Seeking Alpha

Misho ILIEV

Misho ILIEV
Send Message
View Misho ILIEV's Comments BY TICKER:
  • Understanding Apple's Anemic Quarter [View article]
    But they wouldn't kill for a sharp deceleration of the profit growth and the margin compression. Nor would they kill for having a gloomier than perviously expected outlook for the next quater.
    Feb 8 06:14 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Regardless Of Price, Apple's Intrinsic Value Is Still On Its Way To $1,000 [View article]
    No, Camden! You want to own it during the distribution.

    Apple just announced it will distribute more than $40 billion back to the the shareholders. Check out how the share price reacted to that news.

    You see now what I meant?
    (I hate people taking the "I-told-you-so" stance but here I do it myself! :-))
    Feb 7 04:54 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Understanding Apple's Anemic Quarter [View article]
    Even if the compression is purely a result of the product transition, with this intense competition there will probably be in the future a faster cycle of product introductions so this feature of quick transitions and lowered margins may become permanent.

    And what we have here is not just margin compression but a flattening of the overall profit. So Apple isn't reducing margins in order to maximise the overall profit. Perhaps you could argue they lowered margins as a matter of long-term strategy. But that is speculative. All we see now is flattening of the profit and not so rosy outlook for the next quarter.

    Indeed let's see how this plays out. In any event there is a lot of uncertainty and that depresses the price of the stock. But I do not contest that it is POSSIBLE that Apple will be hugely successful in the next few years.
    Feb 6 03:55 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Understanding Apple's Anemic Quarter [View article]
    Good, but gross margin fell almost 16% and profit is flat. There could be a further margin compression. Competition is intense. Apple has grown enormously hence the risk of further slow down.

    Let's be objective. Risks are greater now than in the past.
    Feb 6 02:50 PM | 3 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Apple's Earnings Fall Is Completely Unjustified [View article]
    Good to point those figures, Tombo.

    Indeed chances of 20% growth in the next years are very, very slim. Not sure whether even a cheap version of the iPhone and iTV will be sufficient to do the trick.

    Apple could grow at 20% for a few years perhaps if it first shrinks by 40-50% :-)
    Feb 3 04:49 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Regardless Of Price, Apple's Intrinsic Value Is Still On Its Way To $1,000 [View article]
    @ Jack Baker

    That's a spot-on comment!
    Feb 1 05:01 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Regardless Of Price, Apple's Intrinsic Value Is Still On Its Way To $1,000 [View article]
    "written by someone who is long Apple in the 600's ... "

    Yes, that's what I am afraid too, that a lot of these analyses are more the wishful thinking of people who bought Apple in 2012...
    Feb 1 03:48 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Regardless Of Price, Apple's Intrinsic Value Is Still On Its Way To $1,000 [View article]
    And just to add this. I do understand your point that as the company grows it adds to the overall growth. It just cannot happen in practice that a company can grow indefinitely at a breakneck speed.

    The law of the large numbers... :-)
    Jan 31 02:44 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Regardless Of Price, Apple's Intrinsic Value Is Still On Its Way To $1,000 [View article]
    @STDvooh,

    Sorry but you are wrong from whichever point of view we look at this.

    First, economies cannot grow at arbitrary rates. For instance the US can grow at 3-4%, maybe even 5% but not 25%.

    Second, if a company grows at 100% after 10 years it will increase its output 1024 times. In 15 years 32.768. Can you imagine Apple as it is now increasing its output 32.000 times?

    Third, even if Apple starts growing by acquisition of other companies (rather than organic growth) for it to keep the 100% growth it will have to grow all sections of its businesses at an average of 100%. So in 15 years we will have 32.000 times more coffee, cars, houses, etc. (it will be called iCoffee, iCar, iHouse, of course)

    It's just not possible.

    Unless you are into science fiction - we start growing babies in incubators so we can double the population every year (what will happen to the planet?). Or we somehow spectacularly increase productivity and ingenuity so that with the same number of workers we churn out 32.000 more of everything? And then consume it...?? (Apart from any economic consideration that would be pathetic.)
    Jan 31 02:22 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Regardless Of Price, Apple's Intrinsic Value Is Still On Its Way To $1,000 [View article]
    STDvooh,

    I am just ridiculing you. That all.

    Your arguments are worthless in the real world. And you know that.

    Let's say Apple is that company that grows indefinitely at 100% rate. At one point 99.9999% of the GDP will be Apple products and 0.00001% will be all the rest.

    Do you know what I am talking about? ;-)
    Jan 30 05:29 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Regardless Of Price, Apple's Intrinsic Value Is Still On Its Way To $1,000 [View article]
    The point is Apple is hoarding enormous amounts of cash. Let's say Apple continues to do reasonably well and grows for the next 20 years and ... accumulates $ 10 trillions. Imagine that Apple announces that this mountain of cash (or rather imaginary number in a bank computer) will be kept as a reserve in case bad times arrive. Imagine Apple announces that it is so apprehensive of the future that it will let this imaginary number grow further.

    What do you think this will do the stock?
    Jan 30 05:14 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Regardless Of Price, Apple's Intrinsic Value Is Still On Its Way To $1,000 [View article]
    Hmmm...

    At one point this company will employ the whole population of the economy and people will have a dozen iPhones, houses will be made of iPads, doctors will prescribe iMacs, food will be in the form of iPods...

    You know this is just not possible... :-)
    Jan 30 04:52 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Regardless Of Price, Apple's Intrinsic Value Is Still On Its Way To $1,000 [View article]
    LVG, I trust that you are right about semantics. But that is not so important.

    The true law of large numbers can be applied to economic growth too. If the economy is growing at a certain average speed it is fair to assume that most companies are growing at a similar rate or that they tend to converge with it. Some grow faster, of course, but only for a period. After a large number of units of time (very successful quarters) they grow so much that they have to start converging with the average, i.e. decelerating.

    That's all.
    Jan 30 11:49 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Regardless Of Price, Apple's Intrinsic Value Is Still On Its Way To $1,000 [View article]
    How does that cash come to the pocket of the investor?

    What if I told you that I give you 50 trillion dollars or a 150 cubic metes of gold, only the are on galaxy UDFj-39546284 (this is the most distant galaxy from Planet Earth observable with the Huble telescope).
    Jan 30 09:51 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Regardless Of Price, Apple's Intrinsic Value Is Still On Its Way To $1,000 [View article]
    Thanks, Valuentum.

    I do not take the multple at face value. The problem with Apple is that future cashflows are speculative, especially the cashflows in 2016-2020.

    Why would you pay 8 times trailing earnings if you know that you have no clear idea about the next 7-8 years eranings. But you do know the "law" of large numbers and there is a likelyhood earning will start decreasing.

    @Zhang:
    Investopedia explains 'Law Of Large Numbers'
    As an example, assume that company X has a market capitalization of $400 billion and company Y has a market capitalization of $5 billion. In order for company X to grow by 50%, it must increase its market capitalization by $200 billion, while company Y would only have to increase its market capitalization by $2.5 billion. The law of large numbers suggests that it is much more likely that company Y will be able to expand by 50% than company X.

    The law of large numbers makes logical sense. If a large company continues to grow at 30-50% every year, it would eventually become bigger than the economy itself! Obviously, this can't happen and eventually growth has to slow down. As a result, investing in companies with very high market capitalization can dampen the potential for stock appreciation.

    Read more: http://bit.ly/X7I0Pa
    Jan 30 06:31 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
More on AAPL by Misho ILIEV
COMMENTS STATS
524 Comments
328 Likes