Seeking Alpha
View as an RSS Feed

Amvona  

View Amvona's Comments BY TICKER:
Latest  |  Highest rated
  • Cisco Systems: Colossal Free Cash Flows Create a Compelling Opportunity [View article]
    Frank,

    Good article - thanks. You might also like these two articles on CSCO:

    www.amvona.com/blog/in...

    www.amvona.com/blog/in...

    Greg
    amvona.com
    Jul 12, 2011. 10:38 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Lions and Tigers and Cisco Bears, Oh My! [View article]
    Einzling,

    Thank you for your comment and feedback.

    As of last Friday the price has declined about 16% since the article was published, (and even less when the dividend payments are taken into consideration ) - not 25% (perhaps that is a typo?)

    Results have only been announced for one fiscal quarter since the original article was published, yet the article cites a one, ten, and hundred year horizon (see the last paragraph). If we thought the stock, would outperform the market “right away”, we would likely have cited one, ten and hundred month time periods instead.

    If the goal is long term investment with superior returns, wouldn’t it be better to review at an absolute minimum after a year, and then in reference to a major index? Wouldn’t it be ever better to look at an aggregate return over say 5 year blocks of time?

    How is it meaningful to analyze results in what amounts to less than two fiscal quarters? Is that investing or is that trading? Doesn’t trading typically lend itself to diminishing results over time? We hope the article did not come off as being directed towards “traders”.

    We cannot find one reason to sell a stock in less than one year’s time, let alone one fiscal quarter, nor have we discovered a consistently accurate means by which to predict what direction prices are going in the “short term”.

    Is the suggestion that there exists a means by which to consistently and accurately determine what direction prices for a security will go in the short term? If so, we’d like to learn about the procedure… ;o).

    In the meantime, we continue to buy CSCO, and continue to believe that it will outperform the major indexes – our opinion of CSCO’s value hasn’t changed with the market price.

    Again thanks


    Greg
    amvona.com
    Jul 5, 2011. 08:36 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Lions and Tigers and Cisco Bears, Oh My! [View article]
    Thank you for taking the time to comment.

    Not sure what is meant by "assumption" the analysis was based on an assessment of historical performance amongst other things. We do believe CSCO will outperform the market in the future.

    There is no risk of the later issues you raise.

    Once risk is properly understood and you know what you are doing, “conviction” need only play a small role.

    Again thanks,

    Greg
    amvona.com
    Jun 20, 2011. 11:56 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Lions and Tigers and Cisco Bears, Oh My! [View article]
    Thank you for your comment.

    We are still buying CSCO.

    Here are a few questions to consider:

    Should buying a stock at “the” bottom be the objective? Is trying to do something that is impossible on a consistent basis a good use of time?

    Does the price of the shares on any given day (what other people think its worth) change the value of the company? Is there a difference between price and value?

    Is it possible that a determination that someone “paid too much” is premature if just two fiscal quarters have elapsed? Don’t truly great investments span many years, or even decades? (a point made in the original CSCO article).

    In the AAPL example you provide on your bio, if you purchased AAPL at 23, it may have seemed like a good idea to sell at $120, but the value of the shares would have tripled from there if it were held only two more years (thus amplifying the overall return from 23 exponentially).

    In this example two years seems like a very short time to triple an investments value, yet your original investment at 23 took far longer to get to 120? How does it make sense to now be critical after only two quarters?

    You mention on your Bio that this was your “best investment so far”, but with a little patience and large initial investment, it may have been the “only” one needed.

    What are the differences between saying someone “paid to much” for a purchase or someone “accepted too little” for a sale? Do they not both diminish the return? Is either a good use of intellect, if overall one can consistently beat the market over a period of many years, does an examination of timing need to be so hyper critical?

    And if so, to what degree; weeks, days, seconds… Is that investing?

    Our thought is, the longer the time horizon the better. Two quarters is hardly a broad horizon.

    Thank you also for sharing your thoughts on the other points.

    Again thanks,

    Greg
    Amvona.com
    Jun 20, 2011. 09:37 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Lions and Tigers and Cisco Bears, Oh My! [View article]
    Thank you for your comment.

    We are still buying CSCO.

    Here are a few points to consider:

    Is it possible that a determination that someone “paid too much” is premature if just two fiscal quarters have elapsed? Don’t truly great investments span many years, or even decades? (a point made in the original CSCO article).

    In the AAPL example you provide on your bio, if you purchased AAPL at 23, it may have seemed like a good idea to sell at $120, but the value of the shares would have tripled from there if it were held only two more years (thus amplifying the overall return from 23 exponentially).

    In this example two years seems like a very short time to triple an investments value, yet your original investment at 23 took far longer to get to 120? Yet, there are no complaints, because of the benefits of now looking “back”. You mention on your Bio that this was your “best investment so far”, but with a) a little patience and b) depending on the amount originally invested, it may have been the “only” one you needed.

    Should buying a stock at “the” bottom be the objective? Is trying to do something that is impossible on a consistent basis a good use of time?
    Does the price of the shares on any given day (what other people think it’s worth) change the value of the company?

    Is there a difference between price and value?

    Thank you also for sharing your thoughts on the other points.


    Again Thank You,

    Greg
    amvona.com
    Jun 20, 2011. 09:07 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Skechers and the Market's Strange Reaction to Sterne Agee [View article]
    Frank,

    Here is a few consideration:

    1. Are price and value the same thing? Which are you pursuing?

    2. Did the analyst not suggest a "one year price target" has it been one year?

    3. The article did not say the analyst was wrong, only that if he was right, that you ought to take great measures to purchase the shares at $16.00

    4. Value based investment, rarely takes less than a year to be proven right, and usually take 2-3 years. (look at the 5 year averages of Berkshire Hathaway for example, on any given year BKS underperforms the market, but taken in 5 year averages, the market has never beaten BKS) . Since the market is largely speculative, the truth of value investment is inversely proportionate to the “market” – in other words it is likely Chris will be proven quite wise as time passes.

    We marvel that a stock could be purchased, than feelings change so quickly (that is to say, in less time than it take to take advantage of long term capital gains tax), that it would be resold in short time – this behavior is indicative of a purchaser who is not really sure of what they are doing in the first place.

    Greg
    Jun 7, 2011. 08:08 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Lions and Tigers and Cisco Bears, Oh My! [View article]
    Thank you for taking the time to read the article and for your very generous comments – sincerely appreciate it.

    It is refreshing to hear comments from someone who is in the organization.

    So glad you found the article of some use.

    Feel free to stay in touch.

    Again Thank You,

    Greg
    amvona.com
    May 25, 2011. 12:18 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Lions and Tigers and Cisco Bears, Oh My! [View article]
    Thank you for taking the time to read the article and for your thoughtful comments.

    Organic growth may be better, but very difficult and unconventional at that size. The price could go lower? The real question for owners or prospective owners now is “what is it worth”.


    Again thanks,

    Greg
    amvona.com
    May 25, 2011. 12:13 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Lions and Tigers and Cisco Bears, Oh My! [View article]
    Thank you for taking the time to read the article and for your comment.

    What you say is true…. But don’t think CSCO is a “Turkey” ;o)

    Sincerely,

    Greg
    amvona.com
    May 25, 2011. 12:10 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Lions and Tigers and Cisco Bears, Oh My! [View article]
    Thank you for taking the time to read the article and for your generous feedback.

    Feel free to stay in touch

    Again Thanks,

    Sincerely,

    Greg
    amvona.com
    May 23, 2011. 06:24 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Lions and Tigers and Cisco Bears, Oh My! [View article]
    Thank you for taking the time to read the article and to comment.

    Thanks also for the point on the mutual funds – very insightful.

    Sincerely,

    Greg
    amvona.com
    May 23, 2011. 02:12 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Lions and Tigers and Cisco Bears, Oh My! [View article]
    Thank you for taking the time to read the article and to comment.

    Not convinced that intellectual capital is necessarily the differentiator in business. There are many ways to investigate and become familiar with management - carefully analyzing the financials is fact one of those ways. For example, if management were truly incompetent, it would be difficult to consistently grow revenues and sustain a high operating margin.

    CSCO and XOM are very different companies. Here are a few thoughts:

    - XOM has no characteristics of a value oriented investments (large premium already being paid for ownership)
    - XOM is about half as profitable as CSCO
    - Given economies of scale, at what calculus do you think a 405 bln. company can grow in the future?
    - XOM debt exceeds cash by about 30 pts.
    - XOM, unlike CSCO has quite a volatile earnings picture over the last five years and has NOT consistently grown revenue or earnings.

    We think both firms are likely to be around in the next ten years, however, we think CSCO will likely provide the investor today with a superior return over XOM.

    Sincerely,

    Greg
    www.amvona.com/
    May 20, 2011. 09:40 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Lions and Tigers and Cisco Bears, Oh My! [View article]
    Thank you for taking the time to read the article and to comment.

    Your points are very good, and we share them.

    These “old tech” companies are now larger and more profitable than they were “back then”, they just happen to be out of vogue at the moment. There is much that can be said regarding LNKD and NFLX – more than can be accommodated here.

    Very interesting and true point that “without “old tech” there can be no “new tech” – e.g. - note the age of AT & T (and other traditional phone carriers), and the minor issue that not one iPhone would function without them.

    As it has also been said:

    “What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun.”

    Feel free to stay in touch

    Again Thanks,

    Greg
    amvona.com
    May 19, 2011. 06:17 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Lions and Tigers and Cisco Bears, Oh My! [View article]
    Thank you for taking the time to read the article and to comment.

    Yes, the idea of being greedy when others are afraid and vice-versa is sound and simple.

    Mastering securities analysis is a matter of repetition, while the ability to restrain oneself at one moment, or act decisively at another, seems to be a personality trait (can not be learned).

    Time will tell whether or not Mr. Chambers will be able to effect change in the organization, perhaps he will succeed?

    Again Thanks,

    Greg
    www.amvona.com/
    May 19, 2011. 05:56 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Lions and Tigers and Cisco Bears, Oh My! [View article]
    Thank you for taking the time to read the article and for the generous feedback.

    Viral is good… ;o)

    Feel free to stay in touch

    Warmest Regards,

    Greg
    amvona.com
    May 19, 2011. 05:46 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
COMMENTS STATS
233 Comments
39 Likes