ThinkFirst's Comments RSS Syndication from SeekingAlpha.com http://seekingalpha.comuser/106115/comments http://seekingalpha.com/article/113621-why-i-m-selling-apple-and-google-today-and-holding-amazon?source=feed#comment-348409 348409
..so-called bad news is in the stock.]]> Wed, 07 Jan 2009 09:16:11 -0500
..so-called bad news is in the stock.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/113621-why-i-m-selling-apple-and-google-today-and-holding-amazon?source=feed#comment-348403 348403
I bet you will see him in very good health in the spring. By that time the stock will have put on 30%.

Fear indeed !!]]> Wed, 07 Jan 2009 09:13:59 -0500
I bet you will see him in very good health in the spring. By that time the stock will have put on 30%.

Fear indeed !!]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/80374-it-s-not-too-late-to-buy-coal?source=feed#comment-182831 182831
But, be careful here. On May 28, it sold $200 million worth of convertibles with a conversion price of $135.34 and the stock was at $96.67 the previous day. At some point, those buyers of converts will lock in their profit by shorting the common. Plus, PCX will be issuing more shares soon to use in its acquisition of Magnum. The sellers of Magnum will want to lock in their profit by shorting the common of PCX even before the deal closes.

Maybe, others can add more to this.]]> Tue, 10 Jun 2008 17:05:22 -0400
But, be careful here. On May 28, it sold $200 million worth of convertibles with a conversion price of $135.34 and the stock was at $96.67 the previous day. At some point, those buyers of converts will lock in their profit by shorting the common. Plus, PCX will be issuing more shares soon to use in its acquisition of Magnum. The sellers of Magnum will want to lock in their profit by shorting the common of PCX even before the deal closes.

Maybe, others can add more to this.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/80504-should-apple-investors-focus-on-3g-iphone-or-wwdc-message?source=feed#comment-181612 181612
The definition of the word "bloviator" is "one who discourses at length in a pompous or boastful manner."

Is this hilarious or what? This guy is calling himself a pompous blowhard.]]> Sun, 08 Jun 2008 22:14:44 -0400
The definition of the word "bloviator" is "one who discourses at length in a pompous or boastful manner."

Is this hilarious or what? This guy is calling himself a pompous blowhard.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/80504-should-apple-investors-focus-on-3g-iphone-or-wwdc-message?source=feed#comment-181554 181554
]]> Sun, 08 Jun 2008 20:09:15 -0400
]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/64175-three-reasons-i-chose-microsoft-over-apple-for-home-media?source=feed#comment-115817 115817 Tue, 12 Feb 2008 06:37:26 -0500 http://seekingalpha.com/article/64005-apple-on-an-innovation-treadmill?source=feed#comment-115750 115750 Mon, 11 Feb 2008 17:05:02 -0500 http://seekingalpha.com/article/63549-air-t-vs-apple-not-even-close?source=feed#comment-115023 115023 What does AIRT do? This from Yahoo Finance: "Air T, Inc., through its subsidiaries, provides overnight air cargo services to the air express delivery industry. It also manufactures, sells, and services aviation ground support and other specialized equipment products, including aircraft deicers, scissor type lifts, military and civilian decontamination units, and other specialized types of equipment. The company offers its products to domestic and international passenger and cargo airlines, the United States Air Force, Navy, airports, and industrial customers. As of March 31, 2007, it operated 88 cargo aircrafts under dry-lease service contracts in the United States, the Caribbean, and South America; and owned 2 aircrafts. Air T was founded in 1980 and is headquartered in Maiden, North Carolina."
Does this company have any sustainable competitive advantage? Not that I can see. Are they ever going to have high margins? I don't think so. They are in a notoriously low margin business. Is there balance sheet strong? Not particularly. About 17% debt to equity ratio. Cash equal to amount of debt outstanding.
Not only that, AIRT's business is extremely cyclical. Couple of bad quarters and the company can easily go out of business. And, to assume that it can grow its revenues at 20% per year for the next 10 years?? This is what happens when neophytes start analyzing companies without any understanding of how business works.]]> Thu, 07 Feb 2008 08:33:49 -0500 What does AIRT do? This from Yahoo Finance: "Air T, Inc., through its subsidiaries, provides overnight air cargo services to the air express delivery industry. It also manufactures, sells, and services aviation ground support and other specialized equipment products, including aircraft deicers, scissor type lifts, military and civilian decontamination units, and other specialized types of equipment. The company offers its products to domestic and international passenger and cargo airlines, the United States Air Force, Navy, airports, and industrial customers. As of March 31, 2007, it operated 88 cargo aircrafts under dry-lease service contracts in the United States, the Caribbean, and South America; and owned 2 aircrafts. Air T was founded in 1980 and is headquartered in Maiden, North Carolina."
Does this company have any sustainable competitive advantage? Not that I can see. Are they ever going to have high margins? I don't think so. They are in a notoriously low margin business. Is there balance sheet strong? Not particularly. About 17% debt to equity ratio. Cash equal to amount of debt outstanding.
Not only that, AIRT's business is extremely cyclical. Couple of bad quarters and the company can easily go out of business. And, to assume that it can grow its revenues at 20% per year for the next 10 years?? This is what happens when neophytes start analyzing companies without any understanding of how business works.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/62449-apple-s-iphone-hype-overhyped?source=feed#comment-113800 113800 Thu, 31 Jan 2008 07:10:07 -0500 http://seekingalpha.com/article/61891-unlocking-the-case-of-the-missing-iphones?source=feed#comment-113281 113281 Mon, 28 Jan 2008 14:32:59 -0500 http://seekingalpha.com/article/61843-even-with-apple-price-will-follow-value?source=feed#comment-113243 113243 Mon, 28 Jan 2008 11:46:53 -0500 http://seekingalpha.com/article/61429-apple-needs-to-execute-no-longer-innovate?source=feed#comment-112727 112727 Thu, 24 Jan 2008 22:30:32 -0500 http://seekingalpha.com/article/59100-earnings-power-vs-investor-sentiment?source=feed#comment-108551 108551 Sun, 06 Jan 2008 14:30:35 -0500 http://seekingalpha.com/article/46709-iphone-price-cut-causing-trouble-for-apple?source=feed#comment-95561 95561
I believe Apple would have preferred a shorter gap between announcement and first sale. But, this was their first foray into the cellphone market and they needed to work with another company (AT&T) to make it successful. And they need FCC certification. They would not have been able to keep the product a secret much beyond January 9th.

For the early adopters, the price cut came 2 months after the day of first sale. From Apple’s perspective, the price was cut 8 months after the pricing was first announced (Steve explained the pricing logic in his MacWorld keynote). In the consumer tech world, 8 months for a price cut is not unusual. I think therefore that Steve was genuinely surprised at the strong negative reaction from early adopters.

The $100 store credit is a great response to placate angry Apple fan(atic)s. The cost will be much less than the estimated $85MM. In fact, Apple may even come out ahead. But, Apple needs to make it clear that this is a one-time only deal and that they will change product pricing as and when they see fit as part of overall business strategy.

Many commentators have jumped to the conclusion that iPhone sales must have slowed down. Although that may be true, I think a more reasonable explanation is that Apple needed to realign iPhone pricing to the rest of its iPod product portfolio and to upcoming iPhone product announcements. And, to take advantage of higher production capacity of their suppliers, to generate higher sales volume and, to lower manufacturing costs of common components. That is just Business Strategy 101.

But, more than that, I think that Apple initially saw the iPhone as a product quite separate from the iPod (Steve sort of said that to Walt Mossberg at D5). Yes, it had features of the iPod, but it was mainly a phone with a terrific touch-screen interface. At some point, probably long before MacWorld, they must have realized that there would be a significant market for an iPod touch. Certainly from those who did not want to switch to AT&T. But, logically, its introduction had to wait after that of the iPhone. With the introduction of the iPod touch, there is now a continuum (more or less) from the shuffle to the iPhone. Apple needed a rational price structure. And, so the iPhone price cut.

If you now look at the pricing of all its new iPod/iPhone products, it makes a lot of sense. For $299, you can get an 8GB iPod touch. Pay a $100 more and you get an 8GB iPhone with its additional calling, email and other features.

According to a recently leaked T-Mobile Germany ad, a 16GB 3G iPhone will go on sale in Europe for 499 euros. I expect that before the end of the year, and perhaps in time for the holidays, Apple will announce a 16GB 3G iPhone for the US as well. And, logic dictates that it would be priced in the $499 to $599 range. If this announcement happens, Apple will have a formidable product portfolio: from the $79 1GB iPod shuffle to the $499 to $599 16GB 3G iPhone.

And at some point within the next few months, or maybe the next holiday season, will come the $199 2GB iPhone nano. No iPod features, no WiFi, just a cute little phone. I am just speculating but it makes sense to me.
]]> Sun, 09 Sep 2007 12:12:18 -0400
I believe Apple would have preferred a shorter gap between announcement and first sale. But, this was their first foray into the cellphone market and they needed to work with another company (AT&T) to make it successful. And they need FCC certification. They would not have been able to keep the product a secret much beyond January 9th.

For the early adopters, the price cut came 2 months after the day of first sale. From Apple’s perspective, the price was cut 8 months after the pricing was first announced (Steve explained the pricing logic in his MacWorld keynote). In the consumer tech world, 8 months for a price cut is not unusual. I think therefore that Steve was genuinely surprised at the strong negative reaction from early adopters.

The $100 store credit is a great response to placate angry Apple fan(atic)s. The cost will be much less than the estimated $85MM. In fact, Apple may even come out ahead. But, Apple needs to make it clear that this is a one-time only deal and that they will change product pricing as and when they see fit as part of overall business strategy.

Many commentators have jumped to the conclusion that iPhone sales must have slowed down. Although that may be true, I think a more reasonable explanation is that Apple needed to realign iPhone pricing to the rest of its iPod product portfolio and to upcoming iPhone product announcements. And, to take advantage of higher production capacity of their suppliers, to generate higher sales volume and, to lower manufacturing costs of common components. That is just Business Strategy 101.

But, more than that, I think that Apple initially saw the iPhone as a product quite separate from the iPod (Steve sort of said that to Walt Mossberg at D5). Yes, it had features of the iPod, but it was mainly a phone with a terrific touch-screen interface. At some point, probably long before MacWorld, they must have realized that there would be a significant market for an iPod touch. Certainly from those who did not want to switch to AT&T. But, logically, its introduction had to wait after that of the iPhone. With the introduction of the iPod touch, there is now a continuum (more or less) from the shuffle to the iPhone. Apple needed a rational price structure. And, so the iPhone price cut.

If you now look at the pricing of all its new iPod/iPhone products, it makes a lot of sense. For $299, you can get an 8GB iPod touch. Pay a $100 more and you get an 8GB iPhone with its additional calling, email and other features.

According to a recently leaked T-Mobile Germany ad, a 16GB 3G iPhone will go on sale in Europe for 499 euros. I expect that before the end of the year, and perhaps in time for the holidays, Apple will announce a 16GB 3G iPhone for the US as well. And, logic dictates that it would be priced in the $499 to $599 range. If this announcement happens, Apple will have a formidable product portfolio: from the $79 1GB iPod shuffle to the $499 to $599 16GB 3G iPhone.

And at some point within the next few months, or maybe the next holiday season, will come the $199 2GB iPhone nano. No iPod features, no WiFi, just a cute little phone. I am just speculating but it makes sense to me.
]]>