Seeking Alpha

OldWarrior

OldWarrior
Send Message
View as an RSS Feed
View OldWarrior's Comments BY TICKER:
Latest  |  Highest rated
  • Apple's Stock Price: What Do Market-Makers Think It Can Sell For? [View article]
    Having followed Peter very closely for over a year, a common time-to-price target is 3 months, or 63 market days. All things considered, I personally would expect AAPL to hit it's PT sooner; but I also would not close out my position before then in this case unless it did hit it's PT.
    Occasionally Peter gives a different timeline, so I claim no greater insight here than he has expressed in this article. I am still only a student.
    Feb 2, 2014. 02:57 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Why The Apple Bears Have Got It Wrong And Here Is The Proof [View article]
    @Author
    Since you include CapEx in your FCF calculations, I think you are blinding yourself from companies that require considerable CapEx like the very top cutting edge companies while putting a premium on companies that underspend on CapEx. AAPL has a long history of buying companies for their technology rather than spending their own cash hoard to invest in their own research. I think I can safely assume that you would never touch INTC, and missed their ~20% runup from ~21 to >26 because of their high CapEx. I really don't care enough about AAPL to run the numbers; but when a Tech underspends on CapEx, they can get seriously hammered by companies like Nokia who have massive Patent Portfolios. The very thing in your calculation that keeps a company on the cutting edge is somehow attractive to you. When a company like AAPL underspends on CapEx, we get the minimal innovations that AAPL has shown us since Steve left. That 64 bit processor didn't come from AAPL research, they bought it. By your metric, R&D is BAD, as it is included in CapEx as much as building a new FAB is under generally acceptable accounting standards.
    Please Please check your figures against Revenues minus Depreciation and Amortization and compare your results. As an added bonus, if a company pays a dividend, using my metric will tell you how safe that Dividend is. If they pay out >50% of FCF, the Div is shaky. If over 70%, it is unsustainable.
    Feb 2, 2014. 02:48 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Why The Apple Bears Have Got It Wrong And Here Is The Proof [View article]
    Carriers like Verizon routinely back up whatever you want from any phone you use, so iCloud is rather irrelevant. I personally back up everything on my phone to my 2TB storage drive. In my case, even the Cloud is irrelevant. Backing up data on every tech toy I have is simple since I can set it to backup every time I hook my phone to my PC or Laptop to charge it, and my toys to other places on my home network.
    Repeat business comes not from being locked into an ecosystem; but from satisfaction with my brand of toy.
    Feb 2, 2014. 02:19 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Why The Apple Bears Have Got It Wrong And Here Is The Proof [View article]
    Sadly; There are still people out there who actually risk their hard earned money on the word of a Bank Based "Analyst"
    From summer 2012 to Q1 2013 JPM and GS had NOK at Sell, while one doubled their position, the other increased position by 700%. Nokia went from <$2 to >$4 during that time, when those banks dumped their ~$2.5 stocks at >$4.
    The only thing "Analysts" are good for is that once in a while they point out something worth further DD. Mercifully, they no longer kill trees to spout their blathering. At least we can re-use the pixels.
    Even so-called "Independent Analysts' often have an agenda, or at best are late to the party.

    Personally, I expect the correction to end rather soon, but am ~50% cash. I can guarantee that whatever I buy coming out will not be influenced by any "Analyst".
    Feb 2, 2014. 02:00 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Why The Apple Bears Have Got It Wrong And Here Is The Proof [View article]
    I respectfully disagree that Apple is coveted by all. As a Baby Boomer, few of us care about Brands over Function. (We don't buy $300 sneakers either) and we DO have much of the wealth. Statistics also show more homes have PC's than Smartphones ATM.
    That said, if an iPhone or iPad meets our needs better, that is what we buy.
    http://bit.ly/1eIpCFL
    Android phones taking Market Share from about everyone.
    BUT
    http://bit.ly/1eIpENR
    and
    http://bit.ly/1eIpCFN
    So AAPL's still likely to bring out more interesting goodies in the next few years.
    Disclaimer: I am neither short nor long any Tech company today, but may buy, sell or short anything on a daily basis.
    Feb 2, 2014. 01:35 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Why The Apple Bears Have Got It Wrong And Here Is The Proof [View article]
    http://bit.ly/1nCRzqd
    Feb 2, 2014. 01:28 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Why The Apple Bears Have Got It Wrong And Here Is The Proof [View article]
    See what you get with my definition above. CapEx is controllable, Dep & Amort are not. Probably will not differ a lot, but CapEx is a decision where Depreciation & Am are fixed.
    Feb 2, 2014. 01:17 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Why The Apple Bears Have Got It Wrong And Here Is The Proof [View article]
    Even "THE CARL" cannot manage to buy enough to manipulate AAPL. His $500m buy didn't move the needle last week (Last week of Jan).
    Feb 2, 2014. 01:12 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Why The Apple Bears Have Got It Wrong And Here Is The Proof [View article]
    Just 1 question. How do you define Free Cash Flow?
    My definition has always been Revenue minus Depreciation and Amortization, as only those 2 are unavoidable and uncontrollable costs. Everything else can be managed (and manipulated).
    A great new unbiased article on AAPL was just published by Peter Way.
    http://seekingalpha.co...
    He is showing that the Market Makers are estimating ~20% upside; but <IMO> only after this blind correction stabilizes. His timelines are usually ~3 months.
    For those unfamiliar with him. he has a method of tracking how much the MMs pay for "hedging" their investments and deriving from how much they pay, how optimistic or pessimistic they are on a given stock.
    Feb 2, 2014. 01:08 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Apple's Stock Price: What Do Market-Makers Think It Can Sell For? [View article]
    @tuliptown and others.
    I invite you to my discussion of Peter's upcoming available tools at http://bit.ly/1ltlbI7
    I'm happy to help and answer such questions as I have knowledge of. Also, I get no pay for views of my Blog, so it is just informational.
    Feb 1, 2014. 10:26 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • The Now And Continuing Future Star-Performing ETF [View article]
    The trouble with betting on the VIX is that there are no fundamentals to do DD on. It should never have come to Wall Street, but stayed in Vegas where it belongs. It's nothing but a pure gamble on people's emotions, and as such has no Book Value, PE, FCF, nothing but a roll of the dice.
    Jan 25, 2014. 10:25 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Forum On The Tools And Philosophy Of Blockdesk.com, Peter F. Way And His Usage Of Market Maker's Hedging Strategies [View instapost]
    Added a few paragraphs about trading in the current market; but I still have inadequate data to judge BlockDesk.com's usage in Bear Markets.
    Jan 24, 2014. 01:14 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • The Idiot's Guide To Why Questcor Is Suspicious [View article]
    It's Cannibalism; Raven eating Crow!. Volume in the last hour on Thursday was insane as shorts got eaten alive. I still hold to $66 within 30 days, then I'm out.
    Jan 18, 2014. 01:37 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Forum On The Tools And Philosophy Of Blockdesk.com, Peter F. Way And His Usage Of Market Maker's Hedging Strategies [View instapost]
    Just yesterday (Thursday), I started rooting through Peter's articles for those with long lists of stocks mentioned to "bottom-feed". If you have bookmarked such pages, and can find stocks with under 30-40% odds, feel free to post them, or at least a link to them. Since we have not had a real "Bear Market" within the last 5 years, I am kind of starting from scratch. If you are really ambitious, you might pull up charts on those poorly rated stocks to see if they broke their "Forecast Lows" within 3 months of the date they were rated. This is probably only useful if the forecast lows were greater than the upside price target. By Forecast lows, use column 2, not "Worst Case Drawdowns", as that metric is different than the forecast lows. What I want to see is stocks that were rated with more forecast low than forecast high. and throw out anything that did not fall >~10-20%+ or $10-$20+.
    As I start from scratch, it will take me from 1 to 3 months to get enough Data, unless I can get some screened data from Peter. Once I get the data processed, I'll have to look back at Analysts forecasts like Zacks "Bear of the Day" to see if this method beats the Street. It's probably enough work for someone to do a PhD Thesis on.
    When I mentioned this idea on one of Peter's articles, his reply was that in his experience, MMs were better at forecasting winners than losers. The idea being that once a stock falls below a certain threshold, they move on to better looking stocks. The price of hedging such losers is probably just too expensive.
    Jan 18, 2014. 01:19 AM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Bottom Line Analysis: Which Stock's Price Will Rise The Most, Surest, Soonest? [View article]
    It will take some time for me to backtest the lowest rated stocks from previous articles, but as soon as I am done, I'll let you know, as well as on my Blog. Tough to test a Bear market without one though.
    Jan 15, 2014. 04:03 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
COMMENTS STATS
2,527 Comments
1,133 Likes