Seeking Alpha


Send Message
View as an RSS Feed
View Jeach!'s Comments BY TICKER:
Latest  |  Highest rated
  • 4 Gold Miners Warren Buffett Should Buy [View article]
    You've got to respect Buffet in some ways but in other ways he's totally clueless.

    For example, when comparing gold, you must compare apples to apples. Buffet does not seem to be able to make this distinction. Not that it may matter particularly for him at this time, but it should still be mentioned.

    For example: I can tell you that $100 dollars of some third-world country will get 'you' $1 U.S. dollar you will think that money is worthless. But in the perspective of that citizen, that $100 will buy him shelter for a month, food for several weeks and warm clothing.

    The only real reason that you have outlined a perception of "yielded" value, such as the crops generated over time, oil produced and sold, etc. is via inflation. A barrel of oil a century ago was worth less than a dollar per barrel. Why is it worth $100 dollars today? Why will it be worth $200 dollars in a decade? Only because the value of the dollar is dropping. And that of gold is increasing!

    You mentioned that Exxon generates $40 billion of earnings annually. It will generate twice this amount in a decade. Corn will be three times its price, so will wheat, soy and every other crop produced.

    And Buffet will be worth a trillion dollars... all this is due to inflation! So how can you measure a gain based on inflation?

    In a decade (or two), the Chinese will own that gold cube, safely stored in vaults. Because of this, their dollar will be worth many times more that of the U.S. dollar. The Chinese will pay very little to export all that crop harvested and oil produced that is worth so much denominated in U.S. dollars but cheap to buy in any other currency.

    Even though Buffet will be valued at $1 trillion dollars, he will be the worlds 100th richest man when valued in Chinese currency.

    So the point of my comment is that gold is not an asset you "invest" in. It is an asset to provide economic and financial support. Buffet and most U.S. politicians don't understand this cause they are so use to abusing their trusted dollar position.
    Oct 8, 2014. 11:42 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Apple Has Peaked: The Warning Signs Are Multiplying [View article]
    What do you mean "raise the white flag"?

    We got it right! It went down by over 40% and much money was to made (at least not by me, cause I don't touch that stock).

    Doesn't mean that it went back up to its $700 price target that the call was wrong. In fact, that's what investing is now all about. Those who sat on the side-lines for the last two years were all "hoping" for a rebound. And when your in a position of hope... only the lucky break even. The majority bailed out at a loss!

    While we (at least I) have made several extremely profitable trades during that time.

    Note that Apple help itself immensely by doing a 7:1 stock split. There was too much pressure to do so. The more the stock is affordable, the more investors are lured in. But that gives you a more volatile stock. The less investors, the more stability. So Apple only did the stock split to help its cause.
    Aug 23, 2014. 12:37 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Google Is About To Change The Market Forever [View article]

    You've got to understand that a 'share' is simply another form of debt! No more, no less. Companies sell shares to raise capital, just like they raise debt with bonds, warrants, bank loans, etc.

    The only difference is that debt in the form of shares is one of the most expensive forms of debt. This is exactly why, I believe shares should be bought back instead of paying a dividend (I've commented often on this).

    Companies buy back their bonds, convert their warrants, pay back loans... and they should buy back their shares.

    So now that we've established this fact, we can also state that when a customer buys a bond from a company, he does not have a voting right. So by definition, why should a shareholder? It's not a given right. The only difference is that in most cases, when you are a creditor from holding bonds, you often have rights to collect in the event of a default. But with common shares, you normally don't.

    So although it may sound contradictory when I say that its ok for shares not to have voting rights, I simply also state that its not ok for owners to have limited ownership, but maximum control.

    Example 1:

    If a company issues Class A shares with 10 votes each and is entirely controlled by the owners and it is worth 5% of the companies market value, but control 60% of the voting rights, then there is something wrong here.

    Example 2:

    Same scenario as above, but the owners also own Class B shares with no voting rights. The net value of the owners holdings in Class A and Class B equal to 55% of the companies market value... then I see no problem with this.
    Apr 2, 2014. 10:43 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Google Is About To Change The Market Forever [View article]
    I really, really hate companies that do that in order to keep control of the company for very little invested.

    Here in Quebec, we have a ton a major companies that do that as well. I find it borderline unlawful for families to have only a couple hundred million invested in companies with a market cap of over a dozen billion and yet they control the large majority of the votes... it's scandalous!

    And it should be illegal. Cause your average Joe out there doesn't understand it. He thinks management has a stake in the game as well.

    As the author has mentioned, now Google is free to start making acquisitions with Class C stock... which it will.
    Apr 1, 2014. 12:06 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Apple's Dividend Will Hit $20 Within 5 Years [View article]

    "Now, every time it releases something innovative, its copied"

    I could argue that Apple has copied practically everything it has produced... and in more than one ways.

    1. The iPod, iPhone and iPad's were all copied as well:

    iPod - There were iPod's in circulation before Apple even got into this business.

    iPhone - In my opinion, the Palm Treo was the first smart phone.

    iPad - There were many companies with a tablet prior to Apple. You could even argue Apple's Newton was copied. But even Windows had tried at a tablet before Apple.

    2. The second way which Apple copies is by copying IP:

    I watched a documentary which basically stated that something like 80% of the technology (the really important IP) in an iPad and iPhone were developed by universities, military or government. We are talking about about IP in the microcontrollers, TCP/IP, wireless, GPS, touch screen, motion sensors, etc, etc, etc.

    So before saying that Apple gets copied, I think you need to do a little background search.

    There is only one thing that Apple did right for its iPad and iPhone and that is timing. Steve Jobs had the perfect timing. The right technology, at the right time at the right price. Years before, it would have been impossible and years later it would have been done by someone else.
    Mar 31, 2014. 08:47 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Apple's Dividend Will Hit $20 Within 5 Years [View article]

    "If you are considering an investment for your young children's college, buy Intel."

    If you invest in Intel for your children's college, we are going to have a major literacy crisis coming!

    Cause Intel is going nowhere and will go nowhere in terms of long term investment.
    Mar 31, 2014. 08:35 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Apple's Dividend Will Hit $20 Within 5 Years [View article]

    "smarter Bill Gates and Windows"

    No, not really. Here is my point of view on why Windows became so dominant.

    Bill Gates has no "perfectionism" gene in his body and therefore has no problem releasing problematic or even broken software, which in my opinion is one of the reasons they became the largest software company on earth at one point and currently dominates the PC industry.

    Windows released its products when it had to... ready or not... and made billions from it. With those billions, they were able to buy most of their competitors and intimidate the others, which gave them more billions.

    If you're a company that can't do this (and I don't believe Apple knows how to do this, although their recent quality shows that they are being forced to), you will lose out to companies that can.

    I'm not saying that you release total crap. I'm just saying that as a company you must be able to release a balance of bug fixes, new features, enhancements and many new bugs. If you try to eliminate too many of those "new bugs"... you will be eaten alive.

    So Windows' imperfection was the reason for its success! Had Windows been the perfectionist that Apple is today, IBM/Apple would have eaten its lunch.
    Mar 31, 2014. 08:33 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Apple's Dividend Will Hit $20 Within 5 Years [View article]

    "Duh! Something is broken in the development pipeline."

    That's what really amazes me about Apple fans and the fact that they don't realize Apple had a once in a lifetime thing going for them... which is no more.

    And what that was, is "time". What I mean by that is that every product Apple did since they were a few weeks from bankruptcy, they were able to develop in total secrecy and anonymity. Let's face it, nobody really cared about a music service. And nobody would have paid attention had it leaked that a hand-held music player was coming from a "has-been" company.

    For this reason, Apple was able to take its sweet time to perfect the product... no pressure whatsoever. Combine this with Steve Jobs perfectionist details, you got a winning combination.

    Apple was able to do this for the iPod, iPhone and iPad. Now everyone is looking at them for "the next version". This time it's different because they have to develop with the same expectation as every other company on earth. They now have pressure to deliver. They now have to match the competitors products. They have to meet competitors price points. They have to go around competitor's IP.

    That's why in my opinion, Apple can't deliver. That's why they are failing at the expectations game, which is reflected by their stock price.

    I remember that people use to say Mac OS is so safe and secure, it's got no viruses. Ok, let's face it, it wasn't Windows, but still, Apple had no viruses because nobody cared to take time to develop a vulnerability for it. Had they, Apple would have had as many issues as any other OS on earth.

    Apple must now face what every other company on the face of the planet faces... and Apple is proving no better at it than its neighbour. The only advantage is that it is blessed with many billions of dollars more than the average company.

    And I'd like to add that my iPad 2, which I've updated twice since I got in 2009... is starting to have more and more bugs in it. That's normal when you have client/user expectations!

    So yes, you are correct, the development pipeline is broken when compared to the "old pipeline". But its a normal pipeline if you compare it to every other company.
    Mar 31, 2014. 08:21 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Apple's Dividend Will Hit $20 Within 5 Years [View article]
    There are two issues with your article;

    1. Dividend Price - Given a monetary value for a dividend is absolutely useless. I have a stock which pays $0.15 and another $1.50... I will let you tell me which is a better investment in terms of dividend? You can't tell me that because you don't know how much I've paid for my shares. For Apple's dividend to be $20 is meaningless unless we know how much we pay for the shares. For example, let's assume you are correct in your prediction and consider three scenarios where Apples shares are; a) $500/share, b) $1000/share and c) $1500 per share. How is that dividend working out for each scenario? If I'm only receiving $20 for a $1500 stock, that's a total disappointment. The yield should ALWAYS be used to measure dividend performance.

    2. Time Period - You outline that within 5 years the dividend will reach your expectations. In a globalized economy where so much change happens in only a span of months, it is impossible to predict (and be right) for such a long period of time. Sure companies have no choice to plan long term but five years in the future is a very long time. Especially for an industry like Apple's where they are being attacked from left and right. Apple itself (with all its inside information and analysis) wouldn't be so bold to make such a prediction, so how can an outsider do it... I have no clue!
    Mar 30, 2014. 01:39 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Intel partners with, takes stake in big data software leader Cloudera [View news story]

    Nutch is a technology that builds on top of Cloudera (and Google IP). Google practically invented all the big data stuff we use today (there are a ton of copy-cats, including Cloudera).

    Which by the way, Google is far ahead with its latest technology (distributed SQL), it will take Cloudera a couple years just to match that.

    But anyway, regarding your argument, I'm not sure I understand where you think Intel can bring value. I'm only pointing out its origin for the sake of patting Google on the back. But as to it's future and how Intel can shape that, can you give me one example of where Intel can optimize Cloudera, which won't be optimizing it for other architectures as well?
    Mar 29, 2014. 12:52 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Intel partners with, takes stake in big data software leader Cloudera [View news story]
    Just goes to show that Intel has no clear vision and is desperate in its investments.

    It will be funny to see how Intel can "influence" Cloudera when most of its technology is 'copied' from others (primarily Google).

    You don't just waltz in and and tell all the geeks how or what to do. That's practically impossible.

    I can understand that they want to "optimize" Cloudera for Intel but how do you do that when Cloudera's technology is based on top of other technologies which are not really optimizable due to the fact it's far away from the processor or for example most of it runs Linux which is as optimized for all other processors out there.

    For example, Google implemented the GFS (third generation now) which is highly, highly optimized (so much so I believe they even stripped the VFS layer from Linux). And Cloudera's solution for this is a virtual file system written in Java that sits on top of your Linux's file system (probably ext3) which has its layer of abstraction, the VFS. How are they suppose to optimize software so, SO far away from the low-level?

    This is purely marketing and desperation. They are hoping they will be able to slap Intel stickers on every piece of Cloudera literature... which I admit is pretty nice (although I mostly use MongoDB most of the time).

    I can't really say their intention will be a flop, but I can guarantee that it is a waste of money and could have been put to better use.

    In the end though, if this makes Coudera that much better then I'm all for it... come on Intel write those checks!
    Mar 27, 2014. 09:11 PM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Intel: 14 Nanometer Production Looks Like A Go [View article]

    You're telling me that because you're seeing Intel move around a few processors, that is proof (evidence) they are ramping up?

    On those 10 pages, how many processors would you say are mentioned (excluding the boards and other processor gadgets)? Maybe 1000? A little more?

    How is that proof of "being close to high production"?
    Mar 16, 2014. 10:50 PM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Intel: 14 Nanometer Production Looks Like A Go [View article]
    @Robert Myers,

    "The market doesn't seem to be afraid that Intel is facing an IBM moment"

    The day the market clues in on things like that is the day pros won't be able to make any money. And I can assure you, we're way, Way, WAY off from that day.

    "and I'll accept that the market is probably smarter about that than I could be."

    Don't fool yourself. The market is only the collective emotions of all traders... no intelligence. If you learn just enough, you can beat the market most of the time.

    The thing is, most of the time, you gotta go 'with' the market even if 'your' instincts would be different. That's when you'll make a lot of money. That's why I laugh at people when I hear PE and stuff like that. It just shows that people try to trade "by the book" and have no chance.
    Mar 16, 2014. 10:47 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Intel Is Late, But It Didn't Miss Mobile [View article]
    Sure, but only if you could find any proof that ARM was aiming for server architecture or one of its vendors was aiming at sever sales.

    But I really doubt you'll find anything on that.

    As for Intel there are hundreds of articles, research and videos where Intel thought it could take on this industry (easily, without breaking a sweat).

    Hell your own articles only about 12 months back are full of "wait till [technology/architecture] is out and Intel will have 50% market share". This has not happened and it wont for a while (If ever).

    Noe i'm starting to hear you mention "the next" technology.... we could keep doing this forever you know.

    At least you are now starting to understand why. Intel is currently subsidizing its mobile ecosystem... you correctly cought on to this. But in the same breath you all state that ARM can't compete on price? Well the evidence speaks for itself, I rest my case.

    When Intel stopps subsidizing, they will take share, but at the cost of margins. They cant have both.... that's the error in the analysis... But also off topic from what we were debating.
    Mar 16, 2014. 01:09 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Intel Is Late, But It Didn't Miss Mobile [View article]
    "But It Didn't Miss Mobile"

    Still won't give it up I can see.
    Mar 13, 2014. 09:14 PM | 3 Likes Like |Link to Comment