bearfund

Why Apple Is Worth $80

Can we please use realistic values for long-term growth and discount rates? You're talking 3-6% for the former and 8% for the latter. How about 1% for the former and 15% for the latter? We are in an era of zero or slow growth and rapid unbridled monetary expansion. The estimates people are using for these values are way too optimistic. For example, your DDM figures use 3.39% for the 10-year note rate. Oops; it's already 3.55% and is headed to 10% over the next few years as inflationary policies devalue the dollar. GDP growth? WHAT GDP growth?! There hasn't been any for the last 10 years if you acknowledge the true rate of price growth over that time, and even if you use the government's figures there's been very little.

Time to get hard-headed. Most stocks are 5x overvalued, and AAPL is no exception.

Is Jim Cramer Right? Is Apple Really a Market Barometer?

AAPL looks a lot like an option on consumer discretionary as a sector. Chart it against long-dated XLY calls, for example. This shouldn't surprise anyone; the company has absolutely no capacity to make anything anyone needs, but as long as people want what they're making there's bound to be hope among the bread and circuses crowd.

Deflation Changes the Rules

That the dollar is rising against everything but the yen (and gold, of course) should give you the answer to your question. The dollar has a lower yield than every other currency except the yen (and gold, of course). What you are seeing is carry trades unwinding as traders deleverage and avoid risk. When yields get this low, fundamentals are dominated by the carry trade on weekly and even monthly charts. The same has been true of the yen for years now.

Now Is the Right Time to Buy Apple Option LEAPS

Yes, the company has no debt. Great. But what is that $20b in cash for? They aren't paying dividends out of it. They aren't investing it in their business. It's just sitting there, losing value as the Washington Clown College inflates it away. If you buy AAPL, 1/6 of what you're getting is T-bills. How exciting.

An Optimist Looks at the Market

1. Expensive oil spurs innovation, providing a competitive advantage to the US and other technological leaders. Cheaper oil spurs pollution and climate change and encourages further investment in inefficient living patterns. The best thing that could possibly happen to America is $500 oil.

2. That number was inflated in several ways and should not be relied upon. Even ignoring the wrong signs on several of the components and the "stimulus checks", one cannot ignore the silly "chained dollars" method of calculating the deflator. GDP growth in real terms has been negative for 5 years and remains so. If you don't believe a chart of nominal GDP priced in gold, ask anyone who works for a living. They'll tell you the same thing. If you happen to ask anyone in California, make that 8 years.

3. Dead cat bounce inspired by weakness elsewhere.

4. There are always once in a lifetime opportunities. Today's involve being short, especially Treasuries, which are at historically overvalued levels. And there are always opportunities for good stock pickers. But how is this optimistic? It's no better than at any other time, and probably worse: even "cheap" stocks have earnings yields no higher than 7-8%, and few pay anywhere near that much in dividends. With the dollar losing 10%+ of its value every year, you won't get much out of them. And those dividends won't look like much once the benchmark interest rates hit 10%.

5. Housing is horribly unaffordable in historical terms. Only with the most myopic view focused solely on the 21st century could anyone conclude otherwise. 20% down? Here in San Francisco, one of America's wealthiest cities, the median household income is $68k. The median house in the City proper costs $790k as of July. Once a frugal household is done paying its crushing tax bill and the rent on a modest rent-controlled apartment, it might save $15k a year. In a mere 11 years (no help from the Fed's 2% interest rates here, eh?), it would have the down payment saved up. Too bad it'll need to put 60% down to qualify for a mortgage it can actually afford. When the median house costs 3x the median income, housing is cheap. When it costs 10x and people call that cheap because 2 years ago it was 14x, those people are silly but housing is still expensive.

Keeping an emergency fund, unless it's in gold, and living within your means are foolish in the extreme. Borrow more, spend lavishly, and declare bankruptcy when when the game is up. The entire system is set up to encourage that, and you would do well to get your piece of the pie while the Chinese are still willing to lend it to us. There are no prizes for prudence; you'll be stuck with a fat tax bill no matter what. Might as well enjoy getting there.

Five Great Quality Companies: Are They Too Expensive?

All very interesting, and yes these are good picks for good but overvalued companies. One interesting point that has been made by several commenters is that GOOD and AAPL generate lots of cash. Very true, and an excellent attribute for any company. Both also have little or no debt - another huge positive. But my question for those of you long these guys is what are they using their cash for? They're growing sales, but not in ways that seem to make use of the cash. From what I can see it's just piling up on their balance sheets. Do you think they're keeping their powder dry for the real downturn yet to come, planning to invest it in something great, or just not bothering to pay their shareholders? I'd love to see these guys on the dividend achievers list. They belong there. But they both pay nothing. Why?

What's Behind the Market's Rise?

"As is usually the case, the main benefactors of the creation of excess liquidity are not the asset classes which were targeted for improvement."

This is a very important observation. The creation of money and the creation of value are entirely unrelated. Collapses in prices of a particular asset class are usually due both to past overvaluation of those assets and a trigger event demonstrating for the market that the value of those assets has fallen materially. In other words, value is declining and the assets were overpriced. Creating liquidity does not make the assets more valuable, so it is unlikely to make them more desirable (and thus more expensive), either. Instead, excess liquidity will flow to whatever assets are growing in value or perceived to hold their value best. Hence the big run-ups in gold and crude and, perversely, Treasuries - over the past 6 months, the market has believed that those assets provide the greatest value. That would always mean their prices would rise, but they rose much faster than they otherwise would have because of all the excess money looking for a home.

The corollary to this is that flooding the market with liquidity is always the wrong response to a bursting bubble. It will *never* slow the bursting of that bubble and *always* begin inflating another one elsewhere. The problem is value, not prices, and central banks cannot and do not create value. If the Fed wants house prices to rise, they should shut off the printing press, grab tool belts, and start renovating homes. Giving more money to people who want to borrow (while destroying the assets of savers) isn't going to achieve that because they're going to buy what they want, not what you want them to buy - probably for good reason.