Channon's Comments RSS Syndication from SeekingAlpha.com http://seekingalpha.comuser/107780/comments http://seekingalpha.com/article/167803-u-s-dollar-now-testing-1-50-per-euro?source=feed#comment-724297 724297
You forgot this because (having read your older posts), you are opposed to progressive taxation, right?

But, to your third scenario, the "collapse" of the dollar -- the US is NOT Brazil. We can still be a self-sufficient nation. We produce more food than we can consume, and we can still produce cars. We really only need oil. This prospect, of the US becoming self-sufficient, should scare the crap out of most nations on earth, as their economies rely on the US buying from them. They need the dollar to retain some value, as much as the consumer shopping for 52" TVs.]]> Wed, 21 Oct 2009 17:45:43 -0400
You forgot this because (having read your older posts), you are opposed to progressive taxation, right?

But, to your third scenario, the "collapse" of the dollar -- the US is NOT Brazil. We can still be a self-sufficient nation. We produce more food than we can consume, and we can still produce cars. We really only need oil. This prospect, of the US becoming self-sufficient, should scare the crap out of most nations on earth, as their economies rely on the US buying from them. They need the dollar to retain some value, as much as the consumer shopping for 52" TVs.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/162260-options-trader-flash-ban-friday?source=feed#comment-682512 682512 Fri, 18 Sep 2009 11:18:07 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/161850-100-gainers-and-their-estimated-p-es?source=feed#comment-679298 679298 Wed, 16 Sep 2009 13:01:19 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/142212-mac-pricing-value-is-in-the-eye-of-the-buyer?source=feed#comment-538941 538941 Have you ever used the aluminum laptops? They are far superior to plastic. The case and size is the only reason I'm using a 4-year-old laptop. That is, the lack of availability of a metal-case small-format laptop until recently. And, likely the only reason my laptop has survived for 4 years. I think you are in very small company if you prefer a plastic case to AAPL's new unibody aluminum case. Premium pricing, surely an arguable position (until you go try to build a comparable Dell), but plastic over metal???]]> Tue, 09 Jun 2009 12:46:14 -0400 Have you ever used the aluminum laptops? They are far superior to plastic. The case and size is the only reason I'm using a 4-year-old laptop. That is, the lack of availability of a metal-case small-format laptop until recently. And, likely the only reason my laptop has survived for 4 years. I think you are in very small company if you prefer a plastic case to AAPL's new unibody aluminum case. Premium pricing, surely an arguable position (until you go try to build a comparable Dell), but plastic over metal???]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/142212-mac-pricing-value-is-in-the-eye-of-the-buyer?source=feed#comment-538928 538928
Am I still paying a premium? What is my time worth? At the office, I'm still running XP because of Vista, and that's very dated technology that costs quite a bit of productivity. Updates, virus scans, firewall maintenance all eat up precious time.

Right now I'm typing this post on my 12" PowerBook G4 that is 4 years old this month. 4 years is about twice the life of a typical PC laptop, WITHOUT having to live through the upgrade hassle. I'll gladly pay $1500 again (incidentally, that's what I paid 4 years ago for my 1.5Ghz G4, plus $100 to get to 1.25Ghz RAM) for another painless 4 years of computing; this time on a 2.5Ghz Core 2 Duo & 4 Ghz RAM onto which I'll install my copy of XP and ditch the office PC thanks to Outlook support... My only regret is that AAPL doesn't make something smaller than the 13".]]> Tue, 09 Jun 2009 12:41:05 -0400
Am I still paying a premium? What is my time worth? At the office, I'm still running XP because of Vista, and that's very dated technology that costs quite a bit of productivity. Updates, virus scans, firewall maintenance all eat up precious time.

Right now I'm typing this post on my 12" PowerBook G4 that is 4 years old this month. 4 years is about twice the life of a typical PC laptop, WITHOUT having to live through the upgrade hassle. I'll gladly pay $1500 again (incidentally, that's what I paid 4 years ago for my 1.5Ghz G4, plus $100 to get to 1.25Ghz RAM) for another painless 4 years of computing; this time on a 2.5Ghz Core 2 Duo & 4 Ghz RAM onto which I'll install my copy of XP and ditch the office PC thanks to Outlook support... My only regret is that AAPL doesn't make something smaller than the 13".]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/140681-apple-and-rim-the-spoils-go-to-the-smartest?source=feed#comment-526831 526831
The bloggers have been pointing this out for years. Morgan Stanley just noticed, and quite hilariously, after having told their clients to sell at $80, just decided to tell them to buy at $135. Having missed $55 in gains, they think there is another $45 in upside. Perhaps that means it's time to sell...]]> Mon, 01 Jun 2009 14:21:38 -0400
The bloggers have been pointing this out for years. Morgan Stanley just noticed, and quite hilariously, after having told their clients to sell at $80, just decided to tell them to buy at $135. Having missed $55 in gains, they think there is another $45 in upside. Perhaps that means it's time to sell...]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/137463-is-microsoft-about-to-multi-touch-a-nerve-with-apple?source=feed#comment-502350 502350 Wed, 13 May 2009 13:43:58 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/news/market_currents/post/18366?source=feed#comment-400951 400951 Tue, 24 Feb 2009 02:25:08 -0500 http://seekingalpha.com/article/121770-apple-bulls-more-bullish-bears-more-bearish?source=feed#comment-400943 400943
At recent rates, AND assuming NO more growth, in about 2 years Apple will be sitting on $70 in cash. I have a 2 year horizon...

]]> Tue, 24 Feb 2009 02:11:53 -0500
At recent rates, AND assuming NO more growth, in about 2 years Apple will be sitting on $70 in cash. I have a 2 year horizon...

]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/122050-snapshot-apple-s-cash-growth?source=feed#comment-400933 400933
I hope you're right; I'll sell everything and go all AAPL!]]> Tue, 24 Feb 2009 02:01:52 -0500
I hope you're right; I'll sell everything and go all AAPL!]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/113133-kraft-foods-time-to-put-this-cash-cow-out-to-pasture?source=feed#comment-398987 398987 Sun, 22 Feb 2009 15:26:10 -0500 http://seekingalpha.com/article/121295-beware-the-wal-mart-effect?source=feed#comment-398887 398887
"To continue at this pace, AIPC would need to rapidly expand its operations…meaning higher fixed costs and a higher threshold for probability."

Without knowledge of where the company is running relative to capacity, this is not a logical conclusion. Are they running their "high fixed cost" equipment at capacity? On how many production shifts? Can they add a weekend shift? A second weekday shift? How about an overnight shift? If they are currently only running this equipment 40 hours per week, there is a phenomenal amount of capacity left before they will be faced with higher fixed costs or a higher threshold for profitability.

Your argument is that AIPC is not favorably scalable; unfortunately, that information is not contained in the company snapshot at Yahoo Finance.]]> Sun, 22 Feb 2009 14:17:20 -0500
"To continue at this pace, AIPC would need to rapidly expand its operations…meaning higher fixed costs and a higher threshold for probability."

Without knowledge of where the company is running relative to capacity, this is not a logical conclusion. Are they running their "high fixed cost" equipment at capacity? On how many production shifts? Can they add a weekend shift? A second weekday shift? How about an overnight shift? If they are currently only running this equipment 40 hours per week, there is a phenomenal amount of capacity left before they will be faced with higher fixed costs or a higher threshold for profitability.

Your argument is that AIPC is not favorably scalable; unfortunately, that information is not contained in the company snapshot at Yahoo Finance.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/118684-recession-takes-a-bite-out-of-mac-sales?source=feed#comment-376992 376992
Perhaps it is the convergence of cash on the balance sheet and market cap?]]> Thu, 05 Feb 2009 11:19:10 -0500
Perhaps it is the convergence of cash on the balance sheet and market cap?]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/117819-ominous-drop-in-sales-bodes-ill-for-more-than-just-apple-barron-s?source=feed#comment-374088 374088
I was in Restoration Hardware last Saturday. Over a dozen frustrated customers were lined up to pay with only TWO employees. After a ridiculous 15-minute wait, I was told the product I wanted was out of stock. ATTENTION AAPL MANAGEMENT: This is how you run a recession! Piss off, and then turn away paying customers. ]]> Tue, 03 Feb 2009 01:20:40 -0500
I was in Restoration Hardware last Saturday. Over a dozen frustrated customers were lined up to pay with only TWO employees. After a ridiculous 15-minute wait, I was told the product I wanted was out of stock. ATTENTION AAPL MANAGEMENT: This is how you run a recession! Piss off, and then turn away paying customers. ]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/117049-if-apple-does-correct-it-will-do-so-soon?source=feed#comment-369505 369505 On Jan 28 01:30 PM Derrick Lilly wrote:
>
> Plus, with $25 per share in cash ...


$31.50/share as of 12/31/08, and adding about $3/quarter. As of today, figure about $32.50/share in cash (30% more than your figure.) Yes, it's accumulating FAST, despite Wall St's lack of attention to this detail. ]]> Thu, 29 Jan 2009 01:47:37 -0500 On Jan 28 01:30 PM Derrick Lilly wrote:
>
> Plus, with $25 per share in cash ...


$31.50/share as of 12/31/08, and adding about $3/quarter. As of today, figure about $32.50/share in cash (30% more than your figure.) Yes, it's accumulating FAST, despite Wall St's lack of attention to this detail. ]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/115568-top-stocks-to-buy-in-2009?source=feed#comment-365718 365718 >
> oversupply leads to a cut in supply, that
> eventually leads to a rise in demand b/c of no more production, that
> leads to a rise in price.
>
> Am I wrong?

Keynesian or Classical, a cut in supply does not lead to a rise in demand. Says Law that "demand is a function of supply" is largely discredited. Generally, supply and demand are two different curves. A cut in supply (shifts the demand curve) will increase price, for most given demand curves.

Generally speaking and within normal ranges, demand is independent of supply. There will be cases where this fails: a concern over falling supply sparks investment demand and/or hoarding. At the other end, an inconsistent supply may reduce demand as substitutes are found. But, in your explanation above, just say "a cut in supply should lead to a rise in price."

Getting to your true question, your logic excludes "game theory" considerations; individual producers have incentives to cheat, and asymmetric information, etc. These real-world realities (that game theory tries to model) lead to real failures of the simple supply-demand analysis, and conclusions should be hedged to recognize this.

Right now, the oil supply curve appears to be completely vertical, and a shifting demand curve is moving the market price. Oil producers are receiving less revenue per barrel and are paralyzed at the thought of reducing the number of barrels. Fixed costs are often high, and in the short run it may be more profitable (less losses) to continue production even though the marginal revenue is short of marginal costs. Without looking at oil producers' cost structures, one cannot even say whether these producers are better off with lower volumes and higher prices, or higher volumes and lower prices.

With any luck, the U.S. Government will finally get serious about alternative energy and shift the U.S. demand curve for oil. This will be a long, slow process. But, so might be the economic recovery.]]> Sun, 25 Jan 2009 13:50:30 -0500 >
> oversupply leads to a cut in supply, that
> eventually leads to a rise in demand b/c of no more production, that
> leads to a rise in price.
>
> Am I wrong?

Keynesian or Classical, a cut in supply does not lead to a rise in demand. Says Law that "demand is a function of supply" is largely discredited. Generally, supply and demand are two different curves. A cut in supply (shifts the demand curve) will increase price, for most given demand curves.

Generally speaking and within normal ranges, demand is independent of supply. There will be cases where this fails: a concern over falling supply sparks investment demand and/or hoarding. At the other end, an inconsistent supply may reduce demand as substitutes are found. But, in your explanation above, just say "a cut in supply should lead to a rise in price."

Getting to your true question, your logic excludes "game theory" considerations; individual producers have incentives to cheat, and asymmetric information, etc. These real-world realities (that game theory tries to model) lead to real failures of the simple supply-demand analysis, and conclusions should be hedged to recognize this.

Right now, the oil supply curve appears to be completely vertical, and a shifting demand curve is moving the market price. Oil producers are receiving less revenue per barrel and are paralyzed at the thought of reducing the number of barrels. Fixed costs are often high, and in the short run it may be more profitable (less losses) to continue production even though the marginal revenue is short of marginal costs. Without looking at oil producers' cost structures, one cannot even say whether these producers are better off with lower volumes and higher prices, or higher volumes and lower prices.

With any luck, the U.S. Government will finally get serious about alternative energy and shift the U.S. demand curve for oil. This will be a long, slow process. But, so might be the economic recovery.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/116004-feet-to-the-fire-how-analysts-missed-on-apple-iphone-shipments?source=feed#comment-364157 364157
I do think that one reason analysts are so negative on AAPL is because its defenders are so rabid. They end up hating the company because of its fans -- kind of like the world outside of NY with regard to the Yankees!]]> Fri, 23 Jan 2009 11:23:40 -0500
I do think that one reason analysts are so negative on AAPL is because its defenders are so rabid. They end up hating the company because of its fans -- kind of like the world outside of NY with regard to the Yankees!]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/115781-apple-warns-iphone-competitors-don-t-rip-us-off?source=feed#comment-362487 362487 Wed, 21 Jan 2009 19:59:54 -0500 http://seekingalpha.com/news/market_currents/post/15787?source=feed#comment-362397 362397 Wed, 21 Jan 2009 17:35:44 -0500 http://seekingalpha.com/article/115750-apple-plenty-of-questions-on-the-street-ahead-of-earnings?source=feed#comment-362396 362396
And, by the way, $2.56/share in non-GAAP and $31.50 cash per share on the balance sheet. Any more questions?!!]]> Wed, 21 Jan 2009 17:34:09 -0500
And, by the way, $2.56/share in non-GAAP and $31.50 cash per share on the balance sheet. Any more questions?!!]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/115748-apple-like-starbucks-and-whole-foods-a-trend-that-s-past-its-prime?source=feed#comment-362375 362375 Wed, 21 Jan 2009 17:16:48 -0500 http://seekingalpha.com/article/115096-seven-ways-to-play-both-oil-scenarios?source=feed#comment-361527 361527 Wed, 21 Jan 2009 00:37:13 -0500 http://seekingalpha.com/article/115425-how-the-iphone-and-poor-management-contribute-to-apple-s-downfall?source=feed#comment-361070 361070
I have owned apple products since an Apple IIe in 1984. I have been a shareholder for over 10 years. Steve Jobs makes some good decisions, has some great vision, and makes some terribly blunders. I am convinced the company will be fine without him; perhaps better, with a major ego out of the way of progress.

I am not alone with this viewpoint, but the media and some analysts continue to pretend that Jobs is the company.

The economy is in the toilet, and the toilet is about to be flushed. With or without Jobs, Apple faces some tough time ahead and this is NOT yet priced into the stock by the market. But the stock is so grossly undervalued I think that January's earnings call will spur a nice positive bounce between now and then.

With the stock at $79/share, and $29 of that as cash/share, $50 is buying a non-GAAP P/E of over $7. As companies force fewer employees to do more with less, technology benefits. A $500 iPhone is nothing, if a few of them allow a company to lay off an $80,000/yr employee. A non-GAAP multiple of 7 times trailing earnings is cheap enough for me to feel confident that I will profit in the near term.]]> Tue, 20 Jan 2009 14:06:26 -0500
I have owned apple products since an Apple IIe in 1984. I have been a shareholder for over 10 years. Steve Jobs makes some good decisions, has some great vision, and makes some terribly blunders. I am convinced the company will be fine without him; perhaps better, with a major ego out of the way of progress.

I am not alone with this viewpoint, but the media and some analysts continue to pretend that Jobs is the company.

The economy is in the toilet, and the toilet is about to be flushed. With or without Jobs, Apple faces some tough time ahead and this is NOT yet priced into the stock by the market. But the stock is so grossly undervalued I think that January's earnings call will spur a nice positive bounce between now and then.

With the stock at $79/share, and $29 of that as cash/share, $50 is buying a non-GAAP P/E of over $7. As companies force fewer employees to do more with less, technology benefits. A $500 iPhone is nothing, if a few of them allow a company to lay off an $80,000/yr employee. A non-GAAP multiple of 7 times trailing earnings is cheap enough for me to feel confident that I will profit in the near term.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/113059-reliving-the-fun-times?source=feed#comment-358521 358521 Sat, 17 Jan 2009 13:36:52 -0500 http://seekingalpha.com/article/113458-buy-sell-or-hold-research-in-motion-poised-to-snag-more-market-share?source=feed#comment-347533 347533 Tue, 06 Jan 2009 12:20:45 -0500 http://seekingalpha.com/article/111427-fast-money-recap-has-ben-gone-nuts-12-17-08?source=feed#comment-333367 333367
That is simply not a factual statement. The dollar's lowest vale to the euro was $1.61, just a few months ago. The highest the euro traded today was $1.47. ]]> Thu, 18 Dec 2008 15:38:24 -0500
That is simply not a factual statement. The dollar's lowest vale to the euro was $1.61, just a few months ago. The highest the euro traded today was $1.47. ]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/111293-it-s-no-big-deal-that-apple-is-pulling-out-of-macworld?source=feed#comment-332581 332581
Forget about "who will replace Jobs"; I want AAPL to get busy replacing the press release team.]]> Wed, 17 Dec 2008 19:23:57 -0500
Forget about "who will replace Jobs"; I want AAPL to get busy replacing the press release team.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/news/market_currents/post/11220?source=feed#comment-304488 304488 Wed, 12 Nov 2008 16:48:25 -0500 http://seekingalpha.com/article/103894-apple-rumors-mac-upgrades-and-iphone-production-drop?source=feed#comment-298016 298016 Tue, 04 Nov 2008 10:21:47 -0500 http://seekingalpha.com/article/101439-apple-s-real-earnings-up-almost-125?source=feed#comment-289186 289186
Save me some brain damage here: how much iPhone revenue is ALREADY in the bag for next quarter based on phone sales through 9/30?

It seems to me that the difference between the $2.69 (Non-GAAP) and $1.26 (GAAP) = $1.43 is going to be split over the next 7 quarters, for $0.20 per share already in the bag. That also means 20 cents of this quarter's $1.26 was 3G iPhone. 2.5G revenue was probably about $0.18/share (based on the relative sales to date of 2.5G v 3.0G, and recognizing we're still in the period during which all 2.5G phones are still hitting the books) leaving $0.88/share as non-iPhone net profit this past quarter.

For next quarter start with the 20 cents (next quarter's share of all the 3G phone profit through Sept 30), add 18 cents (next quarter's share of all the 2.5G phone profit), and AAPL has already bagged $0.38/share.

If that's the case, what in the world is Oppenheimer seeing with his $1.06 low-end estimate?!? His worst-case scenario is $0.68/share of non-iPhone net, which is really hard to imagine.

For starters, in the just-completed quarter, AAPL did $0.88 in non-iPhone revenue. Next, consider iPhone sales falling off a cliff this quarter. Unlikely, but what is that? 3.5MM phones for $0.10/share current-quarter GAAP net? To hit $1.06, AAPL would only need to do $0.58/share of non-iPhone net, compared to the $0.88 just done, a 35% drop-off in business.

In short, $1.06 just isn't a real possibility, and it makes me wonder if Oppenheimer is in the group that doesn't fully understand the impact of GAAP!!!

But, playing devil's advocate, and assuming iPhone sales fall 50% for current quarter and all else stays completely flat, current quarter will still come in at $1.36, right?

Would love to hear your comments.]]> Thu, 23 Oct 2008 19:03:24 -0400
Save me some brain damage here: how much iPhone revenue is ALREADY in the bag for next quarter based on phone sales through 9/30?

It seems to me that the difference between the $2.69 (Non-GAAP) and $1.26 (GAAP) = $1.43 is going to be split over the next 7 quarters, for $0.20 per share already in the bag. That also means 20 cents of this quarter's $1.26 was 3G iPhone. 2.5G revenue was probably about $0.18/share (based on the relative sales to date of 2.5G v 3.0G, and recognizing we're still in the period during which all 2.5G phones are still hitting the books) leaving $0.88/share as non-iPhone net profit this past quarter.

For next quarter start with the 20 cents (next quarter's share of all the 3G phone profit through Sept 30), add 18 cents (next quarter's share of all the 2.5G phone profit), and AAPL has already bagged $0.38/share.

If that's the case, what in the world is Oppenheimer seeing with his $1.06 low-end estimate?!? His worst-case scenario is $0.68/share of non-iPhone net, which is really hard to imagine.

For starters, in the just-completed quarter, AAPL did $0.88 in non-iPhone revenue. Next, consider iPhone sales falling off a cliff this quarter. Unlikely, but what is that? 3.5MM phones for $0.10/share current-quarter GAAP net? To hit $1.06, AAPL would only need to do $0.58/share of non-iPhone net, compared to the $0.88 just done, a 35% drop-off in business.

In short, $1.06 just isn't a real possibility, and it makes me wonder if Oppenheimer is in the group that doesn't fully understand the impact of GAAP!!!

But, playing devil's advocate, and assuming iPhone sales fall 50% for current quarter and all else stays completely flat, current quarter will still come in at $1.36, right?

Would love to hear your comments.]]>