ie9mGTALbnZ2dnUVZ_jmdnZ2d@comcast.com...
> Robin T Cox wrote:
>> On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 20:45:01 +0000, Tim Smith wrote:
>>
>>> 59% of Microsoft stock is owned by institutional investors and mutual
>>> funds.
>>>
>>> 14% is owned by insiders and 5% owners.
>>
>> Link?
>
> http://finance.yahoo.com/q/mh?s=MSFT


I followed your link and all I can say is wow.

There are over 1,500 institutions that own Microsoft stock. Are all these
institutions wrong and have no idea what they're doing. Or are the 6
anonymous posters here in COLA the ones who don't know what they're talking
about when they say that Microsoft is doomed and is collapsing.

Then I look at the top companies that own Microsoft stock.

Capital research owns over $14 Billion dollars of stock. Barclays UK Ltd
owns over $11 Billion dollars of stock. There's more than half a dozen
companies each of which have over a billion dollars of there own money
invested in Microsoft.

Anyone with that big of an investment probably did their homework. I mean
c'mon, you just don't one day decide to invest $14 Billion dollars into a
company without doing a LOT of homework first. And the people who do this
homework/research are probably damn good at what they do. With this sort of
money at stake their carreers are probably on the line too.

So if these guys with 10's of billions of dollars at stake think that
Microsoft is a solid investment then you sort of got to believe them. I mean
they are more likely to know what the hell they're talking about than some
nameless, faceless bozo here who posts a link to a blog entry in Canaduh
that claims Microsoft is in trouble. Because if anything it looks like they
are doing better than ever.





--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 17:12:25 -0400, Dr. McGillicudy wrote:

> "Nedd Ludd" <1313.DeleteThis@Mockingbird.ln> wrote in message
> news:P9idnQ6ie9mGTALbnZ2dnUVZ_jmdnZ2d@comcast.com...
>> Robin T Cox wrote:
>>> On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 20:45:01 +0000, Tim Smith wrote:
>>>
>>>> 59% of Microsoft stock is owned by institutional investors and mutual
>>>> funds.
>>>>
>>>> 14% is owned by insiders and 5% owners.
>>>
>>> Link?
>>
>> http://finance.yahoo.com/q/mh?s=MSFT
>
>
> I followed your link and all I can say is wow.
>
> There are over 1,500 institutions that own Microsoft stock. Are all these
> institutions wrong and have no idea what they're doing. Or are the 6
> anonymous posters here in COLA the ones who don't know what they're talking
> about when they say that Microsoft is doomed and is collapsing.
>
> Then I look at the top companies that own Microsoft stock.
>
> Capital research owns over $14 Billion dollars of stock. Barclays UK Ltd
> owns over $11 Billion dollars of stock. There's more than half a dozen
> companies each of which have over a billion dollars of there own money
> invested in Microsoft.
>
> Anyone with that big of an investment probably did their homework. I mean
> c'mon, you just don't one day decide to invest $14 Billion dollars into a
> company without doing a LOT of homework first. And the people who do this
> homework/research are probably damn good at what they do. With this sort of
> money at stake their carreers are probably on the line too.
>
> So if these guys with 10's of billions of dollars at stake think that
> Microsoft is a solid investment then you sort of got to believe them. I mean
> they are more likely to know what the hell they're talking about than some
> nameless, faceless bozo here who posts a link to a blog entry in Canaduh
> that claims Microsoft is in trouble. Because if anything it looks like they
> are doing better than ever.
>
>
>
>
>

Don't forget that they can also take out their money as fast as they put
it in.

And some faceless, nameless bozo who thinks that an investment decision
represents a judgement as to product excellence simply doesn't know what
they are talking about. Investors follow market trends, that's all.

Robin T Cox wrote:

> On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 17:12:25 -0400, Dr. McGillicudy wrote:
>
>> "Nedd Ludd" <1313 RemoveThis @Mockingbird.ln> wrote in message
>> news:P9idnQ6ie9mGTALbnZ2dnUVZ_jmdnZ2d@comcast.com...
>>> Robin T Cox wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 20:45:01 +0000, Tim Smith wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> 59% of Microsoft stock is owned by institutional investors and mutual
>>>>> funds.
>>>>>
>>>>> 14% is owned by insiders and 5% owners.
>>>>
>>>> Link?
>>>
>>> http://finance.yahoo.com/q/mh?s=MSFT
>>
>>
>> I followed your link and all I can say is wow.
>>
>> There are over 1,500 institutions that own Microsoft stock. Are all these
>> institutions wrong and have no idea what they're doing.

Don't know? Ask the institutions that invested in Enron or Worldcom. I'm
sure they were just as brilliant as these investors.

Cheers.

--
The "Wow" starts now.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KyLqUf4cdwc&eurl=

"No sane person wants Vista, so Microsoft is making sure they have no
choice."
http://www.aaxnet.com/editor/edit043.html

Robin T Cox wrote:

> On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 17:12:25 -0400, Dr. McGillicudy wrote:
>
>> "Nedd Ludd" <1313 RemoveThis @Mockingbird.ln> wrote in message
>> news:P9idnQ6ie9mGTALbnZ2dnUVZ_jmdnZ2d@comcast.com...
>>> Robin T Cox wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 20:45:01 +0000, Tim Smith wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> 59% of Microsoft stock is owned by institutional investors and mutual
>>>>> funds.
>>>>>
>>>>> 14% is owned by insiders and 5% owners.
>>>>
>>>> Link?
>>>
>>> http://finance.yahoo.com/q/mh?s=MSFT
>>
>>
>> I followed your link and all I can say is wow.
>>
>> There are over 1,500 institutions that own Microsoft stock. Are all these
>> institutions wrong and have no idea what they're doing. Or are the 6
>> anonymous posters here in COLA the ones who don't know what they're
>> talking about when they say that Microsoft is doomed and is collapsing.
>>
>> Then I look at the top companies that own Microsoft stock.
>>
>> Capital research owns over $14 Billion dollars of stock. Barclays UK Ltd
>> owns over $11 Billion dollars of stock. There's more than half a dozen
>> companies each of which have over a billion dollars of there own money
>> invested in Microsoft.
>>
>> Anyone with that big of an investment probably did their homework. I mean
>> c'mon, you just don't one day decide to invest $14 Billion dollars into a
>> company without doing a LOT of homework first. And the people who do this
>> homework/research are probably damn good at what they do. With this sort
>> of money at stake their carreers are probably on the line too.
>>
>> So if these guys with 10's of billions of dollars at stake think that
>> Microsoft is a solid investment then you sort of got to believe them. I
>> mean they are more likely to know what the hell they're talking about
>> than some nameless, faceless bozo here who posts a link to a blog entry
>> in Canaduh that claims Microsoft is in trouble. Because if anything it
>> looks like they are doing better than ever.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> Don't forget that they can also take out their money as fast as they put
> it in.
>
> And some faceless, nameless bozo who thinks that an investment decision
> represents a judgement as to product excellence simply doesn't know what
> they are talking about. Investors follow market trends, that's all.

That's right, they follow the money, the product is irrelevant.

Plus it doesn't tell us how long these companies have been investors, they
might have bought their shares when MS was just a twinkle in Bill's eyes.


Can't help noticing that Bill has made a great deal of money over the last
year selling his shares.

http://finance.yahoo.com/q/it?s=MSFT

Robin T Cox <nomail RemoveThis @nomail.net> writes:

> On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 17:12:25 -0400, Dr. McGillicudy wrote:
>
>> "Nedd Ludd" <1313 RemoveThis @Mockingbird.ln> wrote in message
>> news:P9idnQ6ie9mGTALbnZ2dnUVZ_jmdnZ2d@comcast.com...
>>> Robin T Cox wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 20:45:01 +0000, Tim Smith wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> 59% of Microsoft stock is owned by institutional investors and mutual
>>>>> funds.
>>>>>
>>>>> 14% is owned by insiders and 5% owners.
>>>>
>>>> Link?
>>>
>>> http://finance.yahoo.com/q/mh?s=MSFT
>>
>>
>> I followed your link and all I can say is wow.
>>
>> There are over 1,500 institutions that own Microsoft stock. Are all these
>> institutions wrong and have no idea what they're doing. Or are the 6
>> anonymous posters here in COLA the ones who don't know what they're talking
>> about when they say that Microsoft is doomed and is collapsing.
>>
>> Then I look at the top companies that own Microsoft stock.
>>
>> Capital research owns over $14 Billion dollars of stock. Barclays UK Ltd
>> owns over $11 Billion dollars of stock. There's more than half a dozen
>> companies each of which have over a billion dollars of there own money
>> invested in Microsoft.
>>
>> Anyone with that big of an investment probably did their homework. I mean
>> c'mon, you just don't one day decide to invest $14 Billion dollars into a
>> company without doing a LOT of homework first. And the people who do this
>> homework/research are probably damn good at what they do. With this sort of
>> money at stake their carreers are probably on the line too.
>>
>> So if these guys with 10's of billions of dollars at stake think that
>> Microsoft is a solid investment then you sort of got to believe them. I mean
>> they are more likely to know what the hell they're talking about than some
>> nameless, faceless bozo here who posts a link to a blog entry in Canaduh
>> that claims Microsoft is in trouble. Because if anything it looks like they
>> are doing better than ever.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> Don't forget that they can also take out their money as fast as they put
> it in.
>
> And some faceless, nameless bozo who thinks that an investment decision
> represents a judgement as to product excellence simply doesn't know what
> they are talking about. Investors follow market trends, that's all.

This coming from the guy who doesn't know how much training costs in a
modern company?

LOL. Well done. You're rapidly overtaking Mark Kent as the court jester.

"Investors follow market trends, that's all"

**rotflm**

BearItAll <spam.RemoveThis@rassler.co.uk> writes:

> Robin T Cox wrote:
>
>>
>> Don't forget that they can also take out their money as fast as they put
>> it in.
>>
>> And some faceless, nameless bozo who thinks that an investment decision
>> represents a judgement as to product excellence simply doesn't know what
>> they are talking about. Investors follow market trends, that's all.
>
> That's right, they follow the money, the product is irrelevant.

They follow the money. Theproduct is irrelevant? Say What? How clueless
are you?

Them following the money in an indicator that they think their money is
in safe hands. In other words the products work and sell. Only in COLA
is this disputed.

>
> Plus it doesn't tell us how long these companies have been investors, they
> might have bought their shares when MS was just a twinkle in Bill's
> eyes.

So you agree that they are long term MS supporters? Good .....

>
>
> Can't help noticing that Bill has made a great deal of money over the last
> year selling his shares.
>
> http://finance.yahoo.com/q/it?s=MSFT
>

You have amazing insight. Did you work that out all by yourself?

--

On Aug 5, 12:18 pm, "DFS" <nospam.RemoveThis@dfs_.com> wrote:
>You're talking
> many billions (maybe low trillions?) of dollars to rewrite millions of
> commercial and custom/internal/corporate apps, and to rip out/replace entire
> corporate IT infrastructures.

When deemed necessary it's happened many times.

As in the conversion to PC/workgroup applications in the early 1980s,
and in the conversion to web application java servers in the late 90s
(PeopleSoft, BEA, etc).

As a developer, you should be preparing for and welcoming Linux.

On Jul 19, 2:12 pm, "Dr. McGillicudy" <Wh... DeleteThis @gmail.com> wrote:

> There are over 1,500 institutions that own Microsoft stock. Are all these
> institutions wrong and have no idea what they're doing.

You say "institutions" as if the money comes from nowhere.

You couldn't be more wrong.

Bill Gates has been extracting dollars from the middle class 401k and
IRA investor who has no idea what his mutual fund manager is doing
with his money ever since 2000.

These institutions represent the dollars and pennies of millions of
middle class people.

Microsoft/Bill Gates/MSFT is like that old scheme where the guy shaves
off a fraction of an interest and puts it in his account.

The man in the street who invests in the DOW by virtue of his fund
would see a 10% increase versus an 11% increase because MSFT drags
down the DOW.

On Aug 5, 1:11 pm, "DFS" <nospam RemoveThis @dfs_.com> wrote:

> Shouldn't you take your own advice - you still use Windows all day at work
> for development.

My most recent application was a dojo based JSON/AJAX
application...delivered from WebLogic server that consumed a c# web
service linked to an i5 running OS400.


> And while I do welcome the choice of an "alternative" to MS, there's not
> much point in preparing for something that isn't going to happen.

See you at the races.

On Aug 5, 1:11 pm, "DFS" <nospam RemoveThis @dfs_.com> wrote:

> A different OS and apps and games is very far from necessary.

The most successful company of the 21st century is Google -- a Linux
company.

No company hoping to compete with Google can ever use an OS buy open
source Linux.

Costs alone would prevent them from being competitive.

John Bailo, Texeme.Construct wrote:
> On Aug 5, 12:18 pm, "DFS" <nospam.DeleteThis@dfs_.com> wrote:
>> You're talking
>> many billions (maybe low trillions?) of dollars to rewrite millions
>> of commercial and custom/internal/corporate apps, and to rip
>> out/replace entire corporate IT infrastructures.
>
> When deemed necessary it's happened many times.

A different OS and apps and games is very far from necessary.



> As in the conversion to PC/workgroup applications in the early 1980s,
> and in the conversion to web application java servers in the late 90s
> (PeopleSoft, BEA, etc).
>
> As a developer, you should be preparing for and welcoming Linux.

Shouldn't you take your own advice - you still use Windows all day at work
for development.

And while I do welcome the choice of an "alternative" to MS, there's not
much point in preparing for something that isn't going to happen.

John Bailo, Texeme.Construct wrote:
> On Aug 5, 1:11 pm, "DFS" <nospam.TakeThisOut@dfs_.com> wrote:
>
>> A different OS and apps and games is very far from necessary.
>
> The most successful company of the 21st century is Google -- a Linux
> company.

MS is far more successful than Google since 2000, but MS is not the most
successful US company (that would be oil companies as a whole).



> No company hoping to compete with Google can ever use an OS buy open
> source Linux.
>
> Costs alone would prevent them from being competitive.

Google kicks ass, but MSN Search doesn't have to pay MS $300 a license for
Windows servers hosting their search engines.

It's not software costs, it's search results. Google offers the best search
results (in my experience).