Seeking Alpha
View as an RSS Feed

Steven Shnayder  

View Steven Shnayder's Comments BY TICKER:
Latest  |  Highest rated
  • GT Advanced Technologies; If It's Worth Anything, It's Not $3 A Share [View article]
    The stock is only up 260%, so clearly I was wrong sir. You have any ideas that return 260% in one year?
    Feb 7, 2014. 07:54 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • GT Advanced Technologies; If It's Worth Anything, It's Not $3 A Share [View article]
    EnergyProfitProphet, that is right, GTAT's customer deposits are indeed non-refundable according to what the company states in its filings. The only way GTAT would have to refund the deposits is if it were unable to fulfill the terms of the contract and deliver on the order, and I do not see that happening. But there may be another risk: many of the company's customers are experiencing severe financial difficulties. GTAT doesn't actually manufacture many of the components that go into its systems, but gets them from third parties. Often times, the customer deposit does not cover the full upfront investment that GTAT has to make to fill orders. So if a customer is unable to pay, GTAT is stuck footing the bill and still has to pay its vendors, which could eat into the cash balance.
    Feb 4, 2013. 07:25 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Forget Europe; Ford Investors Need To Focus On Russia And China [View article]
    Ford earned $1.42 per share in 2012.
    Jan 31, 2013. 01:48 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Ford's North America Margins And European Turnaround Are Keys To Earnings [View article]
    Tdot, you make some good points. When analysts come up with their price targets they look at earnings expectations over the next 12 months, not trailing earnings. A stock's price should reflect its future prospects rather than past performance. So even if Ford only meets expectations for 2012, the company can still provide better-than-expected guidance for the future, which would trigger a reevaluation in the P/E. Going forward, the price could increase due to multiple expansion (P/E going up) or upwardly revised earnings figures. I believe that it will be the latter, based on the points i made in my previous comment.

    Regarding your comment that it would take 10.2 years of current profits to pay off the debt to shareholders, this is not really the best way to look at a stock, in my opinion. If you believe that profits will stay flat for 10 years, then there is really no reason to own the stock. If Europe just becomes a break-even operation over the next few years, that alone would increase profits meaningfully. Not to mention that Ford could use its free cash flow to buy back shares or continue to pay down debt, which would increase earnings per share. I don't want to make any wild projections, because its impossible to know when the company will stop losing money in Europe and if it can ultimately succeed in Asia. However, earnings of $2.00 a share by 2015 isn't a fantasy number. For 2013, the consensus estimate is $1.46, but that could easily be revised up to $1.50-$1.60 range.
    Jan 27, 2013. 12:24 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Ford's North America Margins And European Turnaround Are Keys To Earnings [View article]
    I agree with some of the other posters. The $13 price target is completely baseless. Ford is just beginning its expansion into China. When the Lincoln brand is introduced there in 2014, margins will improve into the high single-digit range. A price target needs to consider the true earning power of a company. Right now, the earnings are depressed due to losses in Europe, the U.S. recovery in autos is just beginning to get underway, and the resurgence of the Lincoln brand will take time. I will be posting a detailed article and earnings model demonstrating the true earnings power of Ford within the next few days.
    Jan 26, 2013. 02:34 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • The Mythical Collapse In American Living Standards [View article]
    I understand your analogy, about being more productive, but I just feel alot poorer than someone in my position would have felt in lets say 1990. The price of a home in my area is still roughly 2.5-3x what is was in 1990, and the same thing can be said about the price of a gallon of gas or a cup of coffee. In 1990, the median household income was around $30,000 in 1990 dollars (not today's). Today, I believe its right around $50k. Keep in mind, there are probably more people working per household today than in 1990. On the surface, this might seem like a pretty hefty increase in just 20 years, but it's not. Just look at the cost of average 4-year college tuition then vs now, $9,000 vs $27,000 (you can look this up!), 3x more expensive, same as gas, housing, etc. So, it really doesn't matter that you can throw your dishes in the dishwasher or that the cost of a computer is a fraction of what it was back then, because basic things like food, housing, and education are not. Another curious thing is that we are chasing many more goods today than we were in 1990. Think about all the things that we've added to our monthly expenses like cell phone bills, cable, gym membership (noone went to the gym back then), high-speed internet, etc. Obviously, some of these are luxuries and people aren't entitled to them, but one can not seriously argue that the list of expenses has not exploded since then.
    Oct 20, 2011. 04:03 PM | 5 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Chart of the Day: The Great Earnings-Yield Divergence [View article]
    I'm surprise no one has mentioned "Fight the Fed Model" by Cliff Asness, which pretty much tears apart the argument that stocks are cheap just because the earnings yield on stocks exceeds the return on bonds. Yes we do have record low interest rates artificially created by the Fed, because that is the only tool the Fed has in its arsenal to try to jump start the economy. However, just because stocks are yielding more does not automatically make them cheap.

    Current earnings levels may indeed be illusory, because our ecoonomy is ultimately driven by consumer demand. Corporations have already raised prices and stretched margins significantly over the last 12-18 months. Current growth refelects nominal growth in earnings, not a real increase in demand.

    An explanation for the widening disparity in yeilds post 2002, may have something to do with the housing bubble. This could be way off, but perhaps investors abandoned bonds and stocks to a degree in favor of another asset class, housing. Remeber, everyone was speculating on real estate during this time. Bond yields were low by historical standards and stocks weren't nearly as attractive as flipping houses. Any thoughts?
    Aug 15, 2011. 04:42 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Options: Can a Synthetic Portfolio Outperform the S&P 500 Index? [View article]
    Forgive me for pointing out the obvious, but to me this seems more dangerous, because if you hold the stock and it happens to fall to $70, you still have the stock. However, with a synthetic portfolio, your entire position is wiped out for what amount to a 100% loss. For this reason, I don't really understand how I would be getting a higher return with a lower standard deviation.
    Mar 7, 2011. 01:38 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment