Seeking Alpha

faramarz

faramarz
Send Message
View faramarz's Comments BY TICKER:
  • Apple: Very Strong Demand For Mac Pro 2014 [View article]
    such as ?
    Apr 2 10:38 AM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • iPhones 80% Of China's Premium Smartphone Market? Don't Believe It [View article]
    Mr Blair. You are right to point out the inacuracy of the Umeng report at least the way it could have been concieved by some. Iphone doesnt account for 80% of that 27% as sales figures but as internet usage. Iphone's sales share are more or less 40% of those 27% which is still a lot & could become even higher with the CN deal. There is sure not any reason to short Apple based on this report & your article.
    In the past i have seen you using most unproven & inacurate statistics in many ocasions in order to inforce your bearish stand.
    Mar 24 11:37 AM | 3 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Apple Introduces Cheaper iPhone 5C Targeting LTE Growth In International Markets [View article]
    @MB. How stupid of Apple's marketting team @ management to not have noticed your point. They are so stupid. But, wait a minute. Up to now hasn't Apple sold those unsalable idevices (according to the marketting expert Mr Michael Blair) at the prices they decided which, according to MB were far above what customers could afford. Why should it be different this time.
    Mr Blair, either you don't understand Apple's marketting & pricing strategy or you do understand but think Apple is doing wrong. Apple's balance sheet proves that you are wrong. So one must conclude that you dont understand.
    By suggesting that Apple should follow your pricing strategy (which consists of Apple alligning it's prices to cheap android item's prices) you just want that Apple become like the kind of HTC, etc who never made a penny on sales of their devices.
    Apple long term investors are not agreeing with you. Your trading strategy consists of shorting Apple. You are trading not investing.
    Mar 21 05:39 AM | 4 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Sifting The Apple Rumors: iPhone 6 [View article]
    Dreaming is the starting point of every innovation.
    Mar 9 06:26 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Apple: Time For A Dividend Raise [View article]
    At author. Apple can buy it's own shares by it's foreign subsidiaries but cannot offset those shares. Those shares have to sit on the balance sheet as any other investment. But Apple can decide not to pay dividends to it's holder (Apple's subdiary co).
    Mar 5 05:03 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • If Tim Cook Does Not Care About The 'Bloody ROI', Does He Care About The 'Bloody Stock Price'? [View article]
    TC's answer was to those stupid questions was the best. The fellow who asked those question should be very stupid to think that Apple's environmental expenses do have some significant effect on ROI. Apple's bottom line is hardly affected by such expenses.
    Mar 3 06:25 AM | 11 Likes 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
More on AAPL by faramarz
COMMENTS STATS
210 Comments
338 Likes