Seeking Alpha

Mick Weinstein

View as an RSS Feed
View Mick Weinstein's Comments BY TICKER:
Latest  |  Highest rated
  • How Apple Stock Should Be Valued: P/FCF [View article]
    Comment from Andy Zaky (accidentally removed from thread):

    mrtaxx, Thanks for the list. Its comprehensive and very useful. The thing that's really interesting about these price targets is that the four analysts who know the least about Apple are the ones who have price targets under $200.00. That Bernstein research analyst is obviously an joke. Whatever happened to the Apple is not going to sell 10 million iPhones nonsense? Remember that debate he started in January? Where is he now? How can anyone listen to him after that? Bank of America has always been somewhat bearish on Apple with limited coverage. I think Scott Craig used to cover Apple at BofA but now some other analyst is over there (not sure).

    Morgan Keegan analyst Travis McCourt doesn't know what he's doing. He may have a price target above $200, but I give him absolutely no credibility. He simply doesn't understand Apple's business. Go back and read some of his stuff in Appleinsider and you'll see why. Morgan Stanley's Katie Huberty is the worst technology analyst on Wall Street. Worse than Toni from Bernstein. Her estimates for fiscal Q2 missed by almost a cool billion. She was a huge basher during January-February disaster. For Q2, she made the worst call in revenue, iPods, iPhones, and Mac sales on Wall Street. Basically she made the worst call on anything important. She estimated that Apple would only sell 8.5 million iPods and 1 million iPhones in Q2! Apple reported 10.5 million iPods and 1.7 million iPhones. She also estimated that Apple would report only $6.634 billion in revenue. Apple reported $7.512 billion in revenue. I basically have her on ignore. She is analyst at one of the most reputable institutions and can't even calculate her run-rates.

    The easiest call one could make in Q2 was that Apple would sell between 1.65 and 1.8 million iPhones. Steve Jobs came out and said that Apple sold 300,000 in the first two weeks of the quarter! How she arrived at 1 million in Q2 is way beyond me. Its her job as an analyst to be able to make simple calculations. Obviously there's no oversight Morgan Stanley because if I were her boss, she would be fired immediately.

    Steve Biggs at obviously has no clue as to what he's talking about either. Any analyst who focuses on Apple's P/E as its primary valuation metric simply doesn't know what he or she is doing. By the way, I was in no way trying to promote Steve Biggs in my article. I was using his flawed understanding of stock valuation as an example of the rampant stupidity going around on Wall Street. Thanks for the post.
    Aug 15 09:08 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Disagreeing With Tilson on the Monoline Insurers [View article]
    fxtrader and oldlures,

    We republished it, as you can see. We removed it for a day or so as it was being rewritten by the author.

    Jun 18 09:46 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • The Sorry Story of Jefferson County's Sewer Bonds [View article]
    Tom, thanks for the correction. Our erroneous association of this story with ticker XL has been corrected to SCA, and we've adjusted the text to read 'XL Capital Assurance' instead of 'XL Capital', lest there be any misunderstanding.
    Jun 6 03:17 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Leading Hedge Funds' Best Ideas and Consensus Picks [View article]
    Thanks for the correction, Richard. I believe it referred to Berkshire, actually - BRK.A or BRK.B. Post updated accordingly.
    May 19 11:02 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Trina Solar: Best Value in the Solar Space [View article]
    The table has been updated with accurate data on JASO. Thanks for the correction.
    Apr 23 11:03 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Blogonomics: The Seeking Alpha Model [View article]
    Todd, Thanks for your kind words and I'm thrilled you've seen such a positive build out of your own site through exposure on SA.

    Shaun, regarding greater exposure and linking to your firm - Sharon from our team will be in touch with you today to redo your article sidebar to get this done. Did you receive the email Sharon sent out about this a few weeks ago? And regarding the editorial quality issue, we'll redouble our effort to filter out articles that aren't worthy of appearing on SA, and we'll continue to build out technical functionality that brings the best writing and writers to the top.

    Dan, I'd like to understand the SEO issues you raise better. As David said, we haven't seen the duplicate content issue lowering contributors' page rank, but perhaps we missed something that you have experienced. Note that one of the reasons we change headlines is to differentiate our version of the article from the contributor's - for SEO purposes, so the headline/keywords the contributor chose for his/her own site aren't usurped by SA in search engines. But changing headlines creates its own set of challenges, as we've seen. The other reason we do it is simply for impact and clarity - a headline like 'Midday Update' on a blogger's site clearly won't work well in syndication to Yahoo Finance, our email list, E*Trade, etc. We welcome you back at any time, Dan, and we'll work together with you on this.

    Jason, I'm glad SA works well for you. Regarding 'separating the inane from the insightful', well first of all we shouldn't have anything inane, so I'd appreciate it if you ping me when you see something that you think is unworthy of appearing on SA. Our editorial team is tasked with making the often difficult call on 'Is this a post that someone who invests in this sector/this stock would want to consider, alongside everything that's available in the mainstream news?' This obviously involves judgment, and difference of opinion, but we strive to keep the quality bar high. And re. giving our most insightful authors more exposure, that's what our homepage should be doing - we're working on design and functionality changes to facilitate this.

    Mark, thanks for your support for SA. I'm sorry you've been unhappy with some headline and textual changes. I'll contact you personally now, including the editor who handles your posts, to improve this going forward.
    Apr 11 02:59 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Blogonomics: The Seeking Alpha Model [View article]
    Davis, we just changed the linking policy a couple of weeks ago. And as I just emailed you, we simply dropped the ball on your request for this from a while back and I apologize personally for that. You are absolutely right - I just wish you had pinged me on it at some point along the line, but hey, if this episode brings all editorial mistakes to the surface, that's great. We're aiming for no errors and full responsiveness to all our regular and one-off contributors.
    Apr 10 11:40 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Blogonomics: The Seeking Alpha Model [View article]
    Davis, regarding changing links - you are absolutely right, as David says. We've changed that policy across the board.

    Regarding your editorial requests being ignored - I was not aware of the requests at all. I'll contact you personally about it and I apologize. We make every effort to heed contributors' requests re. editorial changes.
    Apr 10 10:36 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Google's New 'App Engine': Why Microsoft Should be Shaking in Its Boots [View article]
    Hi Wayne, apologies for using that headline - we switched it now to the one you used upon submitting the article.

    Mick Weinstein
    Editor in Chief of Seeking Alpha

    On Apr 09 08:21 AM WayneMulligan wrote:

    > @shair - I'm not sure why Wall Street should be terrified either...I
    > didn't put that title in here, the fine folks at SeekingAlpha did.
    > You both raise great points about Google not being an enterprise
    > software provider and the inherent competition in the web. As for
    > the enterprise software issue all I can say is that Amazon isn't
    > an enterprise software provider, but yet their AWS services now get
    > MORE traffic than all of Google has already done them
    > one better and it's my belief, when it comes to building scalable/developer
    > friendly systems, they'll continue to do so.
    > As for the rapid adoption of new technologies on the web - you're
    > right fxtrader, that's a HUGE risk to Google and I should've mentioned
    > it in my analysis. It's my belief, however, (and speaking from a
    > bit of experience) that once a company finds a vendor in the infrastructure
    > space that they absolutely love, they don't move unless they absolutely
    > have to. It's tough to build a web application that can scale --
    > it's even harder to take that off one platform and put it on another.
    > So I think the best strategy for Google would be to LOVE their customers
    > each and every day -- keep building new features, provide great service
    > and support and get as many folks on the system as possible.
    > Great comments guys, thanks!
    > -Wayne
    Apr 9 10:05 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Financial Stocks Trading Near Book Value [View article]
    Disclosure added - author has no positions. Thanks for reminder, Andrew.
    Mar 14 09:25 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • 5 Reasons Why the U.S. Dollar Will Weaken Further [View article]
    'haydete', thanks for the heads up on the error in the table. It's fixed now.
    Mar 9 03:29 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Friday Outlook: Playing the Cards You're Dealt [View article]
    Joab, the headline was created by us - Seeking Alpha editors - not Dave Fry. So we take responsibility there.

    The question of who made Ben's bed is a worthy debate... so carry on.
    Mar 2 02:33 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • IAC/Interactive: Divided We Stand [View article]
    Thank you for your comment. The article has been edited to remove an unintentional inclusion of a single sentence from Mr. Post's note.
    Jan 22 02:59 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment