Seeking Alpha
View as an RSS Feed

Christopher Waller  

View Christopher Waller's Comments BY TICKER:

Latest  |  Highest rated
  • Regardless Of Price, Apple's Intrinsic Value Is Still On Its Way To $1,000 [View article]
    Hi Valuentum,

    Thank you for the article. You assume that Apple's profit margins remain around 23%. Yet Apple themselves have projected Gross margins to fall by 10 percentage points in Q2 2013 YoY, which combined with their other estimates translates into profit margin of around 20%. Given that many believe margins will only get tighter, how can you justify a 23.6% profit margin in 2014? Isn't it the case that the decline in margins will outpace the growth in revenues?

    Best,
    Chris
    Jan 30, 2013. 11:23 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Google-Motorola Merger: Bold Predictions, Part II [View article]
    Really excellent article. I wonder does merging with Motorola now give Google the expertise to produce a 'Google phone' (not just a motorola or HTC running Android) that could directly compete with the iPhone as a device that had its hardware and software designed together? If so do you think this would be a good move? Thanks.
    Feb 24, 2012. 03:29 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Why Apple Has Reached A Crossroad And Needs iTV [View article]
    Thanks for commenting 33_Alph,. I think you make a good point. One point I made in a comment above is that actually changes in UI have often come with changes in hardware, e.g iPhone and touch screen. But I think it is interesting to note the changes in UI over time, with SIRI being the lastest version, and I might write an article about user interfaces more generally in the near future.
    Feb 22, 2012. 12:12 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Why Apple Has Reached A Crossroad And Needs iTV [View article]
    This is a good point and it will be interesting to see how far SIRI can go. Many of the innovations in terms of user interface have occurred with hardware innovation. e.g iphone and touch screen.
    Feb 22, 2012. 11:52 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Why Google Beats Facebook As A Phil Fischer Stock [View article]
    I will probably write an article on this soon, but essentially I believe that Microsoft is a very different type of company to Google or Apple, so it isn't necessarily contradictory to hold both. Microsoft has delivered steadily growing returns for some time now, and for similar reasons to the ones J. A. Saglimbeni says below, at these prices I believe it to be undervalued.
    Feb 9, 2012. 03:29 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Why Google Beats Facebook As A Phil Fischer Stock [View article]
    Google+ is probably the toughest competition Facebook will face in the next few years, it will be interesting to see which comes out on top.
    Feb 8, 2012. 12:40 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Why Google Beats Facebook As A Phil Fischer Stock [View article]
    Thanks. I wouldn't read too much into one quarter's numbers - revenue growth for the year was still 29%. The report on the developing products of Android, Google+ and Chrome were actually quite encouraging. They don't translate into profits at the moment, but I would argue are more important in the long run.
    Feb 8, 2012. 12:19 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Why Google Beats Facebook As A Phil Fischer Stock [View article]
    Thanks for reading and commenting,

    I agree that Facebook's moat has widened with each new feature they have added - whether this is enough or not we will see in the coming months as Google also adds features to Plus. Yet in 3-5 years time Facebook will have to enter other markets to keep up their rate of profit growth.

    It's also true that Google's other products, like Android, are currently generating profits by directing consumers back to search, but soon Google will be able to charge producers a fee for Android itself. This is also potentially true of Chrome OS.
    Feb 8, 2012. 12:09 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Gold Is Not Money [View article]
    mbcy,

    I write that "you can use a $10 this is practically impossible with gold". By this I mean that you would not be able to buy $10 worth of goods in a store with gold, because this would require you to use around 0.00625 oz of gold, which in pratical terms is impossible for your average shopkeeper to measure. Therefore, in this case currency acts as a better medium of exchange. Clearly, measuring out "$ 0.0001" worth of gold is even more impossible.

    "is there any fundamental basis for a paper" -- I agree that there is little but the promise of the issuer. But this is why money is simply a theoretical concept that in reality is not present in any perfect form. As long as everyone has confidence that these promises are credible, the system works, whether with currency, gold or sea shells. My argument is not that currency is a superior form of money to gold, but simply that they are both similarly flawed. Therefore, gold is not superior.

    Gold "is fixed value of the US dollar"--- I don't understand what you're saying here. Clearly, the price of gold is floating against the $.
    Jul 20, 2011. 04:51 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Gold Is Not Money [View article]
    "I guess that you will never understand"--??

    "The elites, like Krugman"-- Krugman has chosen academia over higher paying jobs working for companies, or political and economy power through working for either the government or the FED. How is he an elite?

    "the great Keynesian fallacy that money printing will cure all"---unless I have misread you, I believe that money printing is Monetarist rather than Keynesian. The opposite side to Krugman.

    "latest FED induced depression"---Many would argue that the FED prevented depression.(Too big a topic to discuss here). Either way, the FED is ,again, part of monetary rather than Keynesian policy.
    Jul 19, 2011. 04:09 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Gold Is Not Money [View article]
    Perfect money is generally defined as a perfect unit of account, medium of exchange and store of value. (apologies if I'm being patronizing here).

    Gold, like currency, is a perfect unit of account.

    As you state, it is often an >equally< good medium of exchange. I would add that whilst you can use a $10 this is practically impossible with gold.

    But is there any fundamental basis for a metal that has limited practical use to be worth $1600/oz? Whilst some cite fear etc, the fact that gold is used as the standard defense is simply psychological. Gold as an element has few(if any) chemical properties that make it a better defense against inflation than other metals such as silver, platinum or copper. Even if it was fundamental, this is not an argument for $1600 over $3000 or $500/oz. Therefore, gold is a highly imperfect store of value. (like currency).

    This suggests that gold is an EQUAL, if not poorer, form of money that currency. The annoyance with 'Gold Bugs' is that they suggest it is SUPERIOR.
    Jul 19, 2011. 03:59 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Gold Is Not Money [View article]
    Paul Krugman argued convincingly some years ago that Gold isn't money:

    www.slate.com/id/1912/

    The part on gold starts half way down.
    Jul 19, 2011. 01:53 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • 3 Reasons Why Silver Is a Better Short Than Gold [View article]
    You are seriously limiting your perspective by looking at a decade instead of all the available data.

    You write --- "For almost a decade, silver has been rising at the same or at a slower pace than gold...If the price pattern is to reverse to the norm, the price of silver must drop substantially."

    Buy If we look at the last century instead of decade of gold/silver we see that silver is historically undervalued. A reverse to the norm would lead to an substantial rise!
    Jul 5, 2011. 05:18 PM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • RIM Proves Why You Can't Just Pay Attention to Fundamentals [View article]
    To suggest at the beginning that Warren Buffett is a better investor "because he's got more capital" is ridiculous. Buffett has stated many times that he suffers massive diseconomies of scale because there are far fewer stocks he can choose from than the average investor. Furthermore, we can see that his investment returns were significantly better when he sums of capital were smaller.
    Jun 17, 2011. 11:33 AM | 3 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • The Dow and the Economy: A Misunderstood Relationship [View article]
    My main argument is that whilst an economy and its stock market tend to move together in the very long run, they can diverge significantly over a period of 2 decades. This is true whether we look at the US economy and the Dow (or S&P), the UK economy and the FTSE 100, or the global economy and the MSCI World Index. I think your response is that because the Dow now comprises of globalised companies, any comparison with the US economy has become less relevant. I admit that this is true. However:
    1. If we were to compare the global economy with the Dow, we would still find a very similar relationship of significant divergences. Therefore, I think my conclusion that "a ‘Buy and Hold’ strategy based on economy history may be foolish" still holds true.
    2. You mention the "current 'economic morass" and that it makes no sense to buy a Dow Index ETF. Firstly, I think that given the time horizon of my recommendation I think these problems are likely to abate. But far more importantly, I have stated that stock markets diverge from the economy in the past and that we may be about to experience a position divergence. I agree that this appears illogical, but it has occurred several times in the past.
    Jun 14, 2011. 11:53 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
COMMENTS STATS
24 Comments
16 Likes