Seeking Alpha


Send Message
View as an RSS Feed
View SAR2401's Comments BY TICKER:
Latest  |  Highest rated
  • Cimatron: A CAN SLIM Slugger With 3D Printing Plans For 2014 [View article]
    What? CIMT pays an annual dividend of 43 cents a share, about 4.3% at the current price of $10.19.
    Jan 15 03:16 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Cimatron: A CAN SLIM Slugger With 3D Printing Plans For 2014 [View article]
    I agree. I used my own screener, which has some of the attributes of CAN-SLIM, plus a few others I've found useful over the years. CIMT came out as a winner on my screen also. Even though CIMT is a microcap, it's not a penny stock. I bought 1000 shares on 10//2013 at $5.70. It's currently trading at $10.19, a 78% increase in a little over three months. I wish I could do this well on all my picks. My guess is that CIMT is an $18-$20 stock in the next 18 months, based on the company's performance and being a possible takeove candidate. I've taken some profit on 200 shares, but I'll be a buyer on any weakness. I'm really hoping to see some negative price action in the next few months so I can be a buyer but, so far, it's been almost straight up for CIMT.
    Jan 15 03:14 PM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Apple: Stop The Dividend [View article]
    Stephen, the T&G did not have falling revenues in 1930. The T&G served the gold and silver mining industry in central and southern Nevada. Their biggest fall in revenues was in the early 20's when the Sherman Silver Purchase Act expired and the price of silver plummeted. Because the T&G did a good job of husbanding resources in the good times, it had enough cash to buy other faltering railroads and open up new lines of business. From about 1908 to 1917, The T&G was one of the most profitable short lines in the country, and its bonds were considered gilt edged.

    The T&G also sold bonds to allow a dividend to be paid and to increase cash flow for betterments to the line. Still, T&G stock was the equivalent of a an AA rated stock today, and many of their shares were owned by the big institutions of the day. APPL has the cash to pay down their bonds when they come due, as of today. When the bonds come due in 10, 20, and 30 years, will they still have the money? The T&G thought they would, and their 20 and 30 year bonds coming due from 1446 to 1958 lead directly to the bankruptcy of the company, since they didn't ave the money to pay the bond principal. Debt is debt. Whether or not it is financed at low interest rates is irrelevant. When it comes time to pay, they still need cash from somewhere. There seems to be an assumption that AAPL's cash pile will exist ad infinitum. If revenue and earnings begin to fall because the smartphone market is saturated (something I think we're already seeing), that cash pile may be needed for other purposes long before the bonds are due.

    Kid, both points in your first paragraph are true. Both AAPL and the T&G lost market cap as their stock price declined, yet both had better than average profits and revenues going into the 30's. No company in history has ever had the revenue growth of Apple over the past five years, and no stock has ever run up as fast. The T&G, sine it was a railroad that served only one industry - mining - had up and down years. Apple is a company that also serves basically one industry - smartphones. I realize that the iPad market is also there, but the vast majority of profit comes from smartphones. Taking on debt for any reason means you eventually have to pay it back. The T&G was debt free in 1930, having retired all its previous bonds. as business declined, it had to issue new bonds to continue to pay a dividend and have enough cash for operations, because they had used up most of their cash hoard to buy back shares. Their reason for doing so was exactly the same Apple's - to increase the value of the remaining stock and to reduce what they paid in dividends. The buyback is only a good deal as long as the stock is truly undervalued, and no one knows that in advance. The T&G believed buying back $100 shares at $60 was a good deal. When shares fell to $40, they used almost all of their remaining cash to buy back more shares. They had retired almost 60% of their outstanding stock by 1934. If the stock had gone back to $100, the board would have looked like geniuses. It didn't happen that way, and the money spent on the buyback could have been better used to ride out the depression. They didn't have that option with an empty vault, except for treasury shares which were now worth 75% to 90% less than the company paid to buy them back. They bought out all their competitors. They were the only operating railroad in the region in 1940. The reason for their bankruptcy was a rapid decrease in mining and a consequent rapid decrease in the demand for transportation of ores. No tree grow to the sky. At some point, there will be a decrease in demand for smartphones as the market becomes saturated. Maybe Apple will come up with new lines of businesses, much as the T&G tried to do during the 30's. Will it work? Only time and your money at risk will tell.

    In terms of other companies that bought back shares in the 30's and early 40's because their shares were so "undervalued", look up Pullman, Lionel, Hudson, Packard, Woolworths, Studebaker, and Auburn-Duesenberg. They are just a few more famous names that tried to survive the great depression buying back shares, and they lost. In terms of companies that survived the great depression doing the same thing, Hersheys, Coca-Cola, GE, and Proctor and Gamble are on the short list of companies that bought back shares, continued to pay dividends, survived the great depression, and are still around today. They had strong cash positions going into the depression and were lucky that their products remained in demand long enough into WWII and after that their stock rose enough to make the buybacks profitable. I guess it all comes down to determining if Deusenberg or Proctor and Gamble are a better analogue for Apple today. If popularity, profit margins, and general "coolness" are the factors, there no doubt in my mind that Duesenberg is a better analogue than P&G.
    Jul 5 11:00 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Apple: Stop The Dividend [View article]
    Look up the history of the Tonopah and Goldfield Railroad. Yes, I kow it was back in the 30's, it has nothing to do with tech stocks, and young people today have no concept of history repeating itself.

    In 1930, The T&G had a very strong cash position and was a profitable railroad. As the depression deepened, T&G stock fell along with the market, even though it was a fundamentally strong company. The board decided that their stock was undervalued, and used a large portion of their cash to buy back their stock, thereby doing exactly what this author thinks is a good idea for APPL. Unfortunately, business conditions did not return to "normal", and revenue for the railroad continued to fall. The stock also continued to fall, and all the cash used to buy back those shares was no longer available to support operations. The railroad suspended the dividend and started to sell off assests to survive until things returned to "normal". The stock continued to fall, and the railroad had to borrow to have enough money to pay its bills. WWII came along and gave the railroad a short respite in a string of losing years, but most of the profits had to be used to remedy deferred maintenance from the 30's.

    The war ended in 1945 and with it, the increased revenue of wartime traffic. Reveues fell to new lows, and the value of the stock, once over $100, fell to $2. With bonds coming due in 1946 and no money to pay them, the railroad declared bankruptcy. The remaning equipment was sold, the tracks were torn up, and a proud and strong railroad that served Nevada since 1907 was gone by the end of 1946.

    The cautionary point of this little tale is that T&G stock seemed grossly undervalued in 1930. At least the T&G used their own cash to buy back stock. Apple is borrowing money to do the same. The T&G, as it turned out, had no idea what the real value of the stock was. The market set the value for them, and all those treasury shares became worth less than the paper they were printed on. Apple is making a horrible mistake borrowing mony to buy back stock. Contrary to the author's assertion, a dividend increases the value of a stock immediately, regardless of taxes. So far, at least, the government can't take it all. If the business turns sour, a dividend can be suspended until such time as things return to "normal". Money spent for a buy back is gone, never to be seen again, and Apple has to pay back the cost of borrowing on top of it.

    Think about the fate of the T&G Railroad and tell me again how the board of any company knows when their stock is "undervalued".
    Jul 5 09:40 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Apple Hits $400: Is Now The Time For Dividend Growth Investors To Get In? [View article]
    Yes, Apple has had two dead cat bounces since October. Both were worth $50-$60 before it took a dive again. I just bit the bullet today and went long at $394. I'm no prophet,. but I've seen that the faithful believe in round numbers. There was a dead cat bounce at around $500 and $600, The faithful, I hope, will believe the close below $400 is another sign AAPL is about to rise from the dead, I hope. I never call a top or bottom, so I have a limit sell order of $440. I may miss a top $20 higher, but I'll take my three grand and run. The medium term upside potential in AAPL is about $465. Of course, I may be wrong about this dead cat bounce, and AAPL may continue to slide. I have a stop limit of $374 a share, so the worst I can do is lose $20 a share. There are no certainties in gambling...err...inves... though.

    I have no inside track on anything, but I do know how to read SEC filings. A public company has to report it when they buy back shares. Of the $10 billion that Apple set aside to buy back share almost two years ago, they have actually purchased about 50,000 shares at an average price of $500. That's $25 million, which seems like a lot of money, but it's a lot less than $10 billion. They haven't spent a dime of the $60 billion yet. I use TD Ameritrade as my broker, and I get free access to all the EDGAR filings. If you don't read things like EDGAR filings, you're losing a lot of good information. SA is just fun stuff.
    Jun 28 03:45 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Why Apple Is Undervalued By As Much As 50% [View article]
    Rock, I can tell you haven't spent much, if any, time in the options market. Do you think any rational investor puts all his money shot again any one stock? I write covered calls on all my options. The worst that will happen to me is I'll lose a few hundred dollars if a position moves completely away from me. AAPL hasn't been a great short recently. It's been a great short for EIGHT months. That's a lifetime when it comes to shorting any stock and not getting killed. I wouldn't be foolish enough to short MSFT, NFLX, or GOOG right now, even though they are all lousy stocks. They are Wall street darlings, and you can't win fighting the Street. AAPL, OTOH, is beginning to be hated by the very institutions that helped drive it to $705. As long as the short interest is below about 6% (it's 2.5% now), the chances of a short squeeze driving the price up is nill. If it ever gets that high, I'll cover my positions and go long, and make some more money from the short squeeze. Right now, very few people are shorting, but there are lots selling. Before you think I'm just some irrational hater, I just opened a long position today at $394. AAPL is due for a dead cat bounce, since the faithful think $400 is a magic number, so they'll come back in to dollar cost average. The bouce will last until about $440, and then it's back down again. I have my limit sell in at $435. If I'm right, this will be the third time I've picked up a quick three grand from an AAPL dead cat bounce.

    As for the $275 and my posterior, $320 calls are already in the money. How much more selling do you think has to happen before $275 looks like a realistic number? Do some research into options trading. You can make some money if AAPL goes up or goes down. Child logic is hanging on to a stock long when you have a profit and then riding the rocket to the ground. I've seen it many times in my 50 years at the table, and you'll be another one if you don't stop confusing great products with a lousy company.

    Jun 28 03:10 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • A Deal With China Mobile Could Be A Catalyst For Apple [View article]
    Really? I bought HSY at $29 on January of 09. It closed today at 88.80. That's about a 200% increase, not counting the ~3% dividend I've been getting the whole time. No sickening multi-month tumbles either. If you were lucky enough to get AAPL at $90 during that small window in early 09, you have about a 300% profit, with no dividends until this year. Of course, you would have had about a 600% profit last October. Regardless of what price I bought AAPL at, it would have been pretty sickening to watch it drop from $705 to $393 today. I suspect the vast majority of AAPL shareholders that are still hanging on have a cost basis way above $90. They are probably a little more upset than you are. My cost basis was about $200 a share when I sold out last year at $650. It was only about a 250% profit, but it looked pretty good to me. What are you waiting for to take your profit? The old adage that bulls make money, bears make money, and pigs get slaughtered is still true.
    Jun 28 02:25 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • A Deal With China Mobile Could Be A Catalyst For Apple [View article]
    Because it's about saving face. If China Mobile told Timmy to go pound sand, they would still say they have a confidential agreement. There's no way a Westerner is ever going to make an accurate guess about what really happened. You're dealing with a company that's owned by the PRC, not Sprint.
    Jun 28 02:05 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • A Deal With China Mobile Could Be A Catalyst For Apple [View article]
    Don't get confused about China. It's two different countries. There's Hong Kong, Beijing and Shanghai. There's also that second country. The first country has lots of fairly wealthy people by Chinese standards, and lots of members of the Chinese Communist Party ( Although it would appear that most CPC official make the equivalent of a few hundred dollars a month in their "official" salaries, they actually make anywhere from $50,000 to $1 million a year based on how high up in the Party they are and where they are in the bribery stream. It's seems that Westerners just don't get it about China. Corruption is endemic and accepted. There is no business deal that has anything to do with the paper its written on. For Apple to make it big in China, they'd better have lots of well connected CPC officials on the payroll, and they'd better be willing to violate almost every law the US has on the books about overseas bribery.

    The second country is made up of the vast majority of the population. It's desperately poor, and very few have any access to a mobile phone. The lucky few that do have a Huawei flip phone that does voice and a primitive form of text, and costs the equivalent of $15, still a hefty sum by Chinese standards. These phones are made by Huawei and subsidized by the PRC. They are made especially to work on the China Mobile network and won't work on anything else. There's a reason why China's biggest mobile phone network is TD-SCDMA, a protocol invented by, and only used, in China. Through China Telecom, China Unicom, and Vodaphone, the iPhone has already made about all the inroads it will make in China, as long as their only offering is something like the iPhone 4. If they make a cheaper version of the 4s, make it so it's compatible with TD-CDMA as well as more widely used protocols, and can spread enough money around to the right people, they could probably sell 50 million phones in China. If they are lucky, they could also do so at about a 15% margin. Still nothing to sniff at, but it's not going to happen by the end of the year...and maybe not by the end of next year either.
    Jun 28 02:00 AM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • A Deal With China Mobile Could Be A Catalyst For Apple [View article]
    Who said that CM is losing customers because they don't offer the iPhone? The semi-literate ("I believe it can be assumed, "population of a fairly sized town") author of this article? A small bit of research would reveal that China Unicom and China Telecom, both of which are actual private businesses , are offering lower prices through more generous subsidies to customers. China Mobile is nominally private but, in fact, is actually a front company for, and mostly owned by, former officers of the People's Revolutionary Army. This is not like Sprint fighting Verizion. This is like what would happen if you had the US Government Mobile fighting Sprint and Verizion. At any point that the other two telecoms present a real threat, a phone call will suddenly make their networks go silent. Huawei is also a front company for the PRA. There is absolutely no doubt as to which companies will keep the vast majority of China's mobile business. Samsung has a chance to make some headway because they come from a country where hardball politics and spreading money around in the right places is part of day to day business. Apple, let by Timmy and the boys, will get lots of promises, transfer lots of technology, and end up getting chewed up and spit out. I just got back into AAPL at $394, hoping for a dead cat bounce. The last thing I want to see is Apple get involved in the China meat grinder.

    If I seem rude, tough luck. This was a poorly written, poorly researched article. I buy stocks to make money, and come to SA to get insights. I sure didn't get many insights from this waste of electrons.
    Jun 28 01:34 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Why Apple Is Undervalued By As Much As 50% [View article]
    "The market can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent" Attributed to John Maynard Keyes, and it's still true today. As long as you can stay solvent, enjoy the rocket ride to the ground. I can't afford to stay solvent and wait until Tim Cook & Company decide to do something...anything..... other than introduce a black sausage and cool new icons and then call it good.
    Jun 27 02:15 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Why Apple Is Undervalued By As Much As 50% [View article]
    Really? How short is that time that AAPL will come back and crush the shorts? I've been short since October and I'm up 28%. If you've been long since then, you're now down, let's see...$394.30 as I write that's -44.5%. Yeah, us shorts are getting trampled. Heck, I even went long on NOK at $3.00 and it's at $3.85, so that's a 22% gain on a really crummy stock. You keep believing that AAPL is down because it's just struggles for lower entry prices though. When AAPL hits $275, then maybe we'll have a good entry price.
    Jun 27 02:10 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Apple: Short-Term Challenges, Long-Term Optimism [View article]
    There you go. As long as the maps on your Apple gears were better than the maps of your Android gears, that's a ringing endorsement to buy Apple stock. I really like the way this gold ring looks on my finger too. I think I'll buy GLD today,
    Jun 27 01:59 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Apple Hits $400: Is Now The Time For Dividend Growth Investors To Get In? [View article]
    I feel your pain. I have read this crap about how undervalued AAPL since it dropped from 400....and now points south. AAPL is not even getting the normal dead cat bounce from people (like me) wanting to get in and make a quick $40 a share. Now I read that iOS7 is fabulous because it has icons that actually look like what they represent, the font is prettier, it has multitasking (something other OS's have had for years), and Siri now has a male AND female voice that can give you wrong answers! Wowsers!

    The new Mac Pro is amazingly fabulous even though no one knows exactly what the specs are, since it's actually not for sale. It's so cool because it look like a black sausage. It's not so cool because there's no room inside the sausage to add anything so, if you want to add another hard drive or DVD, you'd better find space on your desk. It's apparently going to finally have USB 3.0 (!) when other computers have had USB 3.0 for years. Only one fan, because we all know that our current desktop is so noisy you can hardly speak in the same room. All this incredibly insane coolness for a mere $1,000 more than any similar PC on the market one I could buy today, and not wait until the sausage is available.

    If this is it when it comes to Apple innovating, the stock is not undervalued at all. It might be undervalued when the stock gets to about $275. Apple has not started its huge buyback because the boys in Cupertino know the $396 is not the bottom. When Apple finally starts to do a real buy back, then I'll know the stock is fairly valued. I sold out last October at $650 and have bought back in and sold twice on dead cat bounces. I was hoping to do the same today but it looks like the dead cat bounce isn't here yet. I don't know what to tell you but, if you're depending an AAPL stock for any kind of current income, good luck.
    Jun 27 12:42 PM | 9 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Why Apple Is Undervalued By As Much As 50% [View article]
    That's always been my theory. Any stock I like and own that's goig down is because of haters, and any I stock I like and own that's going up is because of good management. There are a lot of good stocks out there that actually make and/or sell REAL things, not electrons. Look at HSY, COST, FRED, and PNG. All are well run companies with modest to excellent dividends, and they tend to do well in almost any environment. HSY is a good example. I bought them back in 2008, when no one wanted anything, for $16. They've been around for about a gazzilion years, have never failed to pay a dividend, and they closed today at $87.97. They basically buy cocoa, convert it to chocolate, and then sell things made with chocolate. Boooring...but I'm up almost 400%, and that's after regularly selling profit on the way up. They are my only long term hold. I'll never sell it unless we find out chocolate causes cancer...and heart attacks.

    Of course most people hate Zuckerberg. He's a snarky 29 year old kid who cheated most of the people he worked with out of a fortune. He just started wearing shoes and got out of that hoodie last year. He and FB exist to gather as much data about users as possible and sell it to the highest bidder...including the NSA. No one knows or cares who's the CEO of Hersheys. They just want to buy a candy bar. Which would you rather own?
    Jun 27 03:01 AM | 3 Likes Like |Link to Comment