Seeking Alpha

NYC Trader

 
View as an RSS Feed
View NYC Trader's Comments BY TICKER:
Latest  |  Highest rated
  • Is Apple Really Doomed? [View article]
    Thanks. Like I mentioned to the individual above, Cook is not expected to make any other gadgets just like Ford's predecessors weren't expected to make the flying car. If there is heavy demand for existing high margin products, by all means, use existing capacity to expand distribution.
    Mar 24 03:08 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Is Apple Really Doomed? [View article]
    Really? How are the Mac margins relative to PCs? You better take a look at what happened to Dell before you make such predictions.
    Mar 24 02:37 PM | 4 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Is Apple Really Doomed? [View article]
    It's not a high growth stock anymore. It's more of a value stock at this point. It will be valued in line with their tech "value" peers. What attracts me to Apple vs. peers however is their ecosystem and cash position. Over the long run I could see them increasing value through its ecosystem and payouts. I didn't like Apple at 660 then, but I like Apple here a lot.
    Mar 24 12:27 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Is Apple Really Doomed? [View article]
    Well, somebody from SeekingAlpha had to address the noise out there.
    Mar 24 12:24 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Is Apple Really Doomed? [View article]
    "The profits and success Apple has enjoyed the last couple of years are STILL attributable to Steve Jobs vision."

    Yes and a guy named Henry Ford once had a vision too. Despite "just" refreshes for the last century, Ford continues to sell cars and pay back an impressive dividend to its shareholders. Your suggestion that Cook needs to churn out new gadgets is laughable considering that the iPhone is the highest margin retail product out there
    Mar 24 10:09 AM | 9 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Is Apple Really Doomed? [View article]
    But your statement offers nothing in the form of a convincing argument. Bring something more convincing to this debate other than "new products or it will be a Sony"... But then again, it seems like you're in the company of a WSJ reporter.
    Mar 24 09:59 AM | 15 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • A Tale Of 2 Nasdaqs: This Bubble Is Real [View article]
    Unless you're telling me you know how many of the 2,500 stocks and how much of the $7 trillion is at bubble levels, I'm not sure that you know "which they are"... Yes, ideally, the $7 trillion is priced fairly. What if it's not, at all? What if about 4 trillion or more of that is priced at incredibly steep levels. Using rough estimates, let's say $4 trillion is priced at a 40% premium... that's potentially a $1.6 trillion drop or 23% of the index. My belief is that perhaps many of these companies simply won't make it.
    Mar 1 07:49 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • A Tale Of 2 Nasdaqs: This Bubble Is Real [View article]
    "Still it does not add value to blindly cry bubble for every stock that rises."

    Your entire index is being fueled by irrational rising - as I showed. 71/100 stocks are trading at an average P/E of 43, but that number is small in comparison to the actual Nasdaq Composite Index's stocks a large portion of which are trading way above that average of 43. I don't believe the Nasdaq should be trading at multiples this high and the only reason the entire index looks OK is because the value stocks are dragging down the P/E significantly.

    In terms of Amazon trading at 30X cash flow, there are some funky numbers in that operating cash flow. If you're comfortable with that valuation method, be my guest. I'm not. It also doesn't compare favorably to Apple's P/CF of 9X.
    Feb 28 10:51 AM | 4 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • A Tale Of 2 Nasdaqs: This Bubble Is Real [View article]
    You are correct. CAGR: 27%. I will ask them to edit that. Thanks for pointing that out.
    Feb 28 09:54 AM | 4 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • A Tale Of 2 Nasdaqs: This Bubble Is Real [View article]
    Yes 50 million PAYING SUBSCRIBERS. You're comparing paying subscribers to 1 billion people who are just using up space. Those are 2 different models so you can't say 50 million vs. 1 billion! Facebook wins. You have to compare revenue sources... paying subscribers vs. advertising revenue. Ad revenue does very well ...until it doesn't. And then things kind of collapse.
    Feb 28 09:51 AM | 8 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • A Tale Of 2 Nasdaqs: This Bubble Is Real [View article]
    AOL
    Feb 28 09:40 AM | 3 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Yes, The Nasdaq Bubble Is Definitely Here [View article]
    I don't usually say this, but great line from Krugman this morning about bubbles:

    "What happens is that early buyers make money, drawing in more buyers, who drive prices up and allow people to make even more money, and it just keeps on growing for years. After a while, people insisting that the prices make no sense start to look stupid, and are tuned out — and so it’s a great shock when the bubble runs out of suckers and deflates."
    Feb 25 10:35 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Yes, The Nasdaq Bubble Is Definitely Here [View article]
    "Still think my earlier comment is irrelevant?"

    I wouldn't say irrelevant since it shows your lack of basic understanding of how financial markets work. It helps us better gauge your credibility so it's definitely relevant. But to respond to your continued ignorant comments, the financial markets are not based on single factors that you happened to have noticed in the news that day. It doesn't work like this: "look Chinese markets are underperforming and the US markets are up. I must have been right"
    There have been many comments in response to my article, which both agreed and disagreed with my thesis, that brought a lot to this discussion. I would have to say your arrogant responses offered absolutely nothing.
    Feb 24 10:55 AM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Yes, The Nasdaq Bubble Is Definitely Here [View article]
    Zach,
    What you say is true - at the same time, existing revenue streams off of one product - in this case advertising - typically mature. Google recognizes this. They've been hunting, unsuccessfully, for "other" types of revenue streams for years. The online and web advertising is a huge market - that is true - but it is a market that will see a fierce battle in a few years. Google will have to learn to share that revenue with other players in the future. If they don't come up with other revenue streams, they'll be in trouble.
    Feb 23 11:50 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Yes, The Nasdaq Bubble Is Definitely Here [View article]
    You make good points, but you're assuming that the "new" bubble will be a replica of the "old" bubble.

    No - it's not going to come gift-wrapped for you with a warning label that says "Glenn, in a few days there will be with 100% certainty a market correction, a crash."

    This will certainly be different. You're assuming that your printing press FB will be able to maintain their operating profits indefinitely (let's put me on record as saying this: these FB profits that you praise will be 1. declining and 2. the most volatile profits in the industry in just a few years' time). What you're doing is making the assumption that Facebook, Tesla and your other "tremendous growth companies" ARE going to be running monopolies in their industries in what will be an extremely competitive environment. What I am saying is they won't. You're basically arguing that the theories of economics that have been true for centuries don't apply anymore - what I am saying is they still do.

    I don't fear the bubble. I am just going to put my money on the players who have the most chips at the table.
    Feb 23 10:19 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
COMMENTS STATS
513 Comments
1,556 Likes