Rabish

Value, long-term horizon, growth at reasonable price, deep value
Rabish
Value, long-term horizon, growth at reasonable price, deep value
Contributor since: 2012
I am in the long camp and firmly so. Reasons are difficult to describe in a comment post, perhaps a future article will do better justice. Thanks to the author for his thoughts though.
@User9162141: I didn't go through the trouble to create an index as you suggested although I did check the alpha (and overall it wasn't too bad). But anyone can be a genius in a market like 2013. I give you that. Best wishes for your investing.
Thank You. At last someone sharing a first hand experience. I've always felt TRLG has great product, the management execution though could be better.
Ashraf,
I have a feeling that Nvidia is an acquisition candidate, for someone like Intel, specially if their x86 chips don't get the anticipated (read required) traction in OEM'S tablets. It makes good sense for Intel to acquire such an "A" class asset and then use its manufacturing scale and marketing muscle to realize its full potential.
how is their outlook?
how did you calculate operating income? traditionally it does not include one time items such as M&A costs.
"The purchase of Cash Genie was a significant cash outflow that caused operating income to decrease from $56 million the year before, to $39 million."
Did you mean net income ?
Thanks ! And I'm not that surprised with your experience & insight about SAP. I've heard similar complaints before.
An article was published in Barron's an hour ago, which discusses few things similar to my line of thinking including a well respected analyst's intrinsic value of $29. Read it, if you would like more insight on Microsoft: http://on.barrons.com/...
Thank You.

" There are better places to make a buck."
I agree with you 100% however we find Microsoft as one of the most undervalued stock at the moment.
Remember, a trade is possible only if there are differing opinions about the value of the asset changing hands. The buyer sees the value in it and the seller does not (excluding the situations when the seller is driven by non-investment factors).
I'm glad that my article added some value to your investment decision process. Thank you but as always, I expect the readers to do additional research.
As my fellow author Sal Marvasti pointed out in his excellent article on Microsoft (http://seekingalpha.co...), I guess the best way to describe Microsoft is: "Better Late Than Never". Personally I'm fine with Microsoft's evolution as technology provider so far and I see no reason for any distrust now.
Thank You ! Just like it was unfashionable to sell Microsoft (tech stocks in general) in 99 despite the sky high valuations, it is unfashionable to buy Microsoft now despite the dirt cheap valuation. I'm glad to remain long here.
Thank You !
Thanks guys. Remember the words of wisdom from Graham/Buffett: In the short term, the market is like a voting machine and in the long term, it is like a weighing machine.
Good luck to you too.
Errata: For the table which shows the assumptions, the source is not Morningstar or SEC; these are my assumptions. Apologies also for the distortion in the columns of the table which shows Oracle's prior acquisitions. Importing from an Excel spreadsheet did not preserve the merged columns.
The dividend in reality is not 2.8% for US taxpayers. As I understand, 30% or so which is withheld at source by the listed ADR company, is not recoverable if you invest via tax deferred account (e.g. self directed 401k/IRA).
Q: Does your list show stocks that HAD increased dividends for 22 years until year 2000 or 22 years until 2012?
I love the dividend growth stocks and the returns shown are impressive. Having said that, we need to remind ourselves that the starting period (2000) was the peak of the dot-com bubble and was the time when the the non-tech stocks (which is mostly what this comprised of) had very depressed valuations. The returns shown are probably biased towards over-performance due to this fact, so I would dig up a bit more.

Hi stus_s,
Thanks for the updates.
1. With a humungous workforce of 30,000 in sales & services and 26,000 in marketing, I would think Oracle would be able to bring a very positive impact on the projected growth (22% as per YF as you correctly noted) this year and beyond. Despite that, I have not used 22% growth this year, I used 20% in my analysis, to be conservative.
2. I believe Oracle, with its strong sales & marketing organization, will be able to bring the needed operational efficiencies in the sales & marketing area. In addition, you have the master salesman, Mark Hurd, himself running the show. That gives me the confidence that things will be much better than anticipated.
Hi Roger,
Just to clarify, we're on the same side of the trade. I can not agree with you more when you say: "its insanely low price has gotten insanely lower."
I did not mean that Apple was over/fairly valued between $500-$700. What I meant was that at current level, there is much more margin of safety in the stock price so if you ever missed the boat, it may be a good time to catch up.
Happy investing.
Thank you. Any recommendation for a good neurologist? Kidding aside, since I learn something new everyday, I would love to expand my knowledge about how to evaluate a business without making assumptions.
As far as I know IV is not dependent upon the stock price. Market value is used along with IV to determine if there is mispricing.
My guess is that Walmart may be passing only minuscule portion of the lost margin to Apple, the lion share remains with Walmart. They need Apple more than Apple need them. Secondly Walmart is betting on recovering this loss from increased foot traffic resulting in increased sales in other items in the store.
24% seems a bit high to me. Moreover it varies from company to company.
Pls see my response to faramarz and UnisonneGroup.
I cannot show the fcf, discount and PV for each year after year 6 as the table will outgrow the article. I have shown discount factor of 1 as the sum of year 6 onwards is already discounted for respective years.
I agree that Apple's innovation engine remains strong, despite Steve Job's absence. Having said that, due to 1-year and 2-year commitments people usually have with the cell phone providers, Apple is somewhat compelled to come up with a new phone every year (assuming roughly half the consumers refresh in even and half in the odd year) when the time comes for a consumer to refresh the agreement. Now if you know what goes in a complex device like an iPhone, one year time to design, develop, test, getting the supply chain, marketing, support on board AND most importantly making sure that the consumer is excited about the new features in the new product, YEAR AFTER YEAR, it's a challenge that no company can pass, let alone Apple. However the good thing is that there are not many companies other than Apple, who can do that either. Don't think that every product Apple comes up with, will be a rousing success but they are well positioned to produce a very large (if not the most) number of innovative products in the future.
johnofarizonaoregon, You said it better than me.
And regarding the cash/equivalents: I'm fully aware of it and that strengthens the undervalued theme even further.
Guilty as charged. Title could have been better.