Derivation can only be delineated in terms of “time”? Hmmmm…

Baruch, you have not begun to fight!

Dave, everyone knows Newton invented calculus, and that Leibniz copied him, the sad, derivative, flighty nincompoop that he is or was. In fact, the latest, unpublished, biography makes the charge that he had problems with long division. Anyway, as Patton points out, I was right all along.

Interestingly, Spinoza was a trader before he became a philosopher, probably dabbling in West and East India stock, as well as commodities like raisins. I don’t think he did very well, he was trading in a hole.

As for ignoring the smaller stocks, one of the things I want to avoid with this blog is making it too “stocky”, and reducing it to a tip sheet, open to the accusation of punping and dumping the stocks I own and write about. I am fully aware that there are more interesting stocks in the world than the big cap techs, and it is mid cap tech and growth (ex biotech) that we specialise. Looking for these smaller stocks is my day job. Oh the stories I could tell.

That’s why my posts are more about generalities (how I think people value stuff, for instance), in other words the epistemology of investing, and refer to the biggest, most popular stocks everyone, including my friends, talks about, like AAPL and GOOG. In fact, I don’t formally look at AAPL and GOOG at all.

So yes, I guess I, too, am a pedant.

Your point remains valid, and thanks for it.

Fascinating to read that there is a Spinozist investing blog though. Spinoza was one of my favorite classes in college, and I was pleasantly surprised to see him quoted by Benjamin Graham in The Intelligent Investor and the part of Security Analysis I’ve managed to slog through so far.

Good point about the power of accelerating earnings and beating whisper numbers, but I second the poster above who expressed ennui about the two mega caps. Why not turn your attention to the tiny stocks that have a chance of taking off (I’ve mentioned a couple of candidates on my blog)? That’s a lot harder, but as Spinoza said in his Ethics, “all things excellent are as difficult as they are rare”.

Go out and discover the real growth stocks.

But ya i get your post, good stuff :)

so technically that is first derivative? rats.

AAPL does not have no productive, but has destructive value.

Of course, that is from different perspective than pure marketing hot product.

Stumbled on to your blog.

Good luck

1) flat revenue: first derivative (i.e. growth) is zero. The second derivative is also zero.

2) steady growth in revenue (e.g. 38% a quarter). First derivative is a non-zero constant but the second derivative is still zero.

3) increasing growth in revenue (e.g. 10% in Y1, 20% in Y2, 30% in Y3, etc.). First derivative of revenue is increasing linearly. Second derivative of revenue is a non-zero constant.

In my analogy, scenario 2 represents revenue velocity but not acceleration. Scenario 3 is acceleration. I believe scenario 3 is what you’re talking about when referring to the second derivative.

Anyway, ramster, what do you mean by the “acceleration of revenue” rather than the “velocity”? do mean “of revenue growth” than “of revenue”? i don’t know what the “velocity” of revenue is. Does that mean e.g. y-y growth in revenues?

because whatever that number is for AAPL, say 38% last quarter, that number is going up in the collective minds of investors, and this is why AAPL is worth more than GOOG.

maybe it’s the first derivative of growth. oh dear, that would be embarrassing.