Mayank Rasu

Mayank Rasu
Contributor since: 2013
Yeah...Looks like there has been some foul-play. Something for SEC to look into.
Congrats to everyone who made money on this trade.
I got my numbers from Capital IQ. Capital IQ is pooling "Vehicle Depriciation and Lease Charges" in the COGS which is technically correct because for an equipmnet leasing company, the annual depriciation of the vehicles it leases out is the direct cost of leasing services sold (Something similar to the fixed accounting cost of running a leasing business). The 47% odd gross revenue that you have mentioned is ignoring this expense. If you ignore this expense, Hertz would obviously have a higher margin because they have a much bigger (and compratively poorly managed) fleet. In the rental industry, the key is who makes more money per equipment and the last time I checked, Avis did outperform Hertz in that respect.
It seems there is no end to frustrated APPL fan club members venting their frustration on GOOG's rise. The rise in negative articles about google has been consistent with decline is apple's market cap. There have been a string of articles on seekingalpha (mostly opinions and conspiracy theories) debunking Google's growth story. I would urge investors who lost their money on Apple to direct their negativity somewhere else. Comparing Google and Apple is blasphemy for anyone who follows technology and who understands their respective business models. Lastly, google is much more than a company making designer and cool gadgets. It is in the business of redesigning and reshaping ways in which we human go about living our lives. You want to be on Google's side when it formally takes over the world (Ok...I got a bit carried away).
Do we not learn anything from our mistakes? Has the music started again?
If the father has as addiction problem doesn't mean he can not cut his son's allowance who has developed a liking for weed :) Bigger banks help the shareholders but smaller banks reduce the risk to overall economy. I would anyday chose the latter.
Back in the 80s someone must have thought the idea of carrying your phone with you crazy. The first cellular phones were indeed bulky and ugly. However, that innovation paved way for a communication revolution. Wearable computing is the future whether you like it or not and Google Glass has already defined the paradigm of this industry. frivolous arguments such as people hate glasses, risk of ADS, People don't want to consume information this way etc. will continue until the glasses start flying off the shelves.
I am curious to know which isolated part of world you live in where reliable internet connection is like fleeting morning breeze. Even my friends in developing nations are doing more and more things through internet (including full time work). The way technology is shaping up, internet will play a pivotal role in way human beings conduct business and their lives.
I have been trying to find the answer to your question for sometime but could not get any reliable info on this. However, it appears that just like Android, Google is not making any money directly from the sale of these chromebooks (It would through the sale of Chromebook pixel as that's an in house product). However, they make money by keeping people longer on web (more click revenue), and also charge money to end users for online hard drive.
As a matter of fact I did. Bought my first chrome OS laptop last week and soon will you.
Thanks Derek for your feedback and insights. Google will definitely have to address the health risks that this device may pose. Fighter pilots go through a rigorous training before they don such headsup display. Potential consumers like you and me won't have that luxury.
Thanks for your comment. You raise valid questions. These glasses are indeed snap-on. Please refer the review article that I have hyper linked in the first paragraph. Going by the initial impression and some test runs, people did manage to walk in fairly busy places without stumbling into traffic. But I agree that these glasses will be a strict no at a lot of places including office place. I guess regarding the psychological issue we will have to wait till the glasses start shipping.
The glasses have not even been shipped yet. How can you or the articles you referred to be so sure about its potential health risk? And what do you exactly mean by "these things"? I will save my judgement regarding Glass' health impacts until there is a thorough study conducted on it. Pretty much any technological innovation has health impacts.
And regarding Eric Schmidt...if he knew what he was doing he would still be running Google.
Thanks for your comment. Looks like you a MSFT fan and I have no intention to disabuse you of your belief. I agree with you that Windows has a lead in enterprise but I am amazed how you are so convinced that chrome OS is DOA in enterprise space. If anything Chrome OS has much simpler IT systems which will save businesses significant amount of money in tech support. Moreover, the software updates on windows is no match to that on the chrome OS. The fight for enterprise market share is still very much on and going by MSFT's track record, they know exactly how to lose market share to Google.
Thanks for your comment and feedback. Sprint has given fuel to further speculation by stating that they have further appetite for spectrum despite their acquisition of Clearwire. Leap already uses Sprint network for roaming and the two firms have settled their contractual dispute speedily and amicably so a corporate marriage may be in the offing. Given, the depressed stock price, I will not be surprised if there is an offer sooner than many analysts expect.
I also agree that my subscriber growth projection is a bit aggressive. However, this is substantially less than that of T-Mobile and an astute management should be able to achieve these targets.
Correct and sorry for not explaining the issue in its entirety. I was trying to make a point that stock price comparison pre crisis and post crisis is not appropriate due to a myriad of factors with reverse stock split being one of them. The reverse stock split did reduce the number of stocks outstanding by 20:1. However, the selling of stake by the US government has more than negated the effect of the stock split. Number of stocks outstanding went from 2.7 billion in 2008 to 130k in 2009 to 2 billion in 2011. Treasury sold another 1.3 billion of stocks in 2012 so this number will further increase in 2012 (Waiting for the 10k for exact number). Therefore I insisted that market cap pre and post crisis is a better indicator.
Easy there vkmo. AIG is a value bet but you are missing a huge point. Don't forget the 20:1 reverse stock split that AIG did during peak crisis. Don't compare the pre crisis and post crisis stock price as that is not a fair comparison due to the reverse stock split. Compare the market cap which is already more than half of the pre crisis peak. The stock price of $75 will be equivalent to pre crisis highs not $500. You can thank me later :)
Very interesting article. However, the idea is not so novel and definitely not accretive to the share value. There was an Economist article on how in certain African countries, pre paid cellular phone credit is used as proxy currency. The monetary policy in those countries is not so robust so this alternative currency has taken off nicely.
However, ibank is not going to be so easy. Becoming a bank means piling yourself with a ton of regulation and scrutiny. Apple will come under the ambit of Dodd Frank and Basel and will have to comply with capital rules. Also keep in mind that the margins earned in banking is not even close to the margins APPL has become used to. Not sure if the stock holders will pe very pleased if Apple decides to become a bank.
Very thorough analysis. Thanks for pointing out that this emperor has no clothes. Netflix is able to keep the lights on despite negative cash flow from operations only due to to its access to capital markets. It will have to file for chapter 11 if it's access to capital is jeopardized.
Smart headline. Can't say the same about the article. Although you have not explicitly mentioned it, but it's obvious that you like this stock and want your readers to like it too. Unfortunately, none of your "need to know stuff" is cogent enough to create an epiphany of sorts for NFLX shorts. Also, please abstain from using conclusive terms such as "content supremacy". As a netflix subscriber, I have been fed bottom of barrel content for a very long time now. If it had not been for the $8 a month I would have bid farewell long ago. NFLX is an ok company with a sub par management team. Carl Icahn fueled speculation can pump the stock for only so long.
Thanks for your comment Bob.
Agree with your point that the premium may be scaring away potential bidders. However, it should not be very difficult for a good management team to capitalize on the favorable trends in the industry and leverage their existing resources (which are plenty) to cause organic growth. However, the present management team has been performing sub par.
One of the best articles on NFLX out there. Thanks for the invaluable insights. As you have summed up fairly accurately, the valuations for NFLX does not seem to matter at all which is extremely frustrating indeed.
NFLX is undoubtedly a good company with a decent business model. I am also (grudgingly) willing to accept your 50MM subscriber projection. However, please keep in mind that there is a strong chance that Netflix's upside will be capped by the content providers. The business model is hostage to content providers to a large extent. Moreover, with serious competition emerging in the industry (Amazon, Google etc.) there are serious risks that can not be wished away.
I am a netflix subscriber and I like it too. Will I pay more than $10 for the subscription? I doubt. Although, I don't have data to back my point but I believe that the price elasticity of demand in this industry is high given there are so many cheaper alternatives to access content (Free download using Torrent being one of them.)
In short, Netflix is a good company but the valuations are simply insane and strengthens my belief that big investors and analysts can manipulate the market for a prolonged period of time. I will wait for the stock to go to 200 (which it will before the next earning) and then buy long dated $60 puts.