Seeking Alpha


Send Message
View outcastsearcher's Comments BY TICKER:
  • Demographics, Manias And The Short Case For Apple Explained [View article]
    fgrindle: Right. No Apple fanboy ever uses emotion when making the bullish case for Apple. Strong argument -- like unending exponential growth (NOT).
    Dec 3 12:20 PM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Demographics, Manias And The Short Case For Apple Explained [View article]
    hereinNC: Ignoring limits to growth and acting like a company can have INFINITE growth is a classic mistake that has been well documented for at least half a century in the modern stock market. Much further back if you look at things like the Tulip Bulb mania.

    If you think AAPL is undervalued, fine. To act like its product growth can be anything remotely approaching infinity, however, is madness.
    Dec 3 12:17 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Demographics, Manias And The Short Case For Apple Explained [View article]
    To be long options means you have bought them. (This is a more basic point than your nitpicking about saying long or holding).

    There are many options strategies, including calendar spreads, that involve being long options. To flatly state that experienced options traders don't go long options is like saying half the market doesn't exist.

    Are YOU new to options trading?

    Try reading a book on options and learning what you are talking about. THEN maybe you'll be in a position to intelligently criticize another options trader (or realize you have no business doing that in this case).
    Dec 3 12:13 PM | 5 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Tim Cook's Improbable Victory In Washington [View article]
    Stephen, why not have the US tax code tax YOU at 50%, 90%, or even 99%? You'd still have "plenty left". (My arbitrary opinion of how much is valid to steal via taxatation is just as good as yours).

    FYI, most of the US military is wasted screwing up the middle east, to ensure a supply of "cheap" oil. A FAR better way to go would be to have an intelligent energy policy including incentives and efficiency, and become truly energy efficient.

    We could probably create lots of infrastructure, jobs, and revenue to ramp up the economy while we did that. But instead we pay many $billions annually to help fund terrorism. And then we need more government (and thus more tax dollars) to deal with that.

    I imagine the Iranian power brokers and their ilk nearly kill themselves laughing at us, our policy is so stupid in this regard.
    May 22 05:50 PM | 4 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Tim Cook's Improbable Victory In Washington [View article]
    alex, you are insulting ill-informed boobs. There is a reason congress has such a low favorability rating. Think how low it would be if they weren't funneling money to the entitlement class fast enough to get elected?
    May 22 05:43 PM | 3 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Tim Cook's Improbable Victory In Washington [View article]
    Michael Nau:

    First: If the tax code were ANYTHING like REMOTELY fair, you might have a point.

    Since all it does is arbitrarily take earnings from productive entities, to be wasted in whatever arbitrary way the current power clique in congress wants -- the concept that the 70,000ish bizarrely complex tax code is "fair" is laughable.

    Second: Why should the US collect income tax on earnings from outside the US? It's not enough that they collect $billions from companies like Apple which provide lots of jobs and technology to help the US economy -- they want to take everything they can get, for no logical or remotely valid reason. And that's "fair"?

    It sounds like your version of "fair" is confiscating all the wealth you can, deserved or not, via legal thuggery. I beg to differ.

    Actually, corporate tax rates should be zero anyway. Corporations don't pay taxes -- individuals pay taxes. Corporations pass the expenses they incur from paying income taxes on to their customers. We should end that charade, tax people on ALL their earnings (and I mean ALL -- zero deductions aside from a standard deduction which would protect the truly poor) at a low rate, live within our means, and be done with it.

    Of course, that can't happen because it implies we get most people to behave like adults (i.e. responsibly). That isn't how votes are bought from the masses these days. (And then we wonder why this country is in financial trouble).
    May 22 05:35 PM | 11 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Danger Zone For This Week: Apple [View article]
    bpertum, it will be interesting to see how "unassailable" Microsoft's Office is, with its new (rip-off) annual (large) licensing fee (Office-365).

    For me, I bought multiple Office 2010 licenses for 3 PC's for about $100, and don't plan to buy ANY more MS products that use this sort of model.

    I hadn't bothered with things like OpenOffice and other free alternatives. If push comes to shove, I certainly will when the price goes from $35ish per PC to many $hundreds over the life of a PC.

    Aside from clumsy corporate organizations which are too inefficient to change or even get out of their own way, I have to image that a LOT of current Office customers will be thinking the same way.

    It looks to me like MSFT is going to accelerate their path toward obsolescence, unless it stops behaving in such a customer-hostile way.
    May 16 01:36 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Danger Zone For This Week: Apple [View article]
    Mr Trainer:

    Near the beginning of this article you said:

    "Almost a year ago, I wrote a bullish article on Apple, arguing that its sky-high ROIC made it a great value for investors even at such a high price."

    That article was posted May the 15th, 2012 according to the page it is posted on. AAPL was about $550 then. The bullish article recommends people buy and hold the stock for the long term, and talk about the company doing great things.

    So now, with the stock over $100 lower, you HATE AAPL, and say it is worth less than half what it trades at now.

    So why should readers regard your current opinion as any better than your last opinion?

    Disclosure: I don't pretend to have any special prognostication skills about public company prediction from year to year -- but I don't write for profit blogs or newsletters dishing out stock picks for money either.
    May 16 01:27 AM | 3 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Apple Should Pay Its Tax Bill [View article]
    Right. And I notice that despite all the whining comments about Romney that Obama has a rather meager effective tax rate for a rich person. Unless I missed it in the comments, nary an admission of that.
    Apr 16 05:32 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Apple Is Not Worth $460 [View article]

    Perhaps if you learn to write a coherent English sentence, or spell "huge", you'll gain a bit more credibility.

    Oh, and perhaps use actual facts.
    Mar 3 03:08 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • What Should Apple Investors Really Expect Over The Next 3 Years? [View article]
    Thanks for another enoyable, well reasoned, well explained article.

    I very much agree with your idea that AAPL could aggressively grow the dividend over the next few years, which of course would be a positive factor.

    OTOH, I believe the implications of that are less than bullish for the PE expansion you forecast. In my opinion, if AAPL takes a lot of cash it could use for future R&D, acquisitions, or technology buildout we can't even envision -- and sacrifices it for paying investors a "safe, steady" growing dividend -- I think that says something important. I think it says APPL is now a much more staid mature company which expects modest growth long term (say more like an IBM). Given how much aggressive competition it has, I don't believe it would deserve (for example) IBM's multiple -- not until it can show a strong propensity to grow earnings for several years in its new environment.

    Just an idea for thought -- not trying to take away from a nice article. Thank you.
    Feb 7 04:47 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Apple: Get Ready For January 18 [View article]
    Well, I've read through the comments. I say that just like charts, this is just like religion. People see what they want to see.

    If you want to speculate on short term "manipulation" of AAPL, have a great time.

    Actually, I can believe that in the short run, a small amount of true deep "insiders" might make some money on such shennanigans. But, how likely is it that the ordinary public, which does NOT have inside information (and can only read and see what everybody else can) will consistently win on such gambles?

    EMH, and proponents like Jack Bogle say roughly 0%, considering expenses.

    There are more and more insider trading schemes being uncovered by outfits like the mostly clueless SEC. So true insiders playing such games need to decide if the cost of doing that illegal business is worth the risk of substantial jail time.

    Good luck to all. I still think fundamentals and an investment timeframe is a more prudent way to "invest", and any manipulative short term noise is meaningless to long term holders, as long as they can't get scared out of margined positions.
    Jan 19 11:29 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Apple: Get Ready For January 18 [View article]
    Are you serious? You think this article will meaningfully move AAPL over multiple days? As opposed to scores of articles weekly with actual fundamental data about the company's business?
    Jan 13 10:29 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Apple: Get Ready For January 18 [View article]
    I'm just baffled by "conspiracy" theories like this by supposedly knowledgable authors.

    How about we use a little logic here?

    First, per Yahoo Finance, the average DAILY trading volume for AAPL shares is over 21 MILLION, for the past three months. So, that's over 210,000 options worth (at 100 shares per option).

    That number overwhelms the entire sum of the options the author cites as a concern in under two days.

    Never mind all the put options out there, which the writers would like to see expire worthless (as I noticed at least one commenter mention already).

    Also, there are tools risk averse short term call writers could use that would be a HE** of a lot safer than manipulating a "bazillion" shares of AAPL to suppress the price. For example, one could buy longer term calls to create a calendar spread, or one could buy higher strike calls for insurance. (If one has a bunch of stock that they plan to profit on when the stock "zooms" up after Jan 18th (according to the author), this would just be a cost of doing business).

    This reminds me of all the whining about how large institutions continually manipulate oil prices which make gasoline expensive. Yes, they might certainly do that for 5 minutes or maybe in the extreme, 5 days, but the market for oil futures or AAPL stock is so gigantic that the idea of long term manipulation for profit is simply ludicrous.

    The well publicized times I can think of when a small market (silver and the Hunt brothers and more recently the cocoa maket) was manipulated by some large trader(s), it was widely publicized in the mainstream media, AND it ended up in a major financial loss for the traders trying to corner the market. (For a large liquid market, it couldn't be done except for a "vast conspiracy". Maybe Hillary Clinton and her cattle trading crooked friends will have some commentary on that).

    Meanwhile back here on planet earth, the volatility and vociferous debate about AAPL's price just MIGHT have to do with wide (and often inexperienced) investor interest, and a complex and rapidly evolving technology and marketplace, which is hard to predict.

    Sometimes Occam's Razor really does make an awful lot of sense.

    Disclosure: I think stock positions are well nigh impossible to predict, especially in the short run. I tend not to believe in conspiracy theories, as I use tools like logic and science when making decisions about any related "evidence".
    Jan 13 10:18 PM | 5 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Apple: A Mixed Bag Of Competing Considerations From Fundamental To Technical [View article]
    macro, I'd say these comments are in speculation land. True investors in AAPL for the long run, that are in the stock with CASH instead of margin could yawn and ignore the price of the day, or week, or month. (Maybe these folks never post -- it just seems there is a LOT of highly emotional posting on any articles suggesting even the possibility that AAPL stock can decline).

    I have no idea what the price will do, especially in the short term. There does seem to be a lot of bullish compacency about how cheap the stock must be though.

    If there are indeed a lot of fearful individuals (and hedge funds, and even mutual funds), and a very high percentage of those are trading on margin -- this could get really really ugly.

    This will be interesting to watch.

    I truly wish they'd have split the stock 10 for 1 a while back, as I'd love to gradually average in via selling OTM put options. especially if it does go far lower than folks are predicting. As it is, it takes a ton of money to average in with the round lots that options trade on.
    Dec 15 02:42 PM | 3 Likes Like |Link to Comment
More on AAPL by outcastsearcher