Seeking Alpha

faramarz

faramarz
Send Message
View as an RSS Feed
View faramarz's Comments BY TICKER:
Latest  |  Highest rated
  • Samsung unveils Galaxy S5. U.S. launch set for April. [View news story]
    Apple never gave so little new fitures on its releases & they all criticised Apple for not innovating. Lets see what will be the reaction after S5 release. Up to now no negative reaction but nothing positive either.
    Feb 25 04:19 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Inventory Risks Loom For Apple [View article]
    @MB. TC in his interview to WSJ said clearly that the numbers sold were actually the exact sales thru ones. Unless you could prove that TC lied you must present your appologies to all readers for wrong statements.
    Feb 24 10:32 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Inventory Risks Loom For Apple [View article]
    @ MB. The chanel inventory is accounted ar cost price not sales price. Items sitting on the chanel inventory do ptoduce profit when sold. Apple's chanel inventory iphones are accounted in the global chanel inventory which is 2.1B. You have been told this by other posts but you seem to be persisting in ignoring it because that suits better your final conclusion.
    Why are you trying to bring false assumptions. Do you try to convince yourself?
    Feb 23 09:03 AM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Inventory Risks Loom For Apple [View article]
    @ MB. Once again, either you know nothing from accounting or you state puposedly wrong statements to back your conclusion.

    On accounting side. Apple sold 51M iphones at average sales price of 637$ per unit. Those are effectively sold. The chanel inventory increaed from 14m to 15M. That means that, during the quarter, Apple produced 1M iphones more that they sold. The 15M iphones in the chanel inventory are allready accounted as far as the production cost is concerned but not accounted as sales value. Those 15M items are sitting on the balance sheet. This is a positive fact of the quarter earning announcement not a negative fact.
    There is not one person, excepted you, who misinterpreted this point. Apple gives the exact sales figures and do not cheat with their investors as you suggest.
    In french we call you " fourbe".
    Feb 22 12:15 PM | 4 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Quantifying Apple's Strategic Errors [View article]
    @MB. I am not committed to any company. I just cant accept false assumptions. As to the word "advice", sorry for the writing as I am not an original english speaking person but I can challenge you in persian (my mother language), french (my principal language), italian (the language of my heart), turkish (my grand mother's language) that i learnt when child, arabic (i had to learn it as a third language at school) & spanish (my actual hobby).
    As to my post, i could not expect a consistent response because you could not possibly and arguably refute my numbers (the true).
    Feb 16 04:48 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Quantifying Apple's Strategic Errors [View article]
    @ MB. You must be a very arrogant person. According to you, Apple's management & an army of all kind of people between the most intelligents in the world working in all domains working for Apple were/are not able to see the advantage that Apple could get from lowering it's products price & making those available to a vaster percentage of the entire market. According to you MB, Apple's management is certainly not capable of making those calculations & Apple's management were/are not able to see & nobody had/has never told them that your's suggested strategy is a possibility.

    Mr Blair, IMHO, Apple's management has certainly envisaged all that you suggest & has made the necessary market researches & ultimately has reached the conclusion that : a) there is no money at the low end segment &, b) in the middle price segment the competition is/can be too fierce and the products could/would become commoditized/commodities and margins would be low or next to nothing.

    In first lecture, your assumption & therefor the calculation seem to be right.
    Wow, why Apple is so stupid ?
    But, wait a minute.
    May be there is something wrong some where.
    Calculations are just additions & multiplications & even if you may not be able to conduct a multiplication, there are calculators for that.
    So your assumptions may be wrong. lets consider those assumption.

    a) Your first assumption : Apple would get 40% of the overall smartphone market. a 400$ price smartphone is the top/low of the middle/high segment's. Apple's actual 15% or 151M represents almost 55% of the top segment. So the top segment is +/- 275M units. We can assume reasonably that the middle price segment represents 330M leaving 400M for the low price segment. We can also reasonably assume a 400$ smartphone market occupies 1/3rd of the middle price segment. so this part of the middle price segment is 110M units. So with a 400$ price smartphone Apple would aim to a segment of market representing 275 + 110 M = 375M.
    You assume that with a 400$ price Apple would have 40% of the market and would sell 1004 *40% = 400M
    But the total market size of 400+$ segment is only 375M. So according to you Apple will have 107% share of the addressable market size. THIS IS NOT POSSIBLE AS APPLE CAN NOT HAVE MORE THAN 100% OF A POSSIBLE MARKET. All other companies shipping negative unit numbers.

    b) your 2nd assumption presumes that Apple will have a 50% of market share in Tablets. But Apple's actual 33% market share represents almost 75% of the high end of the market. Here we can assume that the market is divided between Junk & good or enough good tablets & Apple is getting 2/3rd of the good & enough good tablets markets share. Total market being 217M. Good & enough good market = 110M & Apple's 72M = 65,5% of this segment.
    Your assumption of Apple's lower priced tablet getting 50% of the total market = 217*50% = 108.5M tablets sold by Apple. This is almost 100% of the addressable market size.

    So both for Iphone & Ipad, your 40% & 50% possible markets shares if the prices were lowered by 200 & 100 $ are absolutely wrong & foolish. The rest of calculation becomes also wrong.

    In an other post, i have told you that the content consumers & the accessory buyers are not necessarily going to be willing to spend as much money as the actual category of Apple's clients are spending.

    Besides all, a recent study shows that Apple is having more than 85% of the overall smartphone profit. Samsung being the 2nd far behind & almost all others losing money so the total profit share of Apple, Samsung's & a very few other companies that don't lose is 120%.

    So Mr Blair, my advise would be : before submitting such conclusions please make a little calculation to see if the assumptions leading to those conclusions could be in overall reasonably applicable or not.
    Feb 16 12:30 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Quantifying Apple's Strategic Errors [View article]
    @author. Many errors of numbers interpretation.
    All content buyers are not equivalent. Android content buyers dont spend as much as ios content buyers. If you price the idevices lower, you may have more devices sold but not more content & accessories.
    Lower price will damage the brand & the staus symbol. Apple will become +/- like samsung without some of the advantages that samsung has. The competition will be much strong & the price war will kill every one specially those who are not vertically integrated.
    MB or Porshe do not battle on price. They will lose their market if they did so.

    What You seem tovrefuse to understand is that Apple is a brand & is going to be more & more a luxury brand. Your semi intellectual assumtions do not apply to brands but to commodity items. Apple is selling smartphones & tablets. Those items are commodities but Apple's devices are not. It is like saying that cars are commodity items but MB or Porshe are not.
    Feb 13 04:44 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • The Secret Code To The Apple Cash Vault [View article]
    Apple's offshore money is free to be repatriated with repatriation tax payment. There is no other barrier as this money is after tax of the countries where it is earned.
    Feb 12 09:55 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • The Secret Code To The Apple Cash Vault [View article]
    @RadarTheKat. Apple obviously should declare such move & also the Maximum amount dedicated to such purchase. Apple would not be allowed to trade on the market but could sell those shares in private if needed. But i doubt that Apple would need one day to sell those. This would be like money invested in the bond market with an interest rate equivalent to the dividend.
    Feb 12 09:53 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • The Secret Code To The Apple Cash Vault [View article]
    @ NTI investor. Apple has to pay the repatriation & capital increase tax on any equity purchased with offshore money & sitting actually on their balance sheet. This would also be the case with their own shares.
    Feb 12 09:44 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Apple Continues To Present Tremendous Upside [View article]
    @author. Assuming that the 5C was a failure is not right at all. 5C replaces the 5. Apple, usually, used to keep selling the older model with a 100$ price difference to the new one. So the 5C sales volume should be compared to what would have been the 5's sales after the 5S launch. If apple 5S to 5C sales were 3.5/1 as many analysts suggest and assuming that 5S & 5C accounted for 95% of Q1 sales, we will have following sales volume : 5S = 35.68M = 73.9%, 5C = 10.77M = 21.12% & 4S = 4.55M = 4.98%.
    I dont think that Apple would have sold more than 10M of 5's in the Q114.
    Feb 11 05:56 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • The Secret Code To The Apple Cash Vault [View article]
    Apple can-shall/should have buy/bought at least 100M shares with the money sitting oversears when the stock eas between 400 & 500. Apple is holding marketable securities & equities on their balance sheet with the money sitting offshore. Some of this could have been replaced by Apple's own stock. There is no laws forbidding this. Instead of having X-Y-Z on the balance sheet they would have Apple's own shares. Apple would obviously pay a repatriation & capital increase taxe whenever they decide to bring those shares back home. But in the mid time, Apple would save the dividende on those share. This alone would be a better use of money than the thresury bonds. WS would consider those shares as being effectively written off & would consider 2 type of EPS: one accounting those shares & one without. Apple could also vest all oversees employees option from thoses shares.
    I have talked of this to several business lawyers in US & they don't see anything against the current US laws on the subject.
    Feb 11 05:25 AM | 7 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Apple iPhone ASPs Are Certain To Fall [View article]
    @ Redrut. Prada bags need more than the leather quality & the look to care about. Many components enter the manufacturing of a bag & the manufacturing quality being the most important part of it.
    Feb 7 11:00 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Apple iPhone ASPs Are Certain To Fall [View article]
    @ Cagdas Ozgenc.
    You mean 1/50th of the sales price to manufacture. for the rest agree
    Feb 7 10:57 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Apple Mostly Just An Overvalued Hardware Stock; New Catalysts Needed [View article]
    @ author. On this site, I have never seen an author to be treated as id..t by so many people. But i shall admit that you deserve it.
    An id..t is not only some one who doesn't have the intellectual capacity to understand things but, is some one who pretends having this capacity while every word in his mouth proves the opposite.
    Apple sells its hardware at a premium just because this hardware enters in global ecosystem where software & services are integrated & the hardware owner is sure that he will be taken care of in future with updates, further integration, etc..
    All other hardware companies rely on third party software & their users may not be able to upgrade even if they paid or it.
    Samsung, etc. are working hard for Google. Samsung is the only one making some money out of its huge sales (in quantity) thanks to its presence in lower end market but still, the major part of its profit is coming from its few high end handsets.
    Feb 5 08:58 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
COMMENTS STATS
246 Comments
458 Likes