Patience\ Virtue's Comments RSS Syndication from SeekingAlpha.com http://seekingalpha.com/user/1089516/comments http://seekingalpha.com/article/1065761/comments?source=feed#comment-12683711 12683711 Mon, 17 Dec 2012 10:08:53 -0500 http://seekingalpha.com/article/1065761/comments?source=feed#comment-12683641 12683641
Comparison of Google to Apple is tricky though. Google makes money by sending people online, not directly from Android sales. I'm not sure how it is possible to say that now that Android has surpassed iOS in market share, it will slowly lose market share. Tablet domination maybe? If true however, I could certainly see price and earnings increasing for Apple. The fact that Google's earnings are valued at 2x Apple does not make Apple undervalued though. It just mean Google is potentially overvalued.]]> Mon, 17 Dec 2012 10:07:49 -0500
Comparison of Google to Apple is tricky though. Google makes money by sending people online, not directly from Android sales. I'm not sure how it is possible to say that now that Android has surpassed iOS in market share, it will slowly lose market share. Tablet domination maybe? If true however, I could certainly see price and earnings increasing for Apple. The fact that Google's earnings are valued at 2x Apple does not make Apple undervalued though. It just mean Google is potentially overvalued.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/1065761/comments?source=feed#comment-12683281 12683281
As for the assumption of zero growth with Apple, it is not difficult to imagine a situation where that is in fact the case. New products are difficult to launch successfully - especially when they do not fulfill some sort of physiological need in the consumer. Apple is at the tail end of the adoption curve with most of the products that have been launched in the last decade. If the next product fails, they will struggle to grow earnings.

That being said though, I do not believe this will happen.]]> Mon, 17 Dec 2012 10:01:20 -0500
As for the assumption of zero growth with Apple, it is not difficult to imagine a situation where that is in fact the case. New products are difficult to launch successfully - especially when they do not fulfill some sort of physiological need in the consumer. Apple is at the tail end of the adoption curve with most of the products that have been launched in the last decade. If the next product fails, they will struggle to grow earnings.

That being said though, I do not believe this will happen.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/1065761/comments?source=feed#comment-12682821 12682821 Mon, 17 Dec 2012 09:53:51 -0500 http://seekingalpha.com/article/1065761/comments?source=feed#comment-12682771 12682771 Mon, 17 Dec 2012 09:52:51 -0500 http://seekingalpha.com/article/1065761/comments?source=feed#comment-12682741 12682741 Mon, 17 Dec 2012 09:52:12 -0500 http://seekingalpha.com/article/1065761/comments?source=feed#comment-12682581 12682581 Mon, 17 Dec 2012 09:49:51 -0500 http://seekingalpha.com/article/1065761/comments?source=feed#comment-12682311 12682311 Mon, 17 Dec 2012 09:45:08 -0500 http://seekingalpha.com/article/1065761/comments?source=feed#comment-12682261 12682261 Mon, 17 Dec 2012 09:44:50 -0500 http://seekingalpha.com/article/1065761/comments?source=feed#comment-12681891 12681891 Mon, 17 Dec 2012 09:36:40 -0500 http://seekingalpha.com/article/1065761/comments?source=feed#comment-12681871 12681871 Mon, 17 Dec 2012 09:35:59 -0500 http://seekingalpha.com/article/1031681/comments?source=feed#comment-12043721 12043721 Wed, 28 Nov 2012 14:00:54 -0500 http://seekingalpha.com/article/1018961/comments?source=feed#comment-11809831 11809831
I'm not sure I agree entirely. There's a couple of problems with stock buybacks in my book.
1. Ideally a company would only buy back a stock when it is cheap rather than expensive. However as we all know and you allude to with your comment on MCD, it's not always easy to figure out. I guess this means that the ideal case is when a company has a consistent focus on buy backs like maybe IBM or Intel today. Sort of a dollar cost averaging approach.
2. Your points on KO and the car dealership are a little harder for me to follow since we are talking corporate buy backs which could very well be millions of shares.

Thanks for contributing though!]]> Tue, 20 Nov 2012 11:42:53 -0500
I'm not sure I agree entirely. There's a couple of problems with stock buybacks in my book.
1. Ideally a company would only buy back a stock when it is cheap rather than expensive. However as we all know and you allude to with your comment on MCD, it's not always easy to figure out. I guess this means that the ideal case is when a company has a consistent focus on buy backs like maybe IBM or Intel today. Sort of a dollar cost averaging approach.
2. Your points on KO and the car dealership are a little harder for me to follow since we are talking corporate buy backs which could very well be millions of shares.

Thanks for contributing though!]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/1018961/comments?source=feed#comment-11808801 11808801 Tue, 20 Nov 2012 11:23:50 -0500 http://seekingalpha.com/article/1018961/comments?source=feed#comment-11808771 11808771 Thanks for adding to the conversation. I'm a fan of both of your work and appreciate your reading.]]> Tue, 20 Nov 2012 11:23:31 -0500 Thanks for adding to the conversation. I'm a fan of both of your work and appreciate your reading.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/1018961/comments?source=feed#comment-11785641 11785641 Mon, 19 Nov 2012 17:54:28 -0500 http://seekingalpha.com/article/1018961/comments?source=feed#comment-11785621 11785621
Thanks!]]> Mon, 19 Nov 2012 17:54:16 -0500
Thanks!]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/1018961/comments?source=feed#comment-11785581 11785581
Now your comment near the end regarding the tax implications of dividends is valid. At the same time the research that has been completed on dividends vs. share buy backs has tended to show buy backs in a rather negative light. I guess I'd rather have a bird (or rather 70% of a bird after taxes) in hand...

Thanks and keep reading.]]> Mon, 19 Nov 2012 17:53:35 -0500
Now your comment near the end regarding the tax implications of dividends is valid. At the same time the research that has been completed on dividends vs. share buy backs has tended to show buy backs in a rather negative light. I guess I'd rather have a bird (or rather 70% of a bird after taxes) in hand...

Thanks and keep reading.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/961451/comments?source=feed#comment-11108391 11108391
It would seem to me that the financial industry would be loathe to push a dividend investing strategy since it is more accepting of buy and hold. Without the "selling" part of it, they lose half of potential commissions. On the contrary, if they were to push a strategy to avoid "expensive" dividend payers and liquidate holdings to cover income requirements, they would clearly receive more commissions.

There is also the whole problem with a flat statement that dividend stocks are overvalued by 30-50%. This is true in certain cases but is not true across the board. At any given time, some sectors are overvalued and some are undervalued. Every sector has dividend payers and every (or at least most) has dividend growth companies.]]> Wed, 31 Oct 2012 23:05:00 -0400
It would seem to me that the financial industry would be loathe to push a dividend investing strategy since it is more accepting of buy and hold. Without the "selling" part of it, they lose half of potential commissions. On the contrary, if they were to push a strategy to avoid "expensive" dividend payers and liquidate holdings to cover income requirements, they would clearly receive more commissions.

There is also the whole problem with a flat statement that dividend stocks are overvalued by 30-50%. This is true in certain cases but is not true across the board. At any given time, some sectors are overvalued and some are undervalued. Every sector has dividend payers and every (or at least most) has dividend growth companies.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/643191/comments?source=feed#comment-6559751 6559751 Tue, 19 Jun 2012 08:31:04 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/659581/comments?source=feed#comment-6427471 6427471 CAT) and Target (TGT) are just two of the non-techs that are now raising dividends. United Technologies (UTX) is also raising its pay-out."

"Dividends go away, and in the Great Recession they went away in a big way."

CAT has raised its dividend 18 years in a row. Dividends from 08-11 were $1.56, $1.68, $1.72, and $1.84.
TGT has raised its dividend 44 (!) years in a row. Dividends from 08-11 were $0.60, $0.68, $0.84, and $1.20.
UTX has raised its dividend 17 years in a row. Dividends from 08-11 were $1.35, $1.54, $1.70, and $1.92.

I believe your point is valid but your examples are absolutely horrendous.]]> Thu, 14 Jun 2012 14:14:45 -0400 CAT) and Target (TGT) are just two of the non-techs that are now raising dividends. United Technologies (UTX) is also raising its pay-out."

"Dividends go away, and in the Great Recession they went away in a big way."

CAT has raised its dividend 18 years in a row. Dividends from 08-11 were $1.56, $1.68, $1.72, and $1.84.
TGT has raised its dividend 44 (!) years in a row. Dividends from 08-11 were $0.60, $0.68, $0.84, and $1.20.
UTX has raised its dividend 17 years in a row. Dividends from 08-11 were $1.35, $1.54, $1.70, and $1.92.

I believe your point is valid but your examples are absolutely horrendous.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/629461/comments?source=feed#comment-6027211 6027211 Fri, 01 Jun 2012 17:46:32 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/629461/comments?source=feed#comment-6005741 6005741
Bottom Line: Earnings overseas is a long-term issue but not necessarily one that MDT has to face right away.]]> Fri, 01 Jun 2012 09:41:45 -0400
Bottom Line: Earnings overseas is a long-term issue but not necessarily one that MDT has to face right away.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/607601/comments?source=feed#comment-5884121 5884121
Thanks!]]> Mon, 28 May 2012 23:10:05 -0400
Thanks!]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/607601/comments?source=feed#comment-5737471 5737471 Wed, 23 May 2012 13:55:18 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/607601/comments?source=feed#comment-5691271 5691271 Thanks for reading!]]> Tue, 22 May 2012 11:43:04 -0400 Thanks for reading!]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/607601/comments?source=feed#comment-5691001 5691001 Thanks for your comments. The growth rates quoted are the analyst consensus long term (5 yr) EPS growth rates. Clearly they should not be taken literally. I think in this case they are useful for comparative purposes. Since these two companies work in the same industry, they have similar analyst coverage. Therefore comparing their consensus LTGR gives an inkling as to which growth story analysts like better.
You make a good point on operating earnings being significantly lower than total earnings in Q1. For comparison's sake, operating earnings in Q1 2011 were $0.84. This variability in quarter to quarter earnings and even accounting practices leading to variations in year to year earnings is a big reason why it is far more important when looking at past earnings to go back more than 1 year. For example I do not place a ceiling on PE or TTM PE for an investment but I do place a ceiling on PE10.
Thanks again for your comments.]]> Tue, 22 May 2012 11:37:24 -0400 Thanks for your comments. The growth rates quoted are the analyst consensus long term (5 yr) EPS growth rates. Clearly they should not be taken literally. I think in this case they are useful for comparative purposes. Since these two companies work in the same industry, they have similar analyst coverage. Therefore comparing their consensus LTGR gives an inkling as to which growth story analysts like better.
You make a good point on operating earnings being significantly lower than total earnings in Q1. For comparison's sake, operating earnings in Q1 2011 were $0.84. This variability in quarter to quarter earnings and even accounting practices leading to variations in year to year earnings is a big reason why it is far more important when looking at past earnings to go back more than 1 year. For example I do not place a ceiling on PE or TTM PE for an investment but I do place a ceiling on PE10.
Thanks again for your comments.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/607601/comments?source=feed#comment-5686001 5686001 Tue, 22 May 2012 09:47:12 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/603581/comments?source=feed#comment-5649591 5649591 Mon, 21 May 2012 10:14:46 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/603581/comments?source=feed#comment-5631141 5631141 Sun, 20 May 2012 15:30:37 -0400