Why I Still Have Faith In Hewlett-Packard [View article]
From the economic point of view they are overpriced, since maybe 0,1% of Apple's customers use all the functions, the device offers. According to the modern economic theory, a person who uses 100% of functions amortizes his investment much faster then a person who buys a MacBook Pro only to surf on the Internet. Most of Apple's customers are young wealthy people who could use a basic PC and make calls with any cheap cellphone. So, except the trend, I don't see other explanation why most of Apple's clients would buy their products. For instance, my Vaio is 4 years old, I bought it for 1200€ and it never needed any reparations or maintenance since the day I bought it, while I use it every day. Nevertheless, I completly agree with you regarding the iPad, there is no better tablet on the market, even though the lack of Flashplayer is a serious lack of functionality. The iPad 3 isn't as innovative as the first two, though...
PS: Unfortunately the refurbished Apples aren't sold in Europe, so we pay much more then you for their products, mainly because of the taxes and the exchange rate.
Why I Still Have Faith In Hewlett-Packard [View article]
Apple is an excellent company, but I'm not quiet sure it's a good investment right now. Apple's succes depends on how long will the company stick to the Job's policy and how long will they follow his lead. Apple has two main problems right now, the board members' personal ego and the fear to bring any real innovations to their products. Honestly, I don't even know which issue might be the worst. Nevertheless, Apple surprises me every time by their ability to sell their overpriced useless, but trendy products. People don't know what financial situation will they have tomorrow, but they still spend $3000 for a computer. The worst thing is that I would buy it too, if it wouldn't hurt so much to spend 2x the price of my Vaio. The point is, how long will people follow Apple's marketing department's tricks and how long will Apple's trend will remain? Stocks can't grow forever and Blackberry showed that even the most popular companies can easily become outsiders as long as they stay on the same design for a decade. RIM lost $140 per share in just a year, and I'm not sure that at some point Apple won't do the same...
Facebook's Fait Accompli: Strike 3 Looms As Insiders Sell Out While Investors Hold The Bag [View article]
The problem with Facebook was that most of the people who bought or intended to buy these shares didn't want to keep them for more then two weeks after the IPO. No one believed in this company and they bought the share, not because of the figures or analysis, but simply because the demand was supposed to be huge. And it was impressively high actually, however, no company going public would have been able to soar with almost 500 millions of shares on the market. Plus, all the employees who could use their options the first day, since Zuckerberg didn't want to make most of his workers wait to sell their shares, showed everyone that even they don't believe in Facebook's future. It was really pathetic to watch and for me it looked more like an inside trading with a flagrant confict of interests...
Now what does this company have to offer? It's a company based on people's addictions and on the trend. Very dangerous combination in my opinion, since people might suddenly want to become again more anonymous on the Internet and since at some point people will realize how much time they actually waste on Facebook. I doubt that the Facebook's Internet ad project will actually bring them the fortune they are awaiting for. It's completely absurd, since people have an extremely negative opinion towards the websites that try to make them sell or "show" something. Just look at the last YouTube/Vevo reports since they put commercials in each video. For the first time, people prefer to use concurrent sites. If Facebook will start loosing clients, and I'm almost sure that they are already trying to hide the fact that they are loosing them, which is extremely easy (fake IP's and fake bot accounts), their marketing projects will officially fail. Eventually, they will become a penny stock... I would see them at $4/share and to be honest, I see much more potential in Zynga rather then in Facebook, since Zynga can place their products wherever they want and they will remain on the market even without Facebook.
15 Reasons Why Apple Is A Once In A Lifetime Opportunity [View article]
The interesting thing with the Third World countries is that with the affluence of the whole "capitalist" products, people spare money on the essential (mainly for us) products, like food, water, clothes or home, in wake of buying all kind of useless gadgets, like Apple products, simply because it was completely inaccessible for them before. In Eastern Europe countries like Russia, Ukraine or even Poland people take bank credits simply to buy some luxury products they can't normally afford. So yes, Chinese population might represent the Saint Grail for companies like Apple, exactly because they don't think like us, they don't consume like us and mainly because they aren't as sufficient as us.
Nokia: Still A Strong Buy For Contrarians After Q2 Numbers [View article]
I don't think that it would be the wisest thing to do. According to some Nokia's officials interviews, they aren't even sure to make it till December without going into chapter 11, mainly due to their rapid money losses... So I think that their shares value isn't the main problem they are facing right now, even though it could have been a good (but extremly risky and unconscious) strategic investment...
Apple: iPhone Subsidies Are Not The Issue [View article]
Europe is in pace to become a Third World continent, unless the Eastern Europe undergoes a Modern Industrial Revolution in this decade. Western Europe become the Socialist's nest. So basically we've got here a double movement, now the Western UE is financing (more or less) the Eastern EU, while the Western countries are clearly living above their means. So unless the Eastern countries, like Romania, Poland or Czech Republic modernize their industrial capital and start to earn enough money to finance the whole EU (and to compensate the previous investments), yes, Europe will become the new Third World. And I don't think that we should count on Russia here, as the country has become a simple oil and gas exporter, but the country doesn't have any industrial and research infrastructures, while it's losing a little bit more political influence every year.
Now conserving the iPhone, is there another high scale phone that would cost from 615-900€? Accept Nokia's Vertue starting at 5000€, I don't know any. Nokia, Blackberry, Sumsung and HTC offer the exact same functions for 300-500€, so YES, iPhone is a luxury product and not simply a wise functional choice. You buy an iPhone for it's trend, cause it's hype to have one, or because you simply like its design, but it offers the exact same functions, the exact same technological specifications, for a much higher price simple because it's an Apple. Personally, I don't think that after the Job's era, the brand is still going to be as trendy and as innovative as it was before... This is the main problem of the companies that are based on an effect of trend and on one single person's talent.
Apple: iPhone Subsidies Are Not The Issue [View article]
I'm also an iPhone user, and I'm extremely happy with my phone, however, you shouldn't forget that it's a luxury product (at least in Europe) and by definition, it's an object reserved to some "happy few". Personally, I've paid 650 euros for it, since in Belgium, like in many small countries of Europe, phone companies don't offer special prices on cellphones with a contract, as the market isn't big enough to be profitable with that policy. So, how many people could afford a cellphone for almost $1k? Not as much as people who could afford buying a 100 euro Nokia!
As someone told me, don't mix sex with love, it isn't because you sleep with a woman that you have to merry her! Same thing with Apple... At this point, AAPL shares aren't the best investment on the market and let me explain you why.
Apple worth $608 a share and as you've probably seen, the stock has been bouncing for a couple of weeks now, as people aren't "so" sure that the stock has still a lot of potential for growth. On the other hand we've got Nokia, that worth $4/share, and just a week ago it cost $5/share. Since Nokia is the market leader, with a large scale of products and an extremely wide price range, I would say that there are more then 50% of chances that the stock will bounce back to at least its initial price of 5 bucks in a week, which already represents a return of 25% on the investment. What are the odds that Apple will take 25% in 7 days (which is $152)? I guess less then 1% of chances!
Today, you could have bought exactly 152 stocks of NOK, for only one stock of AAPL. However, you need a huge, massive, extraordinary piece of news to make move a mammoth like Apple by $152, while Nokia is a such a beaten stock, that with a tiny illusion of bettering it will certainly go up by just what you need to make some extra cash very quickly....
I don't "believe" in Nokia, but I'm sure that it's an excellent opportunity for a short term investment, and I don't see a better stock that could bring with such a high probabilities, such a big return in such a short period of time, while the risk for your investment is close to zero, since the company is still making billions, it has Microsoft watching its back and there is no apparent reason for it to bankrupt.
12 Stocks Through David Dreman's Latest Technique [View article]
It's a very common technique mainly used by risk loving traders. You can take for example Amazon that presented huge losses during the last quarter earnings presentation, the stock plunged 12% during the pre-market and then gained +/- 9% in a couple of weeks. Basically, when everyone sell you should buy, while when everyone buy you sell. However you must consider 2 main points :
1. You have to pick very solid companies so you could be sure that even if they had some issues they will easily gain their previous price back. For example, a lot of people have bet on Kodak before their bailout, believing they will still be able to make huge profits... 2. You must keep in mind that this technique isn't a form of classic investing, but rather a probability and risk/reward ratios calculus. So you don't need to spend weeks or even month to study the company's figures. Nevertheless youneed to figure out the risk you take by investing in a company that is having issues at that period of time.
I might be wrong, but I think that this "new" Dreman's technique is the best for shirt term investors who seek to make some fast and easy money and who can afford loosing a part of their bet...
The Moscow offices of BP see a second day of a concentrated search from Russian authorities looking for documents with the words "oil," "Artic," and "Stockholm arbitration," according to a BP spokesman. A timeline of the oil major's business in Russia shows a huge financial investment may end up paying off very little. [View news story]
The Russian Government have become the Maffia... It couldn't have get worse for foreign companies, that have invested billions in this doomed country, attracted by the smell of easy fortune...
Bet Against Buffett: Short Bank Of America On The Rally [View article]
Mr. Hamlin,
I agree with you on some points, but you seem to be way too extreme! You sound like a newly politically active kid who thinks that life is simple and you just have to pick one of two solutions, while everyone in the Government are morons. The problem is that it isn't simple, and even when you only have to pick one of two options, already then, you have to ask yourself which option will bring the lightest consequences and with which of these consequences will you be able to deal...
Banks took these risks simply because they understand their power, no government in the West will let them down, cause they didn't do all this affaire alone. Many influent people took part in it and they have common interests and they will never make the banks go bankrupt. But even without this case, the governments made them kings, for instance, here in Europe, you can't even pay your bills without having a bank account, they simply don't accept the cash! Also, who will lend the government some cash? You maybe?
And the smaller banks you are talking about, how long will they stay small? How will you pick them up and how will you see that they are actually as responsible as you want them to be? How will you prevent them to grow? And how can you be sure that in 5 or even 10 years they wouldn't use the same old schemes as our banks?
The thing is, the government have way too many interests with the banks, cause the owners of these banks stay there for ages and they know everything about the politicians and the country. They work together and help each other, so why would they change the situation? It isn't perfect, but it's stable, and politicians love stability.
You want a utopia and fortunately you will never get it... So just try to grow up...
The recent sale of Bank of America's (BAC) China Construction Bank stake is just the latest in a series of moves by which embattled CEO Brian Moynihan has dismantled much of the empire built by Ken Lewis. SNL Financial's Nancy Bush sees Moynihan's actions as emblematic of a new generation of bankers who don't equate "bigger" with "better." [View news story]
Bankingqueen,
Well personally, I can't be so sure that they are actually in trouble, and I'm not quiet sure that they need so much money... It's more likely that they prepare themselves to a possible recession and they try to get as much cash as they can to go through the crisis and than to be able to reinvest it better, as soon as it would be over.
Nevertheless, as the BAC's share worth 8 bucks, you see that BofA isn't solid enough to support his deficit departments, as they could have done a year ago. They need to find a quick way to bring their profit back, and I don't see a better way than selling the departments that make no benefice at all and that drug them even into red!
Take for example a chain store. Some of the stores make a big profit, while others make the main company lose money because the costs are higher than the revenue. So why wouldn't the company sell those stores and even make a profit on the sale! It's in contrary, a good piece of news, for BofA, cause the CEO has finally decided to take his responsibilities and takes the wright measures to bring the bank back to the top with lower expanses and a higher ability to make profit! It has got way too big and way too fast, due to some unconsidered investments, so now they will simply start over with an extremely high cash-flow... The BofA future now only depends of its board, cause they have everything they need to succeed!
ArcelorMittal: The Best Way to Play the Steel Industry [View article]
MT isn't the stock I would normally buy, however, the crisis might change my assumptions... Mittal has been assaulted by tens of different scandals and he had to pay almost £1B in compensations... In '08 (not quiet sure about the year), he had to pay $500M, cause 2 of his companies was working together to low down MT's stock price! They were using a trust with his brother and MT was actually the company that was mainly condemned by the justice. Also, since '05, they had A LOT of problems with syndicates and some nature protection organizations all over the world. His mine workers in Kazakhstan said that even under the URSS dictatorship, their work conditions were much better than now. I think it means a lot for the MT's image... So I'm not sure that the company's policy is trustful, while the fact that Mittal is its main holder doesn't makes me more confident about this company, in fact, it's quiet the opposite actually. It isn't the oil nor the gold business, so the public image is highly important here! People don't cherish iron enough to close their eyes on such a news lines!
Lions, Tigers And Bank Of America Shares [View article]
Well I suppose that all the billions he has made during his lifetime wasn't simply a matter of luck! Maybe he isn't as brilliant as people think or hope him to be, but he's still the word's leading businessman, who's actually working on the market and not just giving some fake advises without investing his own money and getting a revenue from some other activity. And of course, he isn't a politician or a public worker, which makes him an even more reliable person...
The question here, is what's Buffet's interest and what are his plans for BAC. I don't think it's simply a matter of getting there to bring more investors, cause he didn't invest in person, there are people behind him! It would be a way too big move of charity, cause you are just unable to secure 100% of your investment, a specially when you invest $5B! So I suppose, it will go up at some point, but I don't think I'll take the risk to keep the share by 17th November...
Lions, Tigers And Bank Of America Shares [View article]
I'm hallucinating... All the articles on seekingalpha are all the same! Some authors say, ok, sell the BAC, it smells bad and you can't trust them. Their papers might be fake and none knows what are their real losses... Others say sell BAC, HOWEVER, don't forget that Mr. Buffet invested 5 billions, so reconcider the situations as he might actually know something we don't.
Well I don't see the point af these articles! Everyone is aware that he doesn't know a thing about BAC - these are all pure speculations. The writer contradicts himself : "Yeah, it's like in '08, but the MAJOR difference is that we've got Buffet on board, so instead of sell, like we possibly should, let's buy even more shares! Even if normally having Buffet is a sufficient argument, strangely it doesn't sound enough in BAC's case!
Everyone knows that the situation isn't great and people who buy BAC are likely to be aware of that point and they buy BAC cause even if it's risky, it might bring a huge profit and hey, the fact that Buffet bought it, is a massive argument to make people invest too rather it's wright or wrong...
I remember, one of my college teachers told me in '08 that no one can actually accurately evaluate a Bank's price. Today the bank might officially worth billions and tomorrow go bankrupt. So what basically matters and actually influences the bank share's price is the confidence that people are ready to offer to that bank. Today, thanks to Mr. Buffet the confidence is much higher than a weak ago. Now is it sufficient to make BAC raise till $24 by the next month? I don't think so... Though, it might be enough to get it to its target price.
However, if BAC gets to its target price, its very likely that people would liquidate their shares and it would be a way of reason! Billions of shares has been traded for $6-8, so if the share gets to $12, it might be the BAC's end... It wouldn't be a question of confidence, but of reason!
So if I can give an advice, keep it short with BAC and don't be too greedy! None of you is as brilliant as Buffet, and unfortunately, I'm guessing that the only BAC's shareholder with a correct vision of the situation would be Mr. Omaha 2011, himself.
Personally I've bought BAC shares, just not to be too disappointed if it raises with Buffet on board. I'm not convinced in my latest acquisition though!
Why I Still Have Faith In Hewlett-Packard [View article]
PS: Unfortunately the refurbished Apples aren't sold in Europe, so we pay much more then you for their products, mainly because of the taxes and the exchange rate.
Why I Still Have Faith In Hewlett-Packard [View article]
Facebook's Fait Accompli: Strike 3 Looms As Insiders Sell Out While Investors Hold The Bag [View article]
Now what does this company have to offer? It's a company based on people's addictions and on the trend. Very dangerous combination in my opinion, since people might suddenly want to become again more anonymous on the Internet and since at some point people will realize how much time they actually waste on Facebook. I doubt that the Facebook's Internet ad project will actually bring them the fortune they are awaiting for. It's completely absurd, since people have an extremely negative opinion towards the websites that try to make them sell or "show" something. Just look at the last YouTube/Vevo reports since they put commercials in each video. For the first time, people prefer to use concurrent sites. If Facebook will start loosing clients, and I'm almost sure that they are already trying to hide the fact that they are loosing them, which is extremely easy (fake IP's and fake bot accounts), their marketing projects will officially fail. Eventually, they will become a penny stock... I would see them at $4/share and to be honest, I see much more potential in Zynga rather then in Facebook, since Zynga can place their products wherever they want and they will remain on the market even without Facebook.
15 Reasons Why Apple Is A Once In A Lifetime Opportunity [View article]
Nokia: Still A Strong Buy For Contrarians After Q2 Numbers [View article]
Apple: iPhone Subsidies Are Not The Issue [View article]
Now conserving the iPhone, is there another high scale phone that would cost from 615-900€? Accept Nokia's Vertue starting at 5000€, I don't know any. Nokia, Blackberry, Sumsung and HTC offer the exact same functions for 300-500€, so YES, iPhone is a luxury product and not simply a wise functional choice. You buy an iPhone for it's trend, cause it's hype to have one, or because you simply like its design, but it offers the exact same functions, the exact same technological specifications, for a much higher price simple because it's an Apple. Personally, I don't think that after the Job's era, the brand is still going to be as trendy and as innovative as it was before... This is the main problem of the companies that are based on an effect of trend and on one single person's talent.
Apple: iPhone Subsidies Are Not The Issue [View article]
As someone told me, don't mix sex with love, it isn't because you sleep with a woman that you have to merry her! Same thing with Apple... At this point, AAPL shares aren't the best investment on the market and let me explain you why.
Apple worth $608 a share and as you've probably seen, the stock has been bouncing for a couple of weeks now, as people aren't "so" sure that the stock has still a lot of potential for growth. On the other hand we've got Nokia, that worth $4/share, and just a week ago it cost $5/share. Since Nokia is the market leader, with a large scale of products and an extremely wide price range, I would say that there are more then 50% of chances that the stock will bounce back to at least its initial price of 5 bucks in a week, which already represents a return of 25% on the investment. What are the odds that Apple will take 25% in 7 days (which is $152)? I guess less then 1% of chances!
Today, you could have bought exactly 152 stocks of NOK, for only one stock of AAPL. However, you need a huge, massive, extraordinary piece of news to make move a mammoth like Apple by $152, while Nokia is a such a beaten stock, that with a tiny illusion of bettering it will certainly go up by just what you need to make some extra cash very quickly....
I don't "believe" in Nokia, but I'm sure that it's an excellent opportunity for a short term investment, and I don't see a better stock that could bring with such a high probabilities, such a big return in such a short period of time, while the risk for your investment is close to zero, since the company is still making billions, it has Microsoft watching its back and there is no apparent reason for it to bankrupt.
12 Stocks Through David Dreman's Latest Technique [View article]
1. You have to pick very solid companies so you could be sure that even if they had some issues they will easily gain their previous price back. For example, a lot of people have bet on Kodak before their bailout, believing they will still be able to make huge profits...
2. You must keep in mind that this technique isn't a form of classic investing, but rather a probability and risk/reward ratios calculus. So you don't need to spend weeks or even month to study the company's figures. Nevertheless youneed to figure out the risk you take by investing in a company that is having issues at that period of time.
I might be wrong, but I think that this "new" Dreman's technique is the best for shirt term investors who seek to make some fast and easy money and who can afford loosing a part of their bet...
The Moscow offices of BP see a second day of a concentrated search from Russian authorities looking for documents with the words "oil," "Artic," and "Stockholm arbitration," according to a BP spokesman. A timeline of the oil major's business in Russia shows a huge financial investment may end up paying off very little. [View news story]
Bet Against Buffett: Short Bank Of America On The Rally [View article]
I agree with you on some points, but you seem to be way too extreme! You sound like a newly politically active kid who thinks that life is simple and you just have to pick one of two solutions, while everyone in the Government are morons. The problem is that it isn't simple, and even when you only have to pick one of two options, already then, you have to ask yourself which option will bring the lightest consequences and with which of these consequences will you be able to deal...
Banks took these risks simply because they understand their power, no government in the West will let them down, cause they didn't do all this affaire alone. Many influent people took part in it and they have common interests and they will never make the banks go bankrupt. But even without this case, the governments made them kings, for instance, here in Europe, you can't even pay your bills without having a bank account, they simply don't accept the cash! Also, who will lend the government some cash? You maybe?
And the smaller banks you are talking about, how long will they stay small? How will you pick them up and how will you see that they are actually as responsible as you want them to be? How will you prevent them to grow? And how can you be sure that in 5 or even 10 years they wouldn't use the same old schemes as our banks?
The thing is, the government have way too many interests with the banks, cause the owners of these banks stay there for ages and they know everything about the politicians and the country. They work together and help each other, so why would they change the situation? It isn't perfect, but it's stable, and politicians love stability.
You want a utopia and fortunately you will never get it... So just try to grow up...
The recent sale of Bank of America's (BAC) China Construction Bank stake is just the latest in a series of moves by which embattled CEO Brian Moynihan has dismantled much of the empire built by Ken Lewis. SNL Financial's Nancy Bush sees Moynihan's actions as emblematic of a new generation of bankers who don't equate "bigger" with "better." [View news story]
Well personally, I can't be so sure that they are actually in trouble, and I'm not quiet sure that they need so much money... It's more likely that they prepare themselves to a possible recession and they try to get as much cash as they can to go through the crisis and than to be able to reinvest it better, as soon as it would be over.
Nevertheless, as the BAC's share worth 8 bucks, you see that BofA isn't solid enough to support his deficit departments, as they could have done a year ago. They need to find a quick way to bring their profit back, and I don't see a better way than selling the departments that make no benefice at all and that drug them even into red!
Take for example a chain store. Some of the stores make a big profit, while others make the main company lose money because the costs are higher than
the revenue. So why wouldn't the company sell those stores and even make a profit on the sale! It's in contrary, a good piece of news, for BofA, cause the CEO has finally decided to take his responsibilities and takes the wright measures to bring the bank back to the top with lower expanses and a higher ability to make profit! It has got way too big and way too fast, due to some unconsidered investments, so now they will simply start over with an extremely high cash-flow... The BofA future now only depends of its board, cause they have everything they need to succeed!
ArcelorMittal: The Best Way to Play the Steel Industry [View article]
Lions, Tigers And Bank Of America Shares [View article]
The question here, is what's Buffet's interest and what are his plans for BAC. I don't think it's simply a matter of getting there to bring more investors, cause he didn't invest in person, there are people behind him! It would be a way too big move of charity, cause you are just unable to secure 100% of your investment, a specially when you invest $5B! So I suppose, it will go up at some point, but I don't think I'll take the risk to keep the share by 17th November...
Lions, Tigers And Bank Of America Shares [View article]
Well I don't see the point af these articles! Everyone is aware that he doesn't know a thing about BAC - these are all pure speculations. The writer contradicts himself : "Yeah, it's like in '08, but the MAJOR difference is that we've got Buffet on board, so instead of sell, like we possibly should, let's buy even more shares! Even if normally having Buffet is a sufficient argument, strangely it doesn't sound enough in BAC's case!
Everyone knows that the situation isn't great and people who buy BAC are likely to be aware of that point and they buy BAC cause even if it's risky, it might bring a huge profit and hey, the fact that Buffet bought it, is a massive argument to make people invest too rather it's wright or wrong...
I remember, one of my college teachers told me in '08 that no one can actually accurately evaluate a Bank's price. Today the bank might officially worth billions and tomorrow go bankrupt. So what basically matters and actually influences the bank share's price is the confidence that people are ready to offer to that bank. Today, thanks to Mr. Buffet the confidence is much higher than a weak ago. Now is it sufficient to make BAC raise till $24 by the next month? I don't think so... Though, it might be enough to get it to its target price.
However, if BAC gets to its target price, its very likely that people would liquidate their shares and it would be a way of reason! Billions of shares has been traded for $6-8, so if the share gets to $12, it might be the BAC's end... It wouldn't be a question of confidence, but of reason!
So if I can give an advice, keep it short with BAC and don't be too greedy! None of you is as brilliant as Buffet, and unfortunately, I'm guessing that the only BAC's shareholder with a correct vision of the situation would be Mr. Omaha 2011, himself.
Personally I've bought BAC shares, just not to be too disappointed if it raises with Buffet on board. I'm not convinced in my latest acquisition though!
What Warren Buffett's Investment In Bank Of America Doesn't Tell Us [View article]