Seeking Alpha

Joseph Cafariello

View as an RSS Feed
View Joseph Cafariello's Comments BY TICKER:
Latest  |  Highest rated
  • Comparing America's New Big 3 Automakers [View article]
    Thank-you. In the future, please try not to be so accusatory. Statements like, "Don't write an article pretending that you are knowledgeable about the subject," are really quite unfounded. I never pretended anything. I kept my promise to the reader.
    Oct 3, 2014. 03:21 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Comparing America's New Big 3 Automakers [View article]
    Yes, but this was not an article on the automotive market. It was a comparison of the financial standings of 3 U.S.-based auto companies. I did not promise a review of the market.
    Oct 3, 2014. 12:17 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Comparing America's New Big 3 Automakers [View article]
    I had considered adding foreign companies into the comparisons. But much of their financial data is either unavailable or difficult to obtain.

    Plus it wouldn't be a fair comparison (in my opinion), like comparing apples to oranges, since their mix of US vs foreign sales would be too different from an American company's mix of US vs foreign sales. There are also different foreign tax structures, labor pay, and a whole host of other advantages/disadvantages that would make comparing foreign companies with domestic companies just a little less meaningful.

    This is why in all of my comparisons you will always find "America's" in the title, as they will always be U.S.-based companies, primarily those listed in the Russell 3000 index.
    Oct 2, 2014. 08:49 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Comparing America's New Big 3 Automakers [View article]
    PS... One thing the comparison already includes to help separate the companies all the more is to count last place spots (yellow) as demerits. If only first place spots (green) were counted, then GM would have scored +10, Ford +10, and Tesla +9, putting Teslas right alongside the other two, which is clearly not fitting.

    So by counting first places (green) as merits and last places (yellow) as demerits, the comparison accomplishes not only separating companies but also noting the relative distance of those separations.
    Oct 2, 2014. 07:23 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Comparing America's New Big 3 Automakers [View article]
    Thanks, everyone, for your comments. You have all made valid points. Actually, the comparison supports your views on Tesla, that it shouldn't be lumped in with the other big two, as it scores -11 while GM and Ford score +8 and +3.

    The whole point of these comparisons isn't to include a company with its peers, but to separate them. It's an exercise designed to look past just a company's stock performance and get to the nuts and bolts of the organization.

    To that end, the comparison shows precisely what everyone here has said, that Tesla, despite having a large market cap and high flying stock, is really not a fundamentally sound company like GM and Ford are.

    So if the comparison and yourselves have all arrived at the same conclusion, then the comparison has served the purpose for which it was designed... namely, to brush aside mere stock performance and company popularity, and look at the core of the company itself.

    For weighting, that objection has come up before. And to be honest, it will always come up again and again no matter how I weight each metric, since everyone will always have their own ideas on how they should be weighted.

    So if I attempt to introduce weightings, where each metric is given a slightly greater or lesser degree of importance, I would only be opening up another can of worms and another volume of endless threads of ojectections, with some calling for a higher weight here or a lower weight there. I wouldn't be able to keep up with all the different points of view!

    But thanks for reading. Sparking debate is really what it's all about. Thanks, folks.
    Oct 2, 2014. 06:56 PM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Comparing America's 4 Largest Money Center Banks [View article]
    I'm happy to note that in all future comparisons, I will now be dropping the price/sales metric (which is based on trailing 12 month sales) and replacing it with the future-looking 5-year PEG ratio (price/earnings ratio divided by the expected average 5-year earnings growth). This will give a better indication of whether the stock is underpriced or overpriced in relation not just to its expected earnings alone but also to the expected growth of its earnings. Thanks for the pointers CharlieZap!
    Sep 30, 2014. 07:24 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Comparing America's 4 Largest Money Center Banks [View article]
    Absolutely, there are metrics which would be much more effective than the ones I am using. I use the ones I do only because these are the ones I have available to me. For the price ratios, I consider lower values as merits because lower values generally represent better valued stock prices, while higher ratios signify the stock is overbought and does not contain as much value as those of lower ratios. While stocks often trade at lower values for a good reason and can continue to trade at low ratios for quite some time, and while those trading at higher ratio can still move up in price more than those trading at lower ratios, those trading at lower ratios still represent untapped value sitting on the table relative to those trading a higher ratios. It's just for the purpose of separating companies in similar industries. For companies of dissimilar industries, however, ratio comparisons do not indicate very much, since a different industry could have stronger fundamentals which could continue lifting its stocks to even higher valuations still. So ratios are effective only when comparing similar companies where industry variables are the same. "All other things being equal" is the idea I'm going after, which is why I compare only companies in a similar industry using these comparisons. But I will look for additional comparisons, some of which I could probably construct from the data I already have, so thank-you for your comment.
    Sep 29, 2014. 04:17 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Comparing America's 4 Largest Money Center Banks [View article]
    Ooopse. Just to clarify, ttm is useful despite being backward looking; likewise recommendations, is what I meant.
    Sep 28, 2014. 10:26 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Comparing America's 4 Largest Money Center Banks [View article]
    Yes, I was battling with that when deciding whether to include recommendations in the comparisons. But after careful consideration, I decided to include them because almost every other indicator is also subject to recalculation as the stock price and company performance change. Margins, returns, earnings estimates and so much more are always in flux, which are in turn responsible for analyst recommendations constantly changing too. It's all one big weather forecast, so I may as well include the opinions of expert forecasters too. Since recommendations are updated monthly, they are about as forward looking as trailing-12-month trends. They're all valid tools I would say.
    Sep 28, 2014. 08:45 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • If History Repeats, Gold Will Surge Soon [View article]
    I enjoyed your article, but I already wrote about this effect in my article "Gold's 2-Year Cycle", published at in early January of this year.

    Your readers might enjoy reading my supporting views at "".

    Incidentally, every prediction made based on this 2-year pattern has been fulfilled to a T during the first 6 months of this year. I, as you, expect the pattern to repeat for the back-half of '09 and well into the middle of '10.

    It's nice to know other writers feel the same way I do.

    Joseph Cafariello
    Jun 21, 2009. 03:10 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment