Send Message
View as an RSS Feed
  • Why Investors Cry When Apple Pays More Cash  [View article]
    Sure, you know exactly what Steve Jobs would have done. Of all the egotistical things I've read on here...

    And I still absolutely fail to understand how the retina display on the new iPad could be considered a mistake. Please enlighten me. Because the device operates 12 degrees warmer under extreme gaming situations? This is laughable! There are a few million refurbished X-Box consoles willing to show you exactly what an overheating problem looks like. This ain't one of them.

    Until one of these guys issuing warnings about AAPL stock actually begins to make sense, I'll continue to hold my shares with confidence. Because Dana sure doesn't know a damn thing.
    Mar 27, 2012. 03:45 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Why Investors Cry When Apple Pays More Cash  [View article]
    "Better engineering means no heat"

    Sigh. No heat means 100% efficiency. In our world, nothing is 100% efficient when it comes to energy. The engineering comes in the mitigation of the waste heat. The new iPad can get warm to the touch, but does not cause fires, device crashes, melt solder, or create discomfort. That's good engineering. If you don't understand this, then I have no choice but to insult you until you realize you're talking out of your ass.

    "The Retina display was unnecessary, in my view."

    The only difference between the iPad 2 and the new iPad is the retina display and the addition of 4G. Considering that the majority of iPads sold are of the Wifi-only model, the only difference is the retina display. Without it, 2 million new iPads wouldn't have been sold. To call it unnecessary is absolutely laughable. Why would they have withheld it? Because the device heats up an additional 12 degrees?! Oh, the horror!

    Listening to non-technical people talk about technical subjects would be agonizing if it weren't so hilarious.
    Mar 27, 2012. 01:04 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Why Investors Cry When Apple Pays More Cash  [View article]
    If heat is always a problem, then tell me about the time you got scalded by 70 degree water.

    If radiation is always a problem, tell me about the time you ate a banana and got radiation poisoning. Bananas naturally contain Potassium-40, a radioactive element detectable above background levels.

    Four people talk about the new iPad getting warm to the touch, and you start making grandiose extrapolations about Apple having to buy back their products because the only thing you can relate it to is a time when Intel had to rework overheating chips that normally operate at twice the temperature.

    You're making technical statements without a technical understanding. I'm an engineer, and you're the bane of my existence.
    Mar 23, 2012. 09:26 PM | 3 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Why Investors Cry When Apple Pays More Cash  [View article]
    "Intel re-engineered its chip designing in the mid-2000s specifically because of heat problems. There is real risk that Apple may have to re-engineer this device and even offer to buy units back. That's bad."

    So let me get this straight. In the off-chance that the iPad warming issue actually worsens and becomes an iPad overheating issue, AAPL stock is a hold? So if it continues to be a non-issue, is this a screaming buy?

    This is clearly written by someone without technical understanding of electrical engineering. Terrible analysis.
    Mar 23, 2012. 05:34 AM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • The Fallen King: Apple Outships Research In Motion In Canada For The First Time  [View article]
    People think that data reports based on surveys are "propaganda". These are the types of people who own RIMM.

    Sinking ship if I've ever seen one!
    Mar 23, 2012. 04:43 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • An Apple Bubble Is Forming  [View article]
    It's not just your conclusions, but your fundamental bases for drawing them that are flat wrong. In that article in 2009 and the article from just last month, you talk about how you fundamentally like the growth prospects of AMZN and GOOG over AAPL. You're another one of those "open" advocates. However, Apple is blowing both companies out of the water on growth and still has a lower P/E than either. Android even has more marketshare, yet still can't translate that into better earnings or growth for Google! Seems like the "closed" system is winning.

    This elicits two scenarios. Either Amazon and Google are overvalued, or Apple is vastly undervalued. It seems like the market has made its decision, and Apple is pushing way higher.
    Mar 18, 2012. 10:59 AM | 8 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Why It's Time To Short Apple  [View article]
    The author's thesis rests on two points. First, the stock has risen too far, too fast. Second, Apple has such large marketshare in smartphones and tablets that it can only decrease.

    This is easily refuted by pointing out two things. First, the TTM P/E is 16.68, and with the company still expected to grow 50% this year, that puts the forward P/E closer to single digits. It clearly has the earnings and growth to support the valuation. Second, marketshare can decrease concurrently with an increase in earnings if the overall market grows.

    If there were $100 in total tablet sales in 2011 and Apple took home 85% of that market, it's still growing earnings if the market grows to $200 in 2012 and Apple only takes home 75%. In this example, their marketshare dropped by 10%, but their earnings almost doubled. And don't we invest in companies to get a share of earnings?

    I would not recommend shorting AAPL.
    Mar 16, 2012. 08:33 AM | 8 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • 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