Seeking Alpha


Send Message
View as an RSS Feed
View Davidoff's Comments BY TICKER:
Latest  |  Highest rated
  • Apple: Some Appear Too Optimistic [View article]

    I don't want to argue with you, it's completely pointless. It's a subject about which everyone has been arguing for decades without any results. It's all part of these endless discussions in economics and econometrics and it also depends of your personal time perspective. If you consider markets on the long term, sure all the ratios are important and at some point they allow to explain the "why" question, but they don't give us the possibility to make any 100% accurate forecasts. If you watch markets on the short term, ratios are completely useless. All these "magical companies", as you call them, allowed me and many other people to make loads of cash. What most of the people call a dot-com bubble was a true Eldorado for me and my associates, even though the end was quiet a hangover, we lost 27% of our profits in a month. More recently, the same thing went for AMZN (+98% net profit in about a year), NFLX (+270% net profit) and TSLA (almost 450% profit in just a year!). Do I believe in these companies? Hell no! But were they among the best trades of my life? Obviously! These "houses of cards" made simply the best year in my trading career, while I expected it to be an extremely hard time frame for me. If you think it's enough to take a glimpse on some "public" ratios to become a billionaire (I'm not claiming to be one), than you're dead wrong. Trading is not about public information or technics, you must be the fastest, the most sensitive and the most imaginative to make it.

    "The PE does not need to be compared to any other company to have a meaning." [...] "Given the fact Apple's PE and PEG are still much lower than other tech companies leaves you with a decision."
    -> If you start arguing with someone, please don't contradict yourself inside the same comment. You simply have to compare any ratio to get the most exhaustive information.

    Michael Blair is an extremely weird man. He says himself that he believes that AAPL will sell loads of iPhones, will make smashing profits, will do well on the short term, but would fall on the long term. So even though he believes that you need to be long now, he goes short already. I can't even imagine what's going on in his poor head.

    I don't know for sure why exactly people started to go long on AAPL again. I suppose that everyone had his own reason. I bought back at $392, after shorting it from $630 (with interruptions), because the share price seemed right, because of the dividends, because of the buy back program, iPhone 6, iWatch, then I stayed long because of a bigger buy back program, the split, etc... I don't really care about the P/E to make my investment decisions, even though I keep it in my mind unconsciously. Regarding the valuation, you can never say. I'm still long now, but I don't know for how long.
    Jun 24, 2014. 07:19 PM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Apple: Some Appear Too Optimistic [View article]
    Jim Mullin,

    I'm surprised that you don't understand that obvious question. The whole point of a ratio is to compare it to other ratios, since it's mainly a statistic tool. A ratio as it is, doesn't provide any useful information. The fact that you compare AAPL's P/E only to S&P, is quiet awkward. You obviously have to compare it to other tech companies, I'd say at least 5 of them, to offer us a descent argumentation. And that's where you'd notice that your argumentation is extremely weak, since P/E isn't representative at all on the tech market. So what "what do I know" tried to tell you, is that there are dozens of companies with completely ridiculous P/E ratios, especially when you compare them to APPL.

    So even though I agree with your conclusion, I disagree with your argumentation completely and you should seriously improve it.
    Jun 24, 2014. 04:33 PM | 4 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Apple Market Share: Slip, Slipping Away [View article]
    "Boring products with little innovation."

    That's a highly subjective claim. I'd prefer you to tell us which phone would you consider as "exciting and innovative"? AMZN with a simplistic useless 3D screen that apparently gives headaches? I hope you have the honesty to admit that it's just a gimmick and that we are still a couple of years away of the real holographic 3D technology. Or maybe would you consider Samsung or the bulky Nokia/MSFT as more innovative?

    "Most think the new iPhone will sell very well and so do I [...]"

    And that's all that should matter to a rational investor, who's not a biased reckless geek like yourself. I don't know if you are able to realize that you hate AAPL without any rational reason and because of that blind hatred you have already missed a huge 35% rally and you're about to miss the next huge rally too. You're not an investor, you're a lunatic bigot.

    Anyhow, thanks for your article. After your last piece AAPL rallied, let's hope that it's going to be an encore!

    PS : Do you still eat apples for breakfast, or did they become the forbidden fruit at your home too?
    Jun 23, 2014. 11:28 AM | 32 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • BlackBerry adds to gains on Evercore upgrade [View news story]
    "by $4 to $10", not from 4 to 10 ($6 -> $10). Just saying.
    Jun 23, 2014. 11:13 AM | 6 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Google buys Skybox Imaging for $500M [View news story]
    At some point GOOG is actually going to get broken into pieces by the US or EU. GOOG becomes way too powerful and with projects such as self driving cars, military drones, home control, military robotics and now satellites, they start to look more and more like some James Bond villains (not even to mention that Sergey Brin is from USSR). I'm kidding of course, however the perception of GOOG in Europe and Asia is extremly negative and people tend to see GOOG as a potential threat. At first, people were afraid for their privacy and were concerned by author rights trials and their fiscal technics, but today with their new projects it seems like GOOG is about to create its own army and settle a 1984 Big Brother's regime at our homes. It would be extremely easy for governments to justify the break up, even without their famous "informative" campaigns for citizens. Today we don't really see where Google is going, what is their direction and what are their purposes, so it would be quiet interesting to see what will go on next.
    Jun 10, 2014. 04:20 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Amazon's New Smartphone Spells Trouble For Apple [View article]
    David Trainer,

    I think that AAPL's customers can be divided in two main categories : APPL unconditional fans and snobs. Neither of them would buy a cheap AMZN phone no matter how good it could be. They'd rather wait for AAPL's next iPhone that would offer the same features. An AMZN phone is rather a potential thread for lower tier phones, like Samsung, MSFT, etc... Also, most of the people expect the imminent iPhone 6 launch to chose their next phone, so any company that would launch a new model during the next 2-3 months is going to be seriously disappointed by the first quarter sales.
    Jun 9, 2014. 12:37 PM | 3 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Apple unveils Mac OS Yosemite, iCloud Drive, Handoff feature [View news story]
    If I was you, I'd quit these antidepressants you've been taking...
    Jun 2, 2014. 02:01 PM | 9 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • iBeacon to be unveiled at San Francisco Developers Conference [View news story]
    I love when longs who sell to buy lower suddenly turn extremely bearish in a minute...

    No iBeacon yet, but when they announced that the OS Yosemite allows to receive iPhone calls and regular SMS on your Mac, it was simply amazing, the whole audience went wild.
    Jun 2, 2014. 01:43 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Fresh 52-week highs for Apple following Goldman PT hike [View news story]
    6th June.
    May 30, 2014. 01:15 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • No News Is Good News At J.C. Penney [View article]
    JCP is the kind of companies that not one single rational investor should invest in, but you just feel the need to take a small stake, cause at some point it must shoot higher. In JPC's case you invest in a story, not in a company. I don't believe in a magical turnaround, but I do believe in the Wall street's legendary CEO's mea culpa effect. Many companies stood at JCP's place, for example HPQ, YHOO, AMZN, BBY, BBRY, etc. for the most recent examples, but also car makers or banks after 2009. CEOs or even the whole board stands up and publicly recognize that their company is a mess, that they made a lot of mistakes in the past, but that they are fully committed to make their company work. That fake honesty technic works almost each time. With a tiny sign of recovery shares soar and the whole point is to dump them at the right moment. Nothing justifies these spikes, but they still happen and I expect JCP to have that kind of spike by October.
    May 30, 2014. 01:11 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • No News Is Good News At J.C. Penney [View article]
    Huh, no more personal stories about driving 35 miles to get a $0.50 refund on a coffee? I'm impressed! Very good article.

    It's obvious that JCP is in a terrible shape, but their situation is reflected in the share price and that's exactly why they trade that low. They lose hundreds of millions a quarter, we can express serious doubts regarding their long term solvency and it should take quarters before they'd show any serious signs of improvement. It's an extremly risky investment, but the potential returns might go up to 100% in midterm without any real improvements, just on the sentiment shift and that's why in my opinion it's important to take a small position.
    May 30, 2014. 06:04 AM | 4 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Google's next moves for self-driving cars: no steering, pedals [View news story]
    In 2004 DARPA announced its Grand Challenge mainly for college students and researchers. Just to remind you, US Army offered $1 million to any team that would be able to develop a self driving car, that would be able to drive alone (using GPS) 150 miles in a straight line in Mojave desert without having any accidents. It was quiet terrible, the best car drove about 7 miles before taking fire. In 2005, the event took place again and this time the main prize was doubled. Just one year later, over 20 cars drove farther than the 2004's best car and 5 teams managed to make their cars drive 150 miles. The leap is simply huge, we went from 7 miles in 2004 to 150 miles in 2005. And finally, in 2010, only 5 years after the first self-driving car (in straight line), Google started to test their famous Google cars driving as good as with a driver. They didn't even have one single accident. It took only 6 years to develop a fully autonomous self-driving car out of scratch. It wouldn't amaze me if in 10 years from now, self-driving cars would become a norm, just like self-parking cars are today. By the way, could you imagine 10-15 years ago that cars would start parking by their own? The only thing that amazed me is the fact that no one was even impressed by that innovation.

    Things move extremly fast in the IT field. It's not just about iPhones or Galaxy or whatever. Most of the innovations aren't even revealed to the public. The issue is that innovation isn't controlled at all and our society isn't even ready for these concepts. We wouldn't even be able to use their full potential and we don't even have the needed time to think about how to integrate them in the best way. Our institutions need decades to adapt themselves, while technologies become obsolete in a matter of years, or even months in some cases. It would take at least 20 years for governments to fit the educational system to today's realities, so we could most certainly expect decades of employment mismatches and structural unemployments. The same happens in the IT security. Governements can't even figure out how to protect the governmental software or data, while hackers find new ways to breach the security each week. But even if they could figure that out, they don't have the necessary funds. We are talking in terms of trillions in new investments and perhaps only 95% of these funds would be used correctly. When corporations started to adopt computers in the 80-90ies, about 80% (don't remember the exact rate) of the funds were completely wasted, so we could expect at least the same for governements.
    May 28, 2014. 09:42 AM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Google's next moves for self-driving cars: no steering, pedals [View news story]
    I'd love to have an option on my regular car so that it would "self-drive", but I doubt that I'd buy a car without pedals or steering. The most important question is not just security, a lot of people love driving.
    It's important to notice however, that this kind of projects are going to hit the employment market very hard. All the public transportation is going to be completely transformed. Professions like bus drivers, train drivers, taxi drivers, chauffeurs, etc. will be replaced by machines. Then eventually, pilots, ship crews, but also postmen, deliverers and garbagemen are going to be replaced by informatics. Low qualified workers are going to be the first to be dismissed and it's going to create a terrible social and economical situation. According to The Economist 49% of jobs will be able to be replaced by computers by 2030 (just 16 years from now). I doubt that the economical profits coming from self-driving cars are going to be sufficient to compensate that loss. We can't go against the pace of the future, but we should move much more carefully, cause at this point we create new problems instead of settling them.
    May 28, 2014. 07:11 AM | 3 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • FT: Errors place doubt on Piketty's theory about rising inequality [View news story]
    About a month ago FT published an article claiming that in 10-15 years from now the world is going to have its first trillionaire, but besides that, FT is absolutely right, there is no evidence of increasing wealth inequality whatsoever. Either FT serves its masters, either FT economists bought their degrees and never leave their uptown parties since then, cause an economist must be completely blind or biased to claim that inequalities don't increase all over the world.
    May 25, 2014. 08:19 AM | 11 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Microsoft launches 12" Surface Pro 3 with Intel Core CPUs [View news story]
    Yep, that's why Mac sales increase year after year, while PC sales stagnate and drop. There is no canibalisation of Macs by tablets. At some point MSFT should face the reality and stop trying to become a hardware company. The most important point of this article is "not an iPad-killer, but a niche product". A lot of write offs to come next year. Nokia's acquisition ink isn't even dry yet and they should already prepare themselves to get back to Earth. Buying a struggling hardware company without patents and just licenses payed at the highest market price is just ridiculous.
    May 20, 2014. 04:41 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment