Seeking Alpha

abragman

abragman
Send Message
View as an RSS Feed
View abragman's Comments BY TICKER:
Latest  |  Highest rated
  • BlackBerry: The Process Begins Again [View article]
    And how can you make an investment decision based on PRODUCT REVIEWS? Great sourcing buddy. Yeah I'm sure nobody's gonna buy that crappy iPhone thing after they read the FORBES review.

    Oh wait they sold 40 MILLION of them, and the AAPL sheep aren't done buying them yet. Get a new schtick.
    Oct 22 01:59 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Why I Like McDonald's Better Than Chipotle (And Yes, I Have Taste Buds) [View article]
    So I should just compared P/Es of stocks, and the ones higher than others/peers are sure to lose $ while the ones lower than others/peers are sure to make me $? I'm about to be RICH! Forget growth, just put the price over current annual earnings.

    I'm surprised all these Wall Street analysts still have jobs when you just have to make one single calculation that tells you anything and everything you'd need to know about a stock.
    Oct 20 06:27 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Why I Like McDonald's Better Than Chipotle (And Yes, I Have Taste Buds) [View article]
    I'm long CMG and have no position in MCD. In all honesty I haven't done enough research on MCD to have any sort of informed opinion, so don't take this as any sort of commentary on MCD (or CMG--as I'm only hanging onto it to avoid taking capital gains this year. And because I'm a moron and I'm going to let it ride out it's hot streak, but I wouldn't by any means call it a "cheap" stock, even if growth prospects are bright).

    From a purely fundamental analysis standpoint, I think there are some merits to the quick and dirty calculation you discussed above. I would, however, argue that by failing to account for future earnings growth you're doing yourself a disservice.

    From Yahoo Finance:
    CMG:
    Next 5 years projected growth: 24.17%/yr
    P/E: 47.01
    PEG (Price/Earnings over Projected future Growth): 1.94

    MCD:
    Next 5 years projected growth: 5.92%/yr
    P/E: 16.77
    PEG: 2.83

    [Just as a lower P/E ratio indicates a "cheaper" stock than a higher P/E, all things equal, a lower PEG also indicates a cheaper stock than a higher PEG, again all things equal.]

    Now of course--all things are never equal, that's a textbook/academic convention. And those are just growth projections, and there's a million other holes you can poke in those numbers. I'm just making the point that future growth is of paramount importance to any firm's valuation.
    Oct 17 04:17 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Did BlackBerry Sell 200,000 Passports Or A Million? [View article]
    Props on being a BBRY fan but still being objective about the numbers. Good stuff.
    Oct 17 03:04 PM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • BlackBerry's Margin Of Safety: Part 3 [View article]
    Finally somebody does some real opinion-free BBRY analysis, not just a chart highlighting what people think of the new hardware device followed by a tech review, or hysterically optimistic EPS projections with no numbers to back it up.

    Good article!
    Oct 17 02:42 PM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • BlackBerry: It Is Hip To Be Square [View article]
    That projecting $3/share in FY2016 for a company that true, professional analysts project will be (barely) in the red for FY2016 is a categorical misrepresentation of the likely future. Are analysts right every time? Of course not. Do they miss things? Sure. If there's a case to be made for why BBRY will be profitable in FY2016 that's rooted in reality, P/L, cash flow and balance sheet terms--I'm all ears. I doubt the end result of even the most optimistic analysis would even come near $3/share, but again I'd be all ears.

    My overarching point here is that while the author and some of the pro-BBRY SA crowd happen to be quite knowledgeable, it seems this stock (and other tech stocks we won't name) tend to have a polarizing effect on investors, much like politics/sports, and it just becomes a fight to argue why your stock is the best and why it will increase in value, sell a bunch of merchandise, etc.

    People just want to hear objective information--we don't need to be led to believe that BBRY will achieve unprecedented EPS growth 2 years from now when that's just simply not in the cards. And you could still argue that BBRY will barely achieve profitability in FY2016 while maintaining a strong long thesis on the stock (at its current value)! So there's hardly even a need to go super-optimistic on the projections, just be real about it.
    Oct 16 02:27 PM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • BlackBerry: It Is Hip To Be Square [View article]
    Listen, I don't have an Apple sticker on my car, I'm insulted that I've had to go to the Apple store in the mall and talk to someone whose job title is "Genius" because they fix cell phones, so I'm not Apple fanboy or anything.

    But if you're in denial of the worldwide appetite for the new iPhone, especially in China, you either need to attempt to seek out true information or stop doing drugs. It's real buddy, it's very real.
    Oct 15 02:05 PM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • BlackBerry: It Is Hip To Be Square [View article]
    So there's free money out there, and tens of thousands of analysts who bust their butts all day trying to find money-making opportunities, but they're all just too blind to see it?

    Certainly every investment bank has analysts covering BBRY--they see the Passport sales, if they were driving future growth to the extent that the company would become profitable again (let alone netting +$1.5B) in 2016 when everyone else roaming planet Earth does not agree, they would go long.

    I'm so sick of BBRY being the only stock on Seeking Alpha where well over 50% of the regulars are so blindly in support of the company that no real, productive discussion can take place. You're like bad sports fans--to even suggest your favorite company has one or two problems would be sacrilegious.

    I happen to love (and be long) Melco Crown (MPEL)--I love the future for MPEL. But I can admit that the VIP gaming sector taking a hit is bad for the future of the stock, and may eat up a lot of the long-term value. Why do you BBRY cheerleaders have such an inability to level about the positives AND the negatives of the company? Guess what? BBRY FAILED in the hardware sector. FAIIIIILED. That's why they're a "software/security/har... company now. Wake up.

    You can be justifiably long a stock and still admit that it has a lot of problems--and if you can't find any problems with a $9 stock that was flirting with $70 as recently as THREE years ago, then you've deliberately, forcefully buried your head in the sand to insulate yourself from the real world like this author. $3/share--on what planet?
    Oct 15 01:59 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • BlackBerry: It Is Hip To Be Square [View article]
    Well certainly if one new device is sold out at retailers (serving the double purpose of 1) drumming up press like Apple does and 2) keeping inventory levels low) the stock MUST be positioned to.....double, triple, quadruple.....after all, at $3/share, even at a conservative P/E of 15 it's a $45 stock.

    So again, how did you arrive at BBRY NETTING +$1.58 billion in FY2016 when everyone else has them still being unprofitable? Did you just pick a number and run with it? Did you throw a dart and hit a "3" and that's the EPS you went with? Please, enlighten me. Everyone else on this website backs up their math, so you should be held to the same standard. This is a big boy forum, not a tech forum for the dissemination of opinions and misinformation. Please refrain from using the words "cool" and "sexy" in your justification as those are likely not earnings drivers.
    Oct 14 02:27 PM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • BlackBerry: It Is Hip To Be Square [View article]
    Obviously it's hip to pull numbers out of thin air too. Tell me, Canadian Blackberry cheerleader, how did you come up with a FY2016 estimate of $3/share?

    JPMorgan projects FY2016 EPS of $-0.07/share, while Bloomberg projects $-0.18/share. Yes, those are negative signs.

    Let's round up and say these no-namers are projecting $0/share net income, you're projecting a whopping $1.58 BILLION ($3/sh x 527.43MM shares) net income. That is a truly staggering difference between the two projections.

    So take us through it, how do you explain the $1.5 billion difference between your "projections" and those of JPMorgan and Bloomberg? Tell us why the fancy spreadsheets and people who use numbers based in reality are crazy.
    Oct 14 01:27 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Chipotle Outperforms The Industry [View article]
    I know they're gonna be punished (unduly) when their comps come back down to earth, I just can't sell this winner......
    Oct 9 04:15 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • BlackBerry's Easy Path To 10 Million Phone Shipments [View article]
    Listen, if you and everyone else on SA want to stand behind BBRY come hell or high water, that's fine. It's crazy to blindly support any company in any and every situation, but it's fine--I'm guessing you're Canadian, you want to see the company succeed, and that's all fine. I get it.

    Putting myself in your shoes, and every other BBRY fans shoes, why the Apple comparisons? BBRY does not compare to Apple. Period. BBRY's market capitalization is LESS than 1% of Apple's. If BBRY hadn't had a strong position in the smartphone market ages ago, they wouldn't even be a blip on Apple's radar. In fact, they probably aren't anyhow!

    The good news for Canada, BBRY and everyone else--you don't have to beat Apple! In fact, if BBRY can just return to profitability and show any signs of consistent cash flow going forward, the stock could double, triple, even go beyond that!

    It's just hilarious to see people wanting this company to do well so badly that you're willing to put all logic to the side and try to play the comparison game between Apple's new smartphone and BBRY's. AAPL is almost the largest company in the world with a vast percentage of the smartphone market share, and BBRY has failed so miserably in smartphones that it's now focusing heavily on software/security.

    So I must HATE BBRY right? No--if the stock goes up to 25 and AAPL goes up to 150, AAPL may be the largest company in the world, but from my perspective BBRY would have made me more money, so what do I care about who's the biggest, baddest or best? It's not about competing with Apple, you'll never do that again, erase the thought--it's just about bringing your own company out of the toilet and giving investors some ROI.
    Oct 8 04:10 PM | 4 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • BlackBerry's Easy Path To 10 Million Phone Shipments [View article]
    I simply cannot understand a vast majority of what you just said, it's almost as if you're just stringing seemingly fancy words together. If you're still learning English (and I'm not being sarcastic) then I apologize, I just can't reply to a majority of what you said.

    I'm not saying anything about Blackberry not qualifying for this "contest." I'm saying that not only is the metric (sales of ONE product to entire firm market capitalization) useless, but that even if we were going to use this type of metric, it's entirely unfair (in comparing ANY two companies) to not use net income/earnings. In fact, there's probably a number of additional adjustments that need to be made (to account for capital structure, use of debt, interest etc.) to really be comparing apples to apples, but whoever came up with units sold-to-market capitalization is simply trying to prove a point using useless data. I don't know how to be any nicer about that.
    Oct 8 03:55 PM | 3 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • BlackBerry's Easy Path To 10 Million Phone Shipments [View article]
    I see plenty of positives and negatives about owning BBRY stock, and I don't mean to contribute to either side of (what always inevitably becomes) a tech forum argument in the comments section, but in my opinion the "unit sales per market capitalization" calculation is not only flawed but is also meaningless:

    (1) It totally ignores contributions of other products/services to the company's sales (what we should REALLY be looking at is profitability, more to come on that). You're looking at two products in a vacuum as if they're both paper towel companies that make 1 brand of paper towel and that's their ONLY revenue source--this is not apples to apples. Analysts like apples to apples.
    (2) It ignores profitability altogether--what if one phone has a 20% margin while the other has a 10% margin? Are we just going to IGNORE the amount of money companies have to spend to make a product?? That's just irresponsible, and misleading. I appreciate the "relative valuation" approach that the author is attempting to take here--but can we at least talk BOTTOM-line contribution instead of total units sold? Who cares if you sell something for $X-hundred if you're only taking home a fraction of each sale at the end of the day because your operations are inefficient and your debt obligations eat away at your profits (which I know is not the case for BBRY, this is just a hypothetical)? Speaking in terms of profitability and not sales units would at least potentially (key word) begin to scratch the surface of making a case for BBRY being relatively undervalued.
    (3) It ignores the fact that Apple is on Version 6 of their product and the Passport is NEW. Hello--if your new product isn't generating more NEW excitement than version 6 of another product that would be MAJOR cause for concern. The fact that it's getting relatively more excitement than the iPhone 6 should be a minimum expectation, not something BBRY homers tout.

    Measurements like this are troubling in a way, because clearly the author knows a thing or two about financials and valuing companies. But he seems to be putting logic aside to make a compelling case--certainly, we all want to make a compelling case, but in this case I think that's being done at the expense of using the RIGHT numbers; instead, we're using the more compelling numbers which likely don't even begin to tell the real story.
    Oct 2 03:10 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • World Wrestling Entertainment: Why I Won't Be A Shareholder Again Anytime Soon [View article]
    How exactly did they justify a monster dividend while showing losses and not much cash? Again, I'm a total WWE layman (aside from reading a few SA articles and watching wrestling until age 12), but the more I hear the less faith I have in this company's management.....is this just a poorly-run company? That in itself would keep me away no matter how great the subscriber numbers are.
    Sep 30 01:18 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
COMMENTS STATS
77 Comments
158 Likes