Seeking Alpha


Send Message
View as an RSS Feed
View Vinocat's Comments BY TICKER:
Latest  |  Highest rated
  • Tesla: Is A $320 Price Target Reasonable? [View article]
    @Riley, Mercedes is selling a good number of their new, CLA-class $30,000 car! Doesn't seem to have spoiled their higher-end business either.
    Aug 4 11:37 AM | 5 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Tesla: Is A $320 Price Target Reasonable? [View article]
    Your math on the electricity is right, but you are missing the fundamental supply chain issue. As with gasoline, there is/was a problem of delivering fuel (in whatever form) to the point of sale. This supply chain -- one that delivers charges batteries to the "fueling stations" will develop as a simple consequence of demand. The ability to produce "fuel" at the point of sale (i.e., charge batteries via solar or from the grid, in cars or in inventory) is merely a bonus that cannot be done with petro-fuel. However, as demand rises, one can reasonably expect that there will be trucks delivering charged-up battery packs to filling stations, to meet that demand if it exceeds the local production capacity.

    In other words, the existing petrochemical "grid" and supply chain can certainly be replaced over time with one for providing charging and replacement batteries.

    Meanwhile, one can certainly top-up one's EV when making anything more than a trivial stop. You may need to make a 100km run to work in the morning, but once there, you can presumably plug in for 4-8 hours or more, so the problem as you state it doesn't really exist except in rare cases (like a delivery route or taxicab, where such plugging/unplugging would be cumbersome).
    Aug 4 10:13 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Fly Leasing Likely To Fall Further [View article]
    David, you're making a classic, common mistake in misstating the effects of a secondary offering on a company's share price, and linking the change in FLY's price *mathematically* to the offering. In a secondary offering, "all other things" besides the share count do NOT stay the same: the company receives money for those offered shares, thus increasing their asset base and book value. Your analysis confuses book value (which is math-based) with market value (which is perception/emotion based).

    Having offered the shares below market value, the company may well have been signaling their belief that the company was perceptually overvalued, and the market reacted accordingly. However, it may also have been a price point designed to assure the success of the offering. Either way, there is a big difference between market cap and book value.
    Jul 16 08:00 PM | 3 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Facebook Social Graph Bad News For LinkedIn [View article]
    I'm sorry, but this isn't a well-considered analysis at all... FB's graph search is for exploring your own extended network. LinkedIn, for recruiters (who pay for the privilege), offers the ability to seek out people who aren't in your network at all. This is a huge difference, since in the LinkedIn world, subscribers have structured their professional information with the specific purpose of being found by recruiters. Currently, recruiters might use FB to seek out damning information about a candidate, to rule them out of a search, nothing more. The whole graph search thing is a joke.
    Jan 15 07:24 PM | 3 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • IBM Does Not Compute [View article]
    This is why bean counters are generally not good at business strategy: they easily miss the inherent valuation metrics that, while subjective, do in fact affect revenue and earnings. The previous commenter is correct in noting that IBM would be trading at a p/e of 5 if we used the author's "fair" valuation.

    Also, the author assesses the probability of a successful short-term trade at 137:1 against? Huh? Based on what? He obviously misses the whole essence of short term trading, which has to take into account both market and specific equity volatility, among other things not considered here. A blanket odds assessment like that implies that the stock is tanking, and fast -- a ridiculous assertion at best. In the real trading world (not the bean counters), performance is measured by results (ironincally, this was HP's tag line many years ago).

    This is also why technical analysis must always be vetted with a healthy dose of "thinking it through".
    Nov 27 12:35 PM | 3 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Android, Eat My Dust [View article]
    I don't know wat phone you have, but my Android phone's (Samsung Fascinate, and now LG Spectrum) Google Navigation app has given spoken turn-by-turn directions for well over 2 years. Check your facts.
    Sep 25 08:14 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Apple: Take The Money And Run [View article]
    Well, as usual, the zealots will be sealots, on both sides. The fact is, the author has some valid points (e.g., if you're up 50-100x on an investment, you should probably lighten up your position), and some that are built on thinly vetted observations... As for the latter, let's just say that price, as it were, and sales, are independently affected by the markets they apply to. MSFT and INTC are both seeing relatively little of their margins squeezed by competition, but their sales growth has leveled off as they approach the size limits of their attendant markets (which makes sense, as they are both basically monopoly players in their respective markets -- mobile is a rounding error for MSFT). AAPL, on the other hand, as a consumer entertainment company with clear ambitions to be in all aspects of that market, has probably got a lot more sales-growth headroom to go before its target markets are saturated; but it also will see significant competition. What this all means, net-net, is that while sales growth may start to level off, that (being a first-derivative measure) does not mean that the stock price won't still experience growth, but perhaps not as fast. If sales were to actually decline, then that would be a powerful argument to take the money and run, but even the most pessimistic folks don't see that happening for AAPL in the near horizon.
    Sep 7 07:20 PM | 7 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Apple (AAPL): FQ3 EPS of $9.32 misses by $1.04. Revenue of $35B (+22% Y/Y) misses by $2.5B. 26M iPhones sold, 17M iPads, 4M Macs. Shares -5.5% AH. (PR).  [View news story]
    Really? I know the unlimited data plan appeals to a small minority of heavy data users who like to stream multimedia -- I myself have a grandfathered unlimited plan w/ Verizon. But frankly, the share-the-data plans should appeal hugely to families, and should ultimately sell more smartphones overall. For groups of users careful enough to avoid heavy streaming, it's a tremendous improvement over per-device data plans.
    Jul 24 09:02 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Netflix Would Be A Buy, If It Weren't For These Crazy Decisions [View article]
    Have to agree with Josh here. This has nothing whatsoever to do with DRM, since we are not talking about restricting something that has been paid for incrementally -- the series content is incidental to the overall service for which the customer is paying. In other words, we are talking here about making the most out of an intelligent release schedule, not about constraining the customers' right-to-use it after release.

    What matters here for Netflix is the creation and maintenance of demand for their service. Presumably, those that like their current content offering are buying it, and the investment in exclusive and first-run content is all about enticing new subscribers. In other words, the HBO model. As an example, do you really think that HBO's investment in Game of Thrones would be recouped if they showed the whole series in one month?
    Jun 27 10:50 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Netflix Will Rocket Higher On New U.K., Latin American Markets [View article]
    Dude, put the bong pipe down.

    Seriously, this is some of the most naive analysis of a stock I've ever seen. Missed 80% of the competitive threats; missed NFLX's core weaknesses of content cost escalation and cash flow issues over time; overstated their strength by ignoring the real condition of competitors in both domestic and foreign markets; and lastly, made no detailed mention of any forthcoming opportunities or strategies to address the foregoing problems.

    In other words, complete SWOT analysis fail.
    Apr 18 04:21 PM | 3 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Netflix CEO Reed Hastings Is Actually Right [View article]
    Somebody here finally made a comment about "addressable market", which seems to elude most observers... DVD player penetration in the US exceeds 95% of all households right now. Broadband penetration is somewhere around 75-80%, and paring that down to just the households with broadband AND a movie-friendly setup would bring that number down by at least half (most people do not want to watch movies on their computer screen, unless their screen happens to also be a big-screen TV. What this means among other things is that the DVD business, even with all the overhead, is far from dead, and in fact has pretty substantial growth potential -- if NFLX would wake up...

    Right now, Netflix's biggest issue, for both streaming and DVD business, is that they've damaged their brand, and there are very low barriers to entry for cash-flush competitors such as Amazon and Apple, both of whom can run rings around Netflix for infrastructure and supply chain management; either of these companies has the cash to win a war of attrition against Netflix (hell, Apple could, literally, buy every major Hollywood studio, and have enough left over to pick up the NFL as well...). As pointed out here many times, NFLX has no *uncommitted* cash, period.
    Dec 27 02:57 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Netflix: A Quick And Dirty Sum Of The Parts Valuation [View article]
    While mathematically legitimate, ascribing an 80 PE to any business under such imminent threat of real competition, as is the streaming business, is nuts. Maybe on a good day I'd hope for a 30-40 PE for that segment, which at 40 yields a $24.11 valuation, and an $82.86 price target.
    Sep 21 01:16 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Sirius XM Raises Rates, But Blows Opportunity [View article]
    It's hard to believe so many on this thread are missing a couple of very obvious market-driven points about the increase (and the wisdom of having one at all).

    First, while it's true Sirius enjoys a monopoly in the satellite radio space, the reality is that the overall space of broad spectrum and on-demand entertainment, especially in a mobile environment, has expanded tremendously, leaving Sirius at a competitive DISadvantage, at least until we see how 2.0 goes. For example: the combination of widespread iPod and Bluetooth A2DP integration, and Rhapsody/Napster streaming, plus streamable radio from virtually every conventional station, means that I can get pretty much the content I want in my car with very little effort. In fact, we rarely need to use the conventional radio, and all of our playlists and home music collection (and 10 million other Rhapsody tracks) are effectively online all the time while mobile. With the improvements in voice recognition, we actually use the phone (Android) as a "live jukebox" where we can say the name of an artist or song on the fly, and hear what we want instantly. This also works for podcasts and accessing radio stations that stream.

    Second, although Sirius hasn't raised rates, its costs have changed, mostly to the company's benefit. Every form of technology the service relies on has become less costly. Most of their other costs have been fairly stable or improved. Meanwhile the providers of all the new forms of competition (see above) have seen their intrisic costs to deliver content fall drastically (e.g., bandwidth, content licensing, etc.) on a per-impression basis.

    Also, if you look at the number of Satellite-radio capable devices in (subscribed) use, as a percentage of total capable devices working (but not subscribed) out there, I expect you'll find that percentage has been falling consistently over time.

    So if anything, Sirius should be cutting their basic rates in the hope of capturing subscriber base that is out there but not signed up. They could improve revenue streams through on-demand content sales (i.e., take a page from the cable providers' playbook, which responded to very similar market evolutionary dynamics), using Sirius 2.0 features.

    Disclosure: I have no holdings in SIRI or its derivatives, but I'm inclined to short it over the long term.
    Sep 15 02:28 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • What Does Google Want With Zagat? [View article]
    I have to agree here. Zagat's brand equity is rooted in old media and the "personal" nature of its reviews. Google may not be a trusted name in food reviews today, but it could be quickly, and without having to transfer the brand equity of a Zagat to itself. Seems very much like money needlessly spent.
    Sep 8 07:38 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment