<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">
  <channel>
    <title>bailinnumberguy's Comments</title>
    <description>bailinnumberguy's Comments RSS Syndication from SeekingAlpha.com</description>
    <link>http://seekingalpha.com/user/1037432/comments</link>
    <item>
      <title>Estimate cuts from Pac Crest's Andy Hargreaves are helping Apple (AAPL -2%) underperform. Citing weak demand for the 9.7" iPad - he thinks this is likely "a sustained trend" as demand shifts to smaller/cheaper tablets - and a demand pause ahead of a refresh, Hargreaves is cutting his FQ3 (June quarter) iPad forecast to 15M units from 18.5M. He also thinks "the high end of the smartphone market is quickly becoming saturated," and has lowered FQ2 and FQ4 revenue/EPS estimates further below consensus. Hargreaves cut Apple to Sector Perform on Jan. 16, when shares were at $503.</title>
      <link>http://seekingalpha.com/currents/post/912801?source=feed#comment-16922121</link>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">16922121</guid>
      <content>
        <![CDATA[I was in an AT&amp;T store today looking at some peripherals.  I asked the salesman how iPhone sales have been and he indicated that more than 80% of the phones that they sell are iPhones.  Rumors of Apple's demise have been greatly overstated.]]>
      </content>
      <pubDate>Thu, 28 Mar 2013 06:42:43 -0400</pubDate>
      <description>
        <![CDATA[I was in an AT&amp;T store today looking at some peripherals.  I asked the salesman how iPhone sales have been and he indicated that more than 80% of the phones that they sell are iPhones.  Rumors of Apple's demise have been greatly overstated.]]>
      </description>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Estimate cuts from Pac Crest's Andy Hargreaves are helping Apple (AAPL -2%) underperform. Citing weak demand for the 9.7" iPad - he thinks this is likely "a sustained trend" as demand shifts to smaller/cheaper tablets - and a demand pause ahead of a refresh, Hargreaves is cutting his FQ3 (June quarter) iPad forecast to 15M units from 18.5M. He also thinks "the high end of the smartphone market is quickly becoming saturated," and has lowered FQ2 and FQ4 revenue/EPS estimates further below consensus. Hargreaves cut Apple to Sector Perform on Jan. 16, when shares were at $503.</title>
      <link>http://seekingalpha.com/currents/post/912801?source=feed#comment-16919471</link>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">16919471</guid>
      <content>
        <![CDATA[GOOG's bubbles about to burst somewhat.  The run up in Google is mainly a function of the sell-off in Apple, as misinformed investors assume that Apple's loss is Google's gain.  ]]>
      </content>
      <pubDate>Thu, 28 Mar 2013 03:55:48 -0400</pubDate>
      <description>
        <![CDATA[GOOG's bubbles about to burst somewhat.  The run up in Google is mainly a function of the sell-off in Apple, as misinformed investors assume that Apple's loss is Google's gain.  ]]>
      </description>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Apple - Hold On Tight And Don't Play Wall Street's Game</title>
      <link>http://seekingalpha.com/article/1282491/comments?source=feed#comment-16461951</link>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">16461951</guid>
      <content>
        <![CDATA[No one disputes that there is room for Apple in the global economy.  What is in dispute is the prevailing $400B market cap]]>
      </content>
      <pubDate>Mon, 18 Mar 2013 17:48:12 -0400</pubDate>
      <description>
        <![CDATA[No one disputes that there is room for Apple in the global economy.  What is in dispute is the prevailing $400B market cap]]>
      </description>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Apple - Hold On Tight And Don't Play Wall Street's Game</title>
      <link>http://seekingalpha.com/article/1282491/comments?source=feed#comment-16443121</link>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">16443121</guid>
      <content>
        <![CDATA[&quot;With all due respect, the movements of the market are not solely nor even more than marginally due to day traders and manipulation. The market is an efficient discounting mechanism, and Apple's shares have simply been reflecting investor concern about where future growth will come from for the behemoth of a company.&quot;<br/><br/>With all due respect you probably also believe in the Easter Bunny.  From Thanksgiving 2011 to September 21, 2012 Apple's share price nearly doubled.  From September 21, 2012 to the present Apple's share price has given back most of what it gained in the preceding period.  Throughout these periods Apple has sold about what was expected in its major product lines and competition has, as had been anticipated, gotten stronger.  Where in this scenario are you finding market efficiency?]]>
      </content>
      <pubDate>Mon, 18 Mar 2013 12:13:44 -0400</pubDate>
      <description>
        <![CDATA[&quot;With all due respect, the movements of the market are not solely nor even more than marginally due to day traders and manipulation. The market is an efficient discounting mechanism, and Apple's shares have simply been reflecting investor concern about where future growth will come from for the behemoth of a company.&quot;<br/><br/>With all due respect you probably also believe in the Easter Bunny.  From Thanksgiving 2011 to September 21, 2012 Apple's share price nearly doubled.  From September 21, 2012 to the present Apple's share price has given back most of what it gained in the preceding period.  Throughout these periods Apple has sold about what was expected in its major product lines and competition has, as had been anticipated, gotten stronger.  Where in this scenario are you finding market efficiency?]]>
      </description>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>The Non-Decline And Fall Of Apple</title>
      <link>http://seekingalpha.com/article/1269941/comments?source=feed#comment-16300191</link>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">16300191</guid>
      <content>
        <![CDATA[Apple's share price shot up dramatically from about $362 on Black Friday 2011 to $705 on September 21, 2012 adding an enormous amount of market cap.  Just as dramatically, it's dropped to about $430 in less than 6 months.<br/><br/>It takes an awful lot of impetus to push a company the size of Apple that far up and back down again.  Anyone paying attention to the sudden change in sentiment about Apple, if he was a suspicious sort, might conclude that there was a concerted effort to push the price up and then drag it down again.  Of course I could be wrong.]]>
      </content>
      <pubDate>Thu, 14 Mar 2013 18:21:45 -0400</pubDate>
      <description>
        <![CDATA[Apple's share price shot up dramatically from about $362 on Black Friday 2011 to $705 on September 21, 2012 adding an enormous amount of market cap.  Just as dramatically, it's dropped to about $430 in less than 6 months.<br/><br/>It takes an awful lot of impetus to push a company the size of Apple that far up and back down again.  Anyone paying attention to the sudden change in sentiment about Apple, if he was a suspicious sort, might conclude that there was a concerted effort to push the price up and then drag it down again.  Of course I could be wrong.]]>
      </description>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Apple: Wall Street's Ignorance At Large Again</title>
      <link>http://seekingalpha.com/article/1265391/comments?source=feed#comment-16196311</link>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">16196311</guid>
      <content>
        <![CDATA[Trying to use any kind of a discounted cash flow method 10 years out in the uber-competitive technology space where almost any company isn't a certainty to even exist in a decade is a waste of time.  The one question that investors should ask themselves is 'Is Apple's future worth its current market cap of $400 B?'.  If you think it is, and keep in mind that that's 1 1/2 times Google's future, and no other company except one is anywhere close to that level, by all means invest in Apple.  Otherwise, abstain.]]>
      </content>
      <pubDate>Tue, 12 Mar 2013 16:30:25 -0400</pubDate>
      <description>
        <![CDATA[Trying to use any kind of a discounted cash flow method 10 years out in the uber-competitive technology space where almost any company isn't a certainty to even exist in a decade is a waste of time.  The one question that investors should ask themselves is 'Is Apple's future worth its current market cap of $400 B?'.  If you think it is, and keep in mind that that's 1 1/2 times Google's future, and no other company except one is anywhere close to that level, by all means invest in Apple.  Otherwise, abstain.]]>
      </description>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Why You Should Buy Apple Now</title>
      <link>http://seekingalpha.com/article/1261501/comments?source=feed#comment-16118581</link>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">16118581</guid>
      <content>
        <![CDATA[The best thing that Apple can do in the near term is bring in a financial engineering guru and consider moving that bean counter, Peter Oppenheimer, on to special projects.  The company is sitting on an absurd level of cash doing nothing.  Finance types know this and discount the company's value greatly because of it.  David Einhorn is a blow-hard, but he understands the power in Apple's cash position.]]>
      </content>
      <pubDate>Mon, 11 Mar 2013 05:44:44 -0400</pubDate>
      <description>
        <![CDATA[The best thing that Apple can do in the near term is bring in a financial engineering guru and consider moving that bean counter, Peter Oppenheimer, on to special projects.  The company is sitting on an absurd level of cash doing nothing.  Finance types know this and discount the company's value greatly because of it.  David Einhorn is a blow-hard, but he understands the power in Apple's cash position.]]>
      </description>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Why You Should Buy Apple Now</title>
      <link>http://seekingalpha.com/article/1261501/comments?source=feed#comment-16118571</link>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">16118571</guid>
      <content>
        <![CDATA[An old Finance professor of mine had a joke about technical analysis:  A technical analyst is shown his EKG while under sedation.  When he leaves the hospital he logs on to his trading account and tries to buy shares of EKG.   Ba da bing.]]>
      </content>
      <pubDate>Mon, 11 Mar 2013 05:44:14 -0400</pubDate>
      <description>
        <![CDATA[An old Finance professor of mine had a joke about technical analysis:  A technical analyst is shown his EKG while under sedation.  When he leaves the hospital he logs on to his trading account and tries to buy shares of EKG.   Ba da bing.]]>
      </description>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Why Apple Should Follow IBM's Successful Turnaround Story</title>
      <link>http://seekingalpha.com/article/1259981/comments?source=feed#comment-16075731</link>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">16075731</guid>
      <content>
        <![CDATA[Apple's the most profitable company in the world with more money in the bank than they could ever need.  In retrospect the stock's run to $700 was an ill-fated speculative fiasco.  People forget that Apple became the most valuable company in history 6 months ago.  If there never was that big run up no one would be talking about 'turning around' Apple.]]>
      </content>
      <pubDate>Sat, 09 Mar 2013 13:03:40 -0500</pubDate>
      <description>
        <![CDATA[Apple's the most profitable company in the world with more money in the bank than they could ever need.  In retrospect the stock's run to $700 was an ill-fated speculative fiasco.  People forget that Apple became the most valuable company in history 6 months ago.  If there never was that big run up no one would be talking about 'turning around' Apple.]]>
      </description>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Apple Can Recapture Old Magic By Looking To The East</title>
      <link>http://seekingalpha.com/article/1258361/comments?source=feed#comment-16024291</link>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">16024291</guid>
      <content>
        <![CDATA[Apple was essentially a monopoly in the quality smartphone category when the iPhone first arrived and for several years thereafter.  Other companies, principally Samsung (who also is a key supplier to Apple) , figured out what Apple was doing and Apple is no longer a monopoly in that space.  Monopolies make big profits.  Competition erodes those profits.  That's only been the case for the last 1000 years or so.  That's pretty much the story of what's going on w/ Apple.]]>
      </content>
      <pubDate>Fri, 08 Mar 2013 08:20:08 -0500</pubDate>
      <description>
        <![CDATA[Apple was essentially a monopoly in the quality smartphone category when the iPhone first arrived and for several years thereafter.  Other companies, principally Samsung (who also is a key supplier to Apple) , figured out what Apple was doing and Apple is no longer a monopoly in that space.  Monopolies make big profits.  Competition erodes those profits.  That's only been the case for the last 1000 years or so.  That's pretty much the story of what's going on w/ Apple.]]>
      </description>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Apple: Learn From Andy Zaky's Mistake</title>
      <link>http://seekingalpha.com/article/1254871/comments?source=feed#comment-16002411</link>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">16002411</guid>
      <content>
        <![CDATA[What burned a lot of us was the notion that AAPL ALWAYS bounces back.  As it started moving down off of its $700 high, we all thought that it was a sell the news (iPhone 5) temporary re-trace to load up on for greater profits moving into the Christmas quarter.  We all thought that Apple was that one stock that would defy gravity forever and just keep climbing to astronomical levels.  It's still a bit of a shock that the stock reversed course so dramatically, but the point is well taken in this article:  if you put too many of your eggs in one basket too often, eventually you'll have problems w/ that basket.<br/><br/>I was in an Apple Store yesterday.  As a reformed Apple bull, it was depressing.  Gone were the usual crowds, just a hand-full of customers being trained and wandering around.  Maybe it was an isolated event, but it's been a long time since I've seen an Apple Store so desolate.]]>
      </content>
      <pubDate>Thu, 07 Mar 2013 17:02:58 -0500</pubDate>
      <description>
        <![CDATA[What burned a lot of us was the notion that AAPL ALWAYS bounces back.  As it started moving down off of its $700 high, we all thought that it was a sell the news (iPhone 5) temporary re-trace to load up on for greater profits moving into the Christmas quarter.  We all thought that Apple was that one stock that would defy gravity forever and just keep climbing to astronomical levels.  It's still a bit of a shock that the stock reversed course so dramatically, but the point is well taken in this article:  if you put too many of your eggs in one basket too often, eventually you'll have problems w/ that basket.<br/><br/>I was in an Apple Store yesterday.  As a reformed Apple bull, it was depressing.  Gone were the usual crowds, just a hand-full of customers being trained and wandering around.  Maybe it was an isolated event, but it's been a long time since I've seen an Apple Store so desolate.]]>
      </description>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Buffett Has The Solution For Apple</title>
      <link>http://seekingalpha.com/article/1246761/comments?source=feed#comment-15852531</link>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">15852531</guid>
      <content>
        <![CDATA[Apple has this reputation as this great innovative company.  History doesn't really bear this out.  Apple has taken EXISTING technology developed by other companies and outflanked its competition.  That was purely a function of the brilliance of Steve Jobs, who had a unique talent to package highly appealing products.  Tim Cook seems like a talented guy, but he isn't Steve Jobs.  Apple is now one of several companies w/ talented people competing in a hypercompetitive market space.  People like Steve Jobs and Bill Gates simply aren't replaceable.]]>
      </content>
      <pubDate>Tue, 05 Mar 2013 09:03:57 -0500</pubDate>
      <description>
        <![CDATA[Apple has this reputation as this great innovative company.  History doesn't really bear this out.  Apple has taken EXISTING technology developed by other companies and outflanked its competition.  That was purely a function of the brilliance of Steve Jobs, who had a unique talent to package highly appealing products.  Tim Cook seems like a talented guy, but he isn't Steve Jobs.  Apple is now one of several companies w/ talented people competing in a hypercompetitive market space.  People like Steve Jobs and Bill Gates simply aren't replaceable.]]>
      </description>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Apple: Buy The Steak - Hold For The Coming Sizzles!</title>
      <link>http://seekingalpha.com/article/1233681/comments?source=feed#comment-15722231</link>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">15722231</guid>
      <content>
        <![CDATA[In my opinion, if companies like Apple and Google are banking on the next big thing being products like the iWatch or Google Glass, they've entered into what I call the goof-ball phase.  These products will mainly appeal to a very limited subset of the population.  There isn't a huge clamoring for a smart watch or goofy looking glasses that you can use as a monitor while driving your car into a tree.  <br/><br/>There's this perception that Apple is this great innovative company.  I'd argue that they've never been that.  They've taken existing technology and greatly improved/perfected it.  The technology for what became the iPod was at Sony long before Steve Jobs saw the potential in it and brought it to Apple.  PDAs existed long before the iPhone.  The Palm Pilot was kind of a very primitive iPhone w/o the phone and was out a decade before the iPhone.  The iPhone greatly improved on the Blackberry and offered a touch screen.  The iPad is basically a very big screened iPhone w/o the phone.  Apple perfected the portable music player, combined it w/ a Smartphone and that might well be where the story ends.  ]]>
      </content>
      <pubDate>Sat, 02 Mar 2013 03:48:53 -0500</pubDate>
      <description>
        <![CDATA[In my opinion, if companies like Apple and Google are banking on the next big thing being products like the iWatch or Google Glass, they've entered into what I call the goof-ball phase.  These products will mainly appeal to a very limited subset of the population.  There isn't a huge clamoring for a smart watch or goofy looking glasses that you can use as a monitor while driving your car into a tree.  <br/><br/>There's this perception that Apple is this great innovative company.  I'd argue that they've never been that.  They've taken existing technology and greatly improved/perfected it.  The technology for what became the iPod was at Sony long before Steve Jobs saw the potential in it and brought it to Apple.  PDAs existed long before the iPhone.  The Palm Pilot was kind of a very primitive iPhone w/o the phone and was out a decade before the iPhone.  The iPhone greatly improved on the Blackberry and offered a touch screen.  The iPad is basically a very big screened iPhone w/o the phone.  Apple perfected the portable music player, combined it w/ a Smartphone and that might well be where the story ends.  ]]>
      </description>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Billionaire Halvorsen Dumped Apple In Favor Of This Tech Company</title>
      <link>http://seekingalpha.com/article/1238061/comments?source=feed#comment-15722161</link>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">15722161</guid>
      <content>
        <![CDATA[Apple's last quarter was about the most profitable in the history of capitalism and the stock now trades w/ a P/E multiple under 10.  Of course stock prices are all about the future, but does Apple's future really look that much more bleak than it did in mid-September, when it  was moving towards $700?    <br/><br/>Sometimes we forget that the majority of trading (75% or more) is done w/ machines that are programmed to trade on momentum.  The run-up and sell-off have undoubtedly been heavily influenced by HFT.  I'm going to stick w/ Apple and start re-loading on fundamentals at these levels.  The company needs some strong positive catalysts, but at some point you just have to say that the price is too low to be rational.  <br/><br/>If you back out the cash, the TRAILING P/E will be under 6 by the end of the quarter (assuming the share price doesn't change).  That's an absurd implied yield.  You have to assume that Apple's margins are going to completely collapse and that it'll be losing customers in large bunches to justify that kind of multiple.  The stock's been stuck in a negative feedback loop for a while, but that won't last forever.  <br/><br/>The street doesn't seem to be showing much love toTim Cook.  Amazon says its investing in the future and the stock price goes up, even though the company loses money.  Apple's planning for the long term while making huge profits and the share price heads due south.  Crazy.  Maybe the problem is the messenger.]]>
      </content>
      <pubDate>Sat, 02 Mar 2013 03:44:56 -0500</pubDate>
      <description>
        <![CDATA[Apple's last quarter was about the most profitable in the history of capitalism and the stock now trades w/ a P/E multiple under 10.  Of course stock prices are all about the future, but does Apple's future really look that much more bleak than it did in mid-September, when it  was moving towards $700?    <br/><br/>Sometimes we forget that the majority of trading (75% or more) is done w/ machines that are programmed to trade on momentum.  The run-up and sell-off have undoubtedly been heavily influenced by HFT.  I'm going to stick w/ Apple and start re-loading on fundamentals at these levels.  The company needs some strong positive catalysts, but at some point you just have to say that the price is too low to be rational.  <br/><br/>If you back out the cash, the TRAILING P/E will be under 6 by the end of the quarter (assuming the share price doesn't change).  That's an absurd implied yield.  You have to assume that Apple's margins are going to completely collapse and that it'll be losing customers in large bunches to justify that kind of multiple.  The stock's been stuck in a negative feedback loop for a while, but that won't last forever.  <br/><br/>The street doesn't seem to be showing much love toTim Cook.  Amazon says its investing in the future and the stock price goes up, even though the company loses money.  Apple's planning for the long term while making huge profits and the share price heads due south.  Crazy.  Maybe the problem is the messenger.]]>
      </description>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Apple Bears Are Delusional</title>
      <link>http://seekingalpha.com/article/1232891/comments?source=feed#comment-15673281</link>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">15673281</guid>
      <content>
        <![CDATA[Excellent post.  A lot of us are in the same boat that you're in w/ Apple over the last several months.  Apple loyalists (of which I'm one) jump all over anyone who posts anything negative and cheer the mega-bulls who put up targets like $1,111 for the stock and keep saying how cheap the stock is.   Some add qualifiers like 'dirt' cheap.  I happen to think the stock is fairly to slightly undervalued now.  Any company w/ a market cap in excess of $400B that's in the hyper-competitive technology space IS NOT CHEAP.  Everyone's waiting for Apple to introduce the next big thing.  What if there really isn't anything of major significance in their pipeline?  We've been hearing about Apple TV for years already.  Where is it?  A China Mobile deal has been imminent for at least 3 years.  Where's the deal?  Anyone sitting around waiting for Apple to come up w/ another iPhone or iPad or iPod is probably making a mistake.  (Of course I hope I'm wrong) ]]>
      </content>
      <pubDate>Fri, 01 Mar 2013 05:21:53 -0500</pubDate>
      <description>
        <![CDATA[Excellent post.  A lot of us are in the same boat that you're in w/ Apple over the last several months.  Apple loyalists (of which I'm one) jump all over anyone who posts anything negative and cheer the mega-bulls who put up targets like $1,111 for the stock and keep saying how cheap the stock is.   Some add qualifiers like 'dirt' cheap.  I happen to think the stock is fairly to slightly undervalued now.  Any company w/ a market cap in excess of $400B that's in the hyper-competitive technology space IS NOT CHEAP.  Everyone's waiting for Apple to introduce the next big thing.  What if there really isn't anything of major significance in their pipeline?  We've been hearing about Apple TV for years already.  Where is it?  A China Mobile deal has been imminent for at least 3 years.  Where's the deal?  Anyone sitting around waiting for Apple to come up w/ another iPhone or iPad or iPod is probably making a mistake.  (Of course I hope I'm wrong) ]]>
      </description>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Apple Bears Are Delusional</title>
      <link>http://seekingalpha.com/article/1232891/comments?source=feed#comment-15647891</link>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">15647891</guid>
      <content>
        <![CDATA[This just in:  The big funds aren't making investment decisions based upon what Melissa Lee has to say.]]>
      </content>
      <pubDate>Thu, 28 Feb 2013 14:42:00 -0500</pubDate>
      <description>
        <![CDATA[This just in:  The big funds aren't making investment decisions based upon what Melissa Lee has to say.]]>
      </description>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>More on Apple's (AAPL -1.3%) shareholder meeting: With rumors of iWatches and new set-tops swirling around, Tim Cook hints at new products. "Obviously we're looking at new categories -- we don't talk about them, but we're looking at them." Cook on Android's share gains: "There's a button or two we could press to make the most [devices] .... That would not be good for Apple." He boasts over half of Chinese/Brazilian iPad buyers are new Apple customers, and still thinks David Einhorn's suit is "silly." No word of a dividend or buyback hike. (live blog)</title>
      <link>http://seekingalpha.com/currents/post/855721?source=feed#comment-15619621</link>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">15619621</guid>
      <content>
        <![CDATA[I get a kick out of the commenters imploring Apple to just come out w/ the next revolutionary product and be done w/ it already so we can all become rich.  It's not like Tim Cook can just walk into the revolutionary product/change the world building, snap his fingers and here comes the next big thing that no one had ever thought of before.]]>
      </content>
      <pubDate>Thu, 28 Feb 2013 07:07:25 -0500</pubDate>
      <description>
        <![CDATA[I get a kick out of the commenters imploring Apple to just come out w/ the next revolutionary product and be done w/ it already so we can all become rich.  It's not like Tim Cook can just walk into the revolutionary product/change the world building, snap his fingers and here comes the next big thing that no one had ever thought of before.]]>
      </description>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Apple: Why Not All Stock Splits Are Created Equal</title>
      <link>http://seekingalpha.com/article/1228131/comments?source=feed#comment-15566591</link>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">15566591</guid>
      <content>
        <![CDATA[The effect of stock splits has been extensively researched for a long time and the conclusions haven't changed:  Stock splits of themselves do nothing for the value of a company.  There's invariably a sampling bias in that companies that have split their shares perform well, but they were performing well before the split which created the conditions to justify the split.  ]]>
      </content>
      <pubDate>Wed, 27 Feb 2013 07:56:37 -0500</pubDate>
      <description>
        <![CDATA[The effect of stock splits has been extensively researched for a long time and the conclusions haven't changed:  Stock splits of themselves do nothing for the value of a company.  There's invariably a sampling bias in that companies that have split their shares perform well, but they were performing well before the split which created the conditions to justify the split.  ]]>
      </description>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>"High above the Alps my Gnome is hearing a rumor that Apple will announce a stock split at tomorrow's shareholder meeting," tweets Doug Kass. The rumor has led Apple (AAPL +1%) shares to spike higher. Update (2:24 PM): Kass is using the post-rumor spike to sell part of his trading position in Apple.</title>
      <link>http://seekingalpha.com/currents/post/852491?source=feed#comment-15542891</link>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">15542891</guid>
      <content>
        <![CDATA[That guy is about the most notorious manipulator that there is.  If he's the only source of this rumor, it's a fabrication.  He'll say anything once he takes a position in a stock.   We've seen him in action before and he has zero credibility. ]]>
      </content>
      <pubDate>Tue, 26 Feb 2013 16:23:16 -0500</pubDate>
      <description>
        <![CDATA[That guy is about the most notorious manipulator that there is.  If he's the only source of this rumor, it's a fabrication.  He'll say anything once he takes a position in a stock.   We've seen him in action before and he has zero credibility. ]]>
      </description>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Google Looks Like A Pre-Surge Apple With Less Risk</title>
      <link>http://seekingalpha.com/article/1223181/comments?source=feed#comment-15518921</link>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">15518921</guid>
      <content>
        <![CDATA[Google's recent surge is mainly attributable to a binary decision made by investors who are getting out of Apple and seek another spot to place their money.  GOOG has been dead money for a number of years and will likely come back to earth once the fad of selling AAPL fades into the background.]]>
      </content>
      <pubDate>Tue, 26 Feb 2013 09:09:48 -0500</pubDate>
      <description>
        <![CDATA[Google's recent surge is mainly attributable to a binary decision made by investors who are getting out of Apple and seek another spot to place their money.  GOOG has been dead money for a number of years and will likely come back to earth once the fad of selling AAPL fades into the background.]]>
      </description>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Apple: When Negatives Can Be Positives</title>
      <link>http://seekingalpha.com/article/1221241/comments?source=feed#comment-15512221</link>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">15512221</guid>
      <content>
        <![CDATA[I get a kick out of this argument that Apple has lost its ability to innovate.  Presumably innovation means some device that will change the way that people live and conduct business in a big way.  They've come out w/ 3 (4 if you separate iTunes from the iPod) in the last decade.  I can list maybe 20 devices that have come out in the last century that have profoundly impacted people's lives on a vast scale.  telephone, radio, TV, automobile, airplane, personal computer, copy machine, fax machine, personal computer, smartphone, turntable, microwave, HVAC system, internet, CD player, DVD player, VHS player.  OK, I'm struggling to come up w/ many more.  You could argue that some of the above have been evolutionary rather than revolutionary.  Apple has 3 revolutionary products in a decade.  Most companies that have introduced a revolutionary product have had just one.]]>
      </content>
      <pubDate>Tue, 26 Feb 2013 06:07:35 -0500</pubDate>
      <description>
        <![CDATA[I get a kick out of this argument that Apple has lost its ability to innovate.  Presumably innovation means some device that will change the way that people live and conduct business in a big way.  They've come out w/ 3 (4 if you separate iTunes from the iPod) in the last decade.  I can list maybe 20 devices that have come out in the last century that have profoundly impacted people's lives on a vast scale.  telephone, radio, TV, automobile, airplane, personal computer, copy machine, fax machine, personal computer, smartphone, turntable, microwave, HVAC system, internet, CD player, DVD player, VHS player.  OK, I'm struggling to come up w/ many more.  You could argue that some of the above have been evolutionary rather than revolutionary.  Apple has 3 revolutionary products in a decade.  Most companies that have introduced a revolutionary product have had just one.]]>
      </description>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Time For Apple To Waddle And Quack</title>
      <link>http://seekingalpha.com/article/1210981/comments?source=feed#comment-15355631</link>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">15355631</guid>
      <content>
        <![CDATA[There was a clear inflection point w/ Apple when the iPhone 5 was released.  The sell-off began there.  The iPhone 5 is a fine product, but Apple's huge valuation require(s)(d) that it constantly come out w/ game changing products, which that product certainly was not.  Mr. Market isn't easily fooled.  If Apple continues to incrementally upgrade its existing product lines, the competition catches up, margins compress and so does the share price.  There's nothing wrong with Apple, but it  has to continue hitting home runs to justify its high validation.  In competitive markets, outsized profits tend to be temporary.]]>
      </content>
      <pubDate>Fri, 22 Feb 2013 06:08:27 -0500</pubDate>
      <description>
        <![CDATA[There was a clear inflection point w/ Apple when the iPhone 5 was released.  The sell-off began there.  The iPhone 5 is a fine product, but Apple's huge valuation require(s)(d) that it constantly come out w/ game changing products, which that product certainly was not.  Mr. Market isn't easily fooled.  If Apple continues to incrementally upgrade its existing product lines, the competition catches up, margins compress and so does the share price.  There's nothing wrong with Apple, but it  has to continue hitting home runs to justify its high validation.  In competitive markets, outsized profits tend to be temporary.]]>
      </description>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Apple: Tim Cook Isn't The Problem</title>
      <link>http://seekingalpha.com/article/1187061/comments?source=feed#comment-15066801</link>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">15066801</guid>
      <content>
        <![CDATA[You completely misunderstood what I wrote, so obviously the world is passing one of us by and it isn't me.  Better luck next time.]]>
      </content>
      <pubDate>Fri, 15 Feb 2013 18:29:07 -0500</pubDate>
      <description>
        <![CDATA[You completely misunderstood what I wrote, so obviously the world is passing one of us by and it isn't me.  Better luck next time.]]>
      </description>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Apple - Why We Are Changing Our Stance From Bearish To Bullish</title>
      <link>http://seekingalpha.com/article/1187721/comments?source=feed#comment-15066531</link>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">15066531</guid>
      <content>
        <![CDATA[A certain way to lose money (or underperform) is to yo-yo between bullish and bearish positions in the same company too often.  You can get away with it sometimes, but my experience tells me if you try to predict which way the stock will move in the nearish term you won't do as well as you otherwise would if you ignored the short term movements and invest purely on the company's fundamentals.  Apple's fundamentals have only strengthened in the last year.  The slide from $705 was off of a huge speculative run that occurred for about 8 months of 2012.  If you look at Apple's long term chart it still looks pretty good.]]>
      </content>
      <pubDate>Fri, 15 Feb 2013 18:25:24 -0500</pubDate>
      <description>
        <![CDATA[A certain way to lose money (or underperform) is to yo-yo between bullish and bearish positions in the same company too often.  You can get away with it sometimes, but my experience tells me if you try to predict which way the stock will move in the nearish term you won't do as well as you otherwise would if you ignored the short term movements and invest purely on the company's fundamentals.  Apple's fundamentals have only strengthened in the last year.  The slide from $705 was off of a huge speculative run that occurred for about 8 months of 2012.  If you look at Apple's long term chart it still looks pretty good.]]>
      </description>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Apple: Tim Cook Isn't The Problem</title>
      <link>http://seekingalpha.com/article/1187061/comments?source=feed#comment-15030411</link>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">15030411</guid>
      <content>
        <![CDATA[This piece is mostly on point.  Tim Cook's biggest problem is that he isn't Steve Jobs.  Following a legend is an impossible, no win situation.  If Apple does well it's because of Steve Jobs vision.  If it does poorly it's because Jobs is no longer around.  Cook has done about as well as can be expected under the circumstances.  ]]>
      </content>
      <pubDate>Fri, 15 Feb 2013 08:37:38 -0500</pubDate>
      <description>
        <![CDATA[This piece is mostly on point.  Tim Cook's biggest problem is that he isn't Steve Jobs.  Following a legend is an impossible, no win situation.  If Apple does well it's because of Steve Jobs vision.  If it does poorly it's because Jobs is no longer around.  Cook has done about as well as can be expected under the circumstances.  ]]>
      </description>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>What Will Apple Do With That Cash?</title>
      <link>http://seekingalpha.com/article/1183341/comments?source=feed#comment-15016821</link>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">15016821</guid>
      <content>
        <![CDATA[Why so many people conveniently ignore Apple's cash as being mostly overseas has always escaped me.  Everyone acts as if Apple just has $140B or so sitting around in a safe in Cupertino.  It seems that it's a lose/lose/lose for the companies w/ large cash holdings overseas, investors and the U.S. Government.  If incentives can be offered to repatriate the cash w/ more favorable rates, tax credits for putting that cash to work to create jobs and the like, everyone wins.]]>
      </content>
      <pubDate>Thu, 14 Feb 2013 21:01:33 -0500</pubDate>
      <description>
        <![CDATA[Why so many people conveniently ignore Apple's cash as being mostly overseas has always escaped me.  Everyone acts as if Apple just has $140B or so sitting around in a safe in Cupertino.  It seems that it's a lose/lose/lose for the companies w/ large cash holdings overseas, investors and the U.S. Government.  If incentives can be offered to repatriate the cash w/ more favorable rates, tax credits for putting that cash to work to create jobs and the like, everyone wins.]]>
      </description>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Apple (AAPL) has slashed prices for three 13" MacBook models. The price of the 13" retina MacBook Pro with 128GB SSD has been cut by $200 to $1,499, and the 256GB model by $300 to $1,699. Meanwhile, the 13" MacBook Air with 256GB SSD has been cut by $100 to $1,399. Apple's 15" retina MacBook Pro models remain priced at $2,199 and $2,799, but both have been given faster Intel Core i7 CPUs, and the costlier model now sports twice as much RAM. The moves follow a quarter where Mac shipments fell 22% Y/Y, and revenue 16%. (PR)</title>
      <link>http://seekingalpha.com/currents/post/824201?source=feed#comment-14948891</link>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">14948891</guid>
      <content>
        <![CDATA[The 13&quot; MacBook retina has a market niche issue.  Most people wanting a retina screen are going for the larger 15&quot; model.  If it's portability you're after, you aren't going to fork over the extra cash when you could satisfy your needs w/ a MacBook Air, the cheaper non-Retina model or even an iPad.  ]]>
      </content>
      <pubDate>Wed, 13 Feb 2013 15:40:36 -0500</pubDate>
      <description>
        <![CDATA[The 13&quot; MacBook retina has a market niche issue.  Most people wanting a retina screen are going for the larger 15&quot; model.  If it's portability you're after, you aren't going to fork over the extra cash when you could satisfy your needs w/ a MacBook Air, the cheaper non-Retina model or even an iPad.  ]]>
      </description>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>David Einhorn's preferred stock proposal is "creative," Tim Cook states at a Goldman conference. But he calls Einhorn's opposition to Prop. 2 a "silly sideshow," and insists the measure is meant to empower shareholders. He claims Apple's (AAPL -1.2%) management/board are in "very active discussions" about returning additional cash, but remains tight-lipped about details. Apple is spiking lower after temporarily doing the opposite. (live blog) (webcast) (previous)</title>
      <link>http://seekingalpha.com/currents/post/820991?source=feed#comment-14921301</link>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">14921301</guid>
      <content>
        <![CDATA[Tim Cook isn't the problem.  The problem is the knee-jerk reaction of investors.  One activist investor makes a suggestion to Apple on capital allocation strategy and backs it w/ a crack-pot lawsuit and the market reacts favorably as if it's actually going to happen.  Cook makes a speech that isn't much different than anything else Apple has said for oh, the last decade or so, and the market reacts as if something bad has happened.  Would investors be happier if Apple's management changed their mind every time someone on the outside makes a suggestion as to what to do?]]>
      </content>
      <pubDate>Wed, 13 Feb 2013 04:14:43 -0500</pubDate>
      <description>
        <![CDATA[Tim Cook isn't the problem.  The problem is the knee-jerk reaction of investors.  One activist investor makes a suggestion to Apple on capital allocation strategy and backs it w/ a crack-pot lawsuit and the market reacts favorably as if it's actually going to happen.  Cook makes a speech that isn't much different than anything else Apple has said for oh, the last decade or so, and the market reacts as if something bad has happened.  Would investors be happier if Apple's management changed their mind every time someone on the outside makes a suggestion as to what to do?]]>
      </description>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Apple: The $200 Billion Question</title>
      <link>http://seekingalpha.com/article/1171251/comments?source=feed#comment-14869291</link>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">14869291</guid>
      <content>
        <![CDATA[I hope I'm wrong, but did I read in this article that the $200B that was lost in market cap represents actual cash changing hands between parties?  Yikes.  Market cap is, by definition, the prevailing share price * number of shares outstanding.  It has nothing to do w/ an actual transfer of assets.  Assume for the sake of argument that Apple comes out w/ a device tomorrow which will extend everyone's life by 10 years.  Assume also that there's such overwhelming demand that investors would happily pay $1000 per share.  Assume that only 1% of shareholders are offering their shares for sale.  Market cap more than doubles while the cash that changes hands is $1000 * number of shares outstanding * 1 PERCENT.   <br/><br/>You're welcome.]]>
      </content>
      <pubDate>Mon, 11 Feb 2013 22:49:12 -0500</pubDate>
      <description>
        <![CDATA[I hope I'm wrong, but did I read in this article that the $200B that was lost in market cap represents actual cash changing hands between parties?  Yikes.  Market cap is, by definition, the prevailing share price * number of shares outstanding.  It has nothing to do w/ an actual transfer of assets.  Assume for the sake of argument that Apple comes out w/ a device tomorrow which will extend everyone's life by 10 years.  Assume also that there's such overwhelming demand that investors would happily pay $1000 per share.  Assume that only 1% of shareholders are offering their shares for sale.  Market cap more than doubles while the cash that changes hands is $1000 * number of shares outstanding * 1 PERCENT.   <br/><br/>You're welcome.]]>
      </description>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Evaluating David Einhorn's Proposal To Apple</title>
      <link>http://seekingalpha.com/article/1169641/comments?source=feed#comment-14827471</link>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">14827471</guid>
      <content>
        <![CDATA[Essentially what Einhorn is advocating is increasing the dividend payout to shareholders by 4% up to a maximum of full market cap.  Somehow this is to increase shareholder value by $32 per $50B up to the level of market cap.  Not sure what kind of modeling was done by his people, but it'll undoubtedly drive the stock value up until the shareholder meeting at the end of the month.]]>
      </content>
      <pubDate>Sun, 10 Feb 2013 22:16:03 -0500</pubDate>
      <description>
        <![CDATA[Essentially what Einhorn is advocating is increasing the dividend payout to shareholders by 4% up to a maximum of full market cap.  Somehow this is to increase shareholder value by $32 per $50B up to the level of market cap.  Not sure what kind of modeling was done by his people, but it'll undoubtedly drive the stock value up until the shareholder meeting at the end of the month.]]>
      </description>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>
