A couple of weeks ago, I put the challenge to readers to come up with a better name for the new Google site in San Jose than the Diridon Station Area, the clunky bureaucratic stand-in now appearing on city documents.
The contest struck a chord. I got well more than 300 suggestions, often multiple ideas from the same person. Recently column is the second step: I’m inviting readers to vote among the top three names chosen by my committee of friends and ink-stained wretches.
Before getting to the final three, a word of explanation: We largely cut names that referred explicitly to Google, like “Googleville,’’ which may yet prove to have public sticking power.
No deal has been reached between the city and Google for the development, which is predictable to have as much as 8 million square feet of office. Technology changes constantly. Google may be something else in 30 years.
The Google Pixel phones are kind of pricey too, even more so when you factor in The Big G’s old Nexus phones. You still have TONS of cheaper options, especially in the Android space, but if you want a flagship phone in 2017 you are going to have to pay a big premium for it.
You could grab the OnePlus 5, of course, which is cheaper than most new, flagship handsets (though, again, it is more expensive that the OnePlus 3T). But I personally think there is a niche here that Google could exploit with its Pixel phones.
Everybody loved the old Nexus phones; they weren’t the best but they delivered where it counted – value for money and usability. The Nexus 6P was expensive, and rightly so, given its specs, but the most popular Nexus of all time was, of course, the Nexus 5.
Rumours suggest Google is prepping as many as three Pixels for 2017, and my hope is that one of them is a mid-range, sub-$450, offering. Google is uniquely positioned to do this as well because it makes enough money with Android to take any potential financial shortcomings on the chin.
This is all conjecture on my part, obviously. I cannot really see Google going back to its old Nexus days, even if it were for just one of the three Pixel phones coming in 2017, but it would certainly be a nice surprise if it did. Even more so when you factor in how expensive the two most popular phones in the world have become.
Technical Analysis of these three following stocks:-
Next noteworthy mover is Synchrony Financial (NYSE:SYF) with a loss of -3.07%, moving its past 5-day performance to -1.97%. Currently the stock price is moving -22.95% off from the highest level of twelve months and +12.73% above from twelve months low. Its weekly and monthly volatility is 2.64%, 2.15% respectively.
Dicks Sporting Goods Inc (NYSE:DKS) dropped -8.40% and is at $33.81. The total traded volume was 5.22 million shares and market capitalization arrived at $3.80 Billion. The Company has a Return on Assets of 6.90%. The company currently has a Return on Equity of 15.20% and Return on Investment of 14.40%.
Debt/Equity Ratio is a debt ratio used to measure a company’s financial leverage, calculated by dividing a company’s total liabilities by its stockholders’ equity. The D/E ratio indicates how much debt a company is using to finance its assets relative to the amount of value represented in shareholders’ equity.
The formula for calculating D/E ratios can be represented in the following way:
Debt – Equity Ratio = Total Liabilities / Shareholders’ Equity
The result may often be Expressed as a percentage, the debt-to-equity ratio shows the proportion of equity and debt a firm is using to finance its assets, and the extent to which shareholder’s equity can fulfill obligations to creditors in the event of a business decline.
According to that information or Formula, Dicks Sporting Goods Inc (NYSE:DKS) ‘s Total debt to equity ratio for most recent quarter is 0.05 whereas long term debt to equity ratio for most recent quarter is 0.05.
Plains GP Holdings LP (NYSE:PAGP) increased 0.86% and is at $21.15, while it is trading in the range of $20.95-$21.79. Currently, 1.30% shares of the Company are owned by insiders with 85.80% six-month change in the insider ownership. The Company’s price to free cash flow for trailing twelve months is 0.00.
The quick ratio, also known as the acid-test ratio, is a liquidity ratio that further refines the current ratio by measuring the level of the most liquid current assets accessible to cover current liabilities. The quick ratio is more conservative than the current ratio because it excludes inventory and other current assets, which generally are more difficult to turn into cash. A higher quick ratio means a more liquid current position.
The formula for calculating a company’s quick ratio is:
(Cash equivalents + marketable securities + accounts receivables) divided by current liabilities
Inventory is generally considered to be less liquid than these other current assets.
A rule of thumb is that a quick ratio greater than 1.0 means that a company is sufficiently able to meet its short-term obligations.
What it tells us
A low and/or decreasing quick ratio might be delivering several messages about a company. It could be telling us that the company’s balance sheet is over-leveraged. Or it could be saying the company’s sales are decreasing, the company is having a hard time collecting its account receivables or perhaps the company is paying its bills too quickly.
A company with a high and/or increasing quick ratio is likely experiencing revenue growth, collecting its accounts receivable and turning them into cash quickly and likely turning over its inventories quickly.
Plains GP Holdings LP (NYSE:PAGP)’s quick ratio for most recent quarter is 0.70 along with current ratio for most recent quarter of 1.00. Current ratio (also known as working capital ratio) is a popular tool to evaluate short-term solvency position of a business. Short-term solvency refers to the ability of a business to pay its short-term obligations when they become due. (Current ratio is computed by dividing total current assets by total current liabilities of the business.)
DISCLAIMER: This article is published by journalfinance.net. The content included in this article is just for informational purposes only. Journalfinance.net takes sensible consideration to ensure that the data given in this article is up to date and accurate. The news, prices, opinions, research, analysis, and other information published in this article are obtained from sources believed to be reliable. Neither Journalfinance.net nor any of Journalfinance.net partners make any representation or guarantee as to the fulfillment or precision of the information contained in this article. Read more.