Seeking Alpha


Send Message
View as an RSS Feed
View bosco115's Comments BY TICKER:
Latest  |  Highest rated
  • Apple: Too Far Too Fast? (Revisited) [View article]
    I understand your point, but there is a swath of investors who sold at $500 with plans to buy on a dip under $450 (or similar). There's a good chance we won't see $450 from this stock anymore unless the greater market drops.

    This was an absolutely classic case of a coiled spring stock. As such, it might be a little while before it finds a new range. There is still a lot of hot money flowing into it. I'm remaining invested because I like the long-term growth and don't trust myself to be able to time trades better than buying and holding.
    Mar 16, 2012. 08:10 AM | 4 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Apple's Parabolic Move: Well Deserved? [View article]
    These are perfect examples of ad hominem attacks. You've run out of intelligent rebuttals and are instead resorting to personal insults. I can do it too. Ready?

    You follow around articles tagged under AAPL. You make simple comments to the article, typically setting up straw-man arguments, with famous quotes such as, "This time is different," and, " was going up forever too." Your comments usually sucker in some unassuming investor who points out its rapid earnings growth and cheap valuation, to which you typically respond with thinly-veiled insults disguised as backhanded projections suggesting that there are better opportunities for profit elsewhere, and that the responding author is a rabid, frothing-at-the-mouth, batshit-insane bull. You sometimes call up other stocks in a brash attempt to show that other companies are increasing faster or are a bigger coiled spring, such as BAC, SHLD, AIG, or MSFT. However, none listed ever match the combination of earnings growth rate and low valuation - usually one or the other, but not both. You will typically conclude your posts with an insincere, "I still think Apple is a good company," or similar, in an attempt to thwart those who may respond to you with accusations that you are an AAPL bear. In that case, you will simply point to the final statement and say, "See? I like the company, I just don't like the investment!" Sometimes, you will belittle the very foundation of the company as a personal touch - something along the lines of, "They really only make cute toys for soccer moms and teens, they're not curing cancer or proving string theory." As if a dollar in healthcare earnings are worth more to an investor than a dollar in gambling earnings.

    It's unfortunate that you happened to start this tirade of belittling Apple while it had one of the greatest three-month runs for a mega-cap corporation. If you did it a few quarters ago, you would have looked like a genius during their lone earnings whiff. But you were blessed with horrendous timing, and you wound up looking like a putz.

    I'd like to close with this simple fact - someone who was convinced by one of your dozens of arguments against AAPL and sold or remained uninvested lost real money. Maybe tone it down with the I-know-better-than-you attitude?
    Mar 15, 2012. 09:31 PM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Apple's Parabolic Move: Well Deserved? [View article]
    Two things. First, it exceeded $600 today. Your call almost two months ago that "AAPL would be range-bound between $400-$600 for the next several years" is already wrong.

    Second, AAPL pulled in $35.11 EPS during the last four quarters. Its current price gives it a P/E of 16.88. Here are a few stocks and their corresponding TTM P/E ratios:

    Chevron - 8.15
    Microsoft - 11.90
    DuPont - 14.39
    IBM - 15.73
    Disney - 16.36
    Apple - 16.88
    Johnson & Johnson - 18.71
    Coca-Cola - 18.94
    Kraft - 19.14
    Procter & Gamble - 19.90
    Google - 20.89
    Netflix - 26.13
    Amazon - 133.24
    LinkedIn - 787.76

    What about this says that AAPL is overvalued? What justification is there for AAPL collapsing downward other than charting technicals? The earnings are there to support the valuation. If Apple is overvalued, then so is the entire market.

    Constantly following around every AAPL article, slamming the stock, and talking about a 10% correction is sour grapes. Get over it.
    Mar 15, 2012. 12:40 PM | 3 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Apple's Parabolic Move: Well Deserved? [View article]
    DVL, weren't you the guy claiming AAPL was going to be range-bound between $400-$600 for the next several years? Give it a rest.
    Mar 14, 2012. 08:27 PM | 3 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Apple's Shareholders Expect Too Much [View article]
    You're right. We Apple bulls have pushed AAPL to the astronimically high valuation of 16 TTM P/E. The horror.

    There has been a rash of articles exactly like this one, all with the same premise that Apple has risen too far and must come back down. Their assumption is that AAPL is overvalued right now and must return to fair value. Instead, AAPL was undervalued before and is now at fair value. This is supported by the current TTM P/E of 16, with a forward P/E close to single digits. The earnings outran the price, and the price is playing catchup.

    This is completely different from Microsoft and Cisco during the tech boom when they had outrageous valuations. Apple has a very, very conservative valuation supported by monster earnings. That's why AAPL is different and will continue to show strength.
    Mar 13, 2012. 03:19 PM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Can Babcock Wilcox Change The Game With The Modular Nuclear Reactor? [View article]
    "SMRs construction is not cheaper on the per megawatt basis, but it is at fraction of price for the total cost. We're talking like $XXXM vs $XXB."

    I'm really struggling to believe this. Many of the things that you cite to increase cost savings for SMR's - passive safety, modular construction, COLA licensing process - are currently being deployed by Westinghouse for the AP1000. But they both still have to employ seismic design, separation requirements, 2 over 1, etc. B&W plans to get all this constructed and installed for under $1B? If true, then the company is really on to something. However, I simply don't believe it.

    I'm not threatened by SMR's, as I work for an AE firm. We actually did design work for a competing SMR. If they're cost effective, I have no problem welcoming them to the current fleet. However, I've seen the new AP1000 construction at Vogtle and Summer with my own eyes. I am far more excited about that, as I really think it has the ability to kickstart construction again. If we can get these four new units built on time and budget, we could easily construct another 100 units in this country over 20 years. These are high-paying American jobs creating clean electricity.
    Mar 4, 2012. 09:01 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Can Babcock Wilcox Change The Game With The Modular Nuclear Reactor? [View article]
    Out of curiosity, what is the advantage of liquid metal or high-temperature gas reactors? Safety? Change that to PERCEIVED safety. Do you know how many people have died as a direct consequence of a light-water reactor having an accident? I count three people from SL-1. Nothing from TMI-2, nothing from Browns Ferry-1, and nothing from Fukushima (which, again, was literally the worst case scenario). So you have three deaths in 60 years of military and commercial use of LWR's, which currently powers 20% of the nation's electricity, as well as its naval fleet.

    We like water. We're comfortable with it because we've been using it in our process designs for centuries, well before nuclear technology came around. We've tried gas cooling in the past, but we can never get the damn thing running for more than a few weeks at a time. Gas has a funny way of finding every little flaw in a weld, gasket, or joint. Before you know it, you've sprung a leak and need to shut down for repairs.

    The economics just aren't there. LWR technology is so mature and safe that there is not enough advantage to throw billions into new reactor technologies. The closest you'll come is when a government is trying to push a technology for political reasons. The Canadians were shut out from American enriched Uranium fuel, so they developed heavy-water reactors using natural Uranium. Fast forward a few decades to the present, and they've conceded the CANDU design to a LWR. Turns out, producing deuterium is more expensive than enriching Uranium. The Indians have large natural deposits of Thorium and have been shut out from several international sources of Uranium since the 70's. So they're pushing fertile Thorium to create fissile U-233. But it's still a LWR.

    Keep your eyes on Westinghouse. They've been on the forefront of nuclear technology since the Manhattan Project, and their designs have been copied for decades. I've been to their new campus and met their people. Their engineers are, by far, the smartest I've come across.

    Everything else is purely academic. Doctoral candidates have to do their dissertation on something.
    Mar 3, 2012. 06:09 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Can Babcock Wilcox Change The Game With The Modular Nuclear Reactor? [View article]
    If these reactors really were more economical, they would have been built already. Instead, we have 104 light-water reactors in this country, and about 400 total in the world. We have 60 years of LWR operations under our belt. It kills nobody (even under extreme Fukushima accident scenarios), is cost effective, and has the highest capacity factor of all energy sources.

    Anything that proposes sodium cooling, gas cooling, or alternate moderators is purely academic. It's been done already, and it's inferior to light-water reactors. For more information, research Clinch River, Fermi-1, Peach Bottom-1, and Fort St. Vrain.

    Vogtle getting two AP1000's licensed is huge. Westinghouse is back. Buy Toshiba and hope they spin it off.
    Mar 3, 2012. 04:28 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Report: Apple To Unveil An 8GB iPad 2 With The iPad 3 [View article]
    And it shows, since RIMM has been way outperforming AAPL.

    Oh wait.

    Go away, LL. You don't know shit.
    Mar 3, 2012. 09:14 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Can Babcock Wilcox Change The Game With The Modular Nuclear Reactor? [View article]
    I do believe that the NRC has made the claim that it will be cheaper to license a SMR. However, I (and many in the industry) are skeptical, as the nuclear industry has been burned in the past by the regulator.

    Whether the reactor is 50 MW or 1,500 MW, it still needs a core design that can maintain its geometry in accident scenarios. It needs multiple auxiliary cooling systems with independent power sources. You still need diesel generators, battery backup, and steam-driven auxiliary pumps. Basically, so long as the plant needs to be designed to withstand a seismic event, LOCA, loss of offsite power, and station blackout, the NRC will have to evaluate it just like any other reactor.

    And when the NRC is charging $200/hr for each engineer doing a design verification on each safety-related system, those costs are going to add up. And that's not to mention the fact that this is a first-time evolution for an SMR! That's why I'm skeptical of any licensing cost savings, and why utilities want to build monster nuclear units to get the most return on all that invested capital.
    Mar 3, 2012. 08:16 AM | 3 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Can Babcock Wilcox Change The Game With The Modular Nuclear Reactor? [View article]
    I work in the nuclear industry, and I attended a conference about two years ago. One of the speakers was a B&W engineer for mPower. While he seemed knowledgeable, it seemed like the company is counting on the same economics that failed in the 70's. They plan to start with a site with one reactor and turbine train. When that reactor goes operational, they'll use the revenue to build a second reactor and turbine train on site. The utility is encouraged to use this method, up to four reactors, if I recall correctly.

    Two problems. First, whether you build one reactor or thirty, the utility is going to have to get an enormous loan. Especially with the cheap cost of financing, it makes more sense to get a loan to cover the cost of two reactors than to get financing for the first reactor, then rely on that plant to produce as advertised in order to pay for each subsequent reactor. It's riskier than just getting a larger loan at the start. Otherwise, you run the risk of half-constructed nuclear plants getting shut down due to funding sources drying up (our country has about 40 half-built nuclear plants because of this very issue).

    Second, modular reactors simply don't make sense. Whether you're creating a reactor in the US with 50 MW or 1,500 MW, the licensing, engineering, and construction costs are almost the same. If you're going to spend upwards of $8B on a nuclear plant, you'd rather have a colossal unit than a puny one. It's simple economies of scale. This is proven by the economics of reactors in the 90's. Westinghouse created the AP600 and saw little interest. They upgraded it to the AP1000, and presto, utilities began ordering. GE had the same issue with the Simplified Boiling Water Reactor (SBWR) until they upgraded it to the Economic Simplified Boiling Water Reactor (ESBWR).

    I understand that these are mostly developed-economy issues. Modular reactors may find success in places like Galena, Alaska, where fuel prices are outrageous due to seclusion. I've heard arguments for third-world countries that can't accommodate a large reactor on their weak grid, but the applications seem limited, and the costs are high compared to coal or gas in developing areas with limited environmental regulations.

    In summary, even if B&W becomes successful with mPower, they won't see orders for years. I'm very bullish on the nuclear industry, but I think there are better opportunities in constructors and utilities. Regardless, I really enjoyed the article and the insight. Thanks.
    Mar 2, 2012. 11:47 PM | 5 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Why I Prefer Berkshire Hathaway To Apple [View article]
    Yes, because diversifying into new businesses is always beneficial. Look how well it turned out for GE and Cisco!

    You guys are clueless and have no idea what built this half-trillion dollar company.
    Mar 2, 2012. 10:55 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Why I Prefer Berkshire Hathaway To Apple [View article]
    If Apple were such a cyclical company, as you claim, how on earth did they grow so fast during a recession that crippled an entire globe?

    They have a stronger moat than you think.
    Mar 2, 2012. 03:37 PM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • With Its P/E Ratio Stabilized, Apple Is Looking At $850 Per Share By 2014 [View article]
    Applying a 15 P/E to AAPL, expected to grow over 50% this year, is cheap. Or you could enjoy these more reasonably-priced companies:
    NFLX at 26 P/E
    AMZN at 131 P/E
    LNKD at 789 P/E
    ZNGA at (NEG) P/E

    You're entitled to your opinion. I'm entitled to mock you.
    Mar 1, 2012. 09:48 AM | 7 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Apple Should Pay A Dividend And Split Its Stock [View article]
    "In my mind, a 5-1 split would be reasonable, it would appear to be cheap enough to small retail investors wanting to get into the stock, but expensive enough where they do not appear on the "lower end" of the market."

    "However, by offering no dividend, Apple fails to attract yield and value-chasing funds. If Apple could gain a higher percentage of its float to be institutionally held, it would make the stock less volatile, and more appealing to buy and hold investors."

    These two statements contradict themselves. In one, you encourage a stock split because it'll raise the amount of small investors piling into the stock, increasing share price. In the other, you encourage a dividend because it'll increase the institutional ownership, decreasing volatility.

    You can't have both. Which one do you actually prefer?
    Mar 1, 2012. 09:37 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment