Seeking Alpha


Send Message
View wrynot's Comments BY TICKER:
  • My Pair Trade, Long Apple/Short BlackBerry, Is Up 100%, Has The Worm Turned? [View article]
    Generally speaking, one should never include leverage in stated ROI returns unless it is disclosed. Returns are on funds invested (or sold, in the case of short sales). The author made no mention of employing leverage in his stated strategy, so the Family Man's question is a legitimate one.
    Jun 10 08:53 AM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • My Pair Trade, Long Apple/Short BlackBerry, Is Up 100%, Has The Worm Turned? [View article]
    How about "My long AAPL/short BBRY trade made a lot of money, and I want to remind everyone I was right, but it may be time to reverse the trade"? LOL
    Many "hedge funds"[ back when no one had heard of them], actually were built on true pairs trades, often in bonds or currencies [Yen/dollar vs Euro and what not]. The differences were often tiny, but they'd lever the sh*t out of the trade. Now of course, hedge funds are still levered, but their mandates are so much wider, and they can go on CNBC and talk their books ;-D
    Again, I'm happy for you. I've been long AAPL since 580, but I got in on its last way down, not its most recent trip up, so it's not like I'm the King of Timing. I am happy I didn't sell at 380 though, and I too am thinking about taking some chips off the table, though I would never short AAPL.
    Jun 9 04:26 PM | 5 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • My Pair Trade, Long Apple/Short BlackBerry, Is Up 100%, Has The Worm Turned? [View article]
    Per Wikipedia, the definition of a pairs trade involves a "strategy [which] monitors performance of two -historically correlated- securities". AAPL and BBRY don't fit the bill there. MRK vs LLY? Sure. CMG vs PNRA? Yeah. But not in this case, and your charts do nothing to support that. I'm happy you made money, and I'm not trying to quibble too much, but it just isn't what a true pairs trader would do. Put up the price action of
    -both- stocks over the last whatever years on the -same- chart and show me how these stocks acted in a correlated fashion. I'd paste the one I did from Bloomberg if I knew how, but I'm not sure how to do that in this box. But I know it doesn't show correlation, it just shows one company's growth and another's descent. They may have indicated overbought or oversold securities (though I can draw a straight line between two curves that looks like a buy/sell point in retrospect as long as I pick the right time frame), but that doesn't make it a pairs trade.
    Jun 9 03:48 PM | 7 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • My Pair Trade, Long Apple/Short BlackBerry, Is Up 100%, Has The Worm Turned? [View article]
    Those may have been good trades, but it seems to me it is a misnomer to have called this a pairs trade. The historical correlation between the two can only be achieved (at best) if you cherry pick your comparative date ranges. In addition, other than manufacturing phones, the nature of these businesses are not correlated enough to legitimately call this a pairs trade. It's not like BBRY has revenues from iTunes, or people have been waiting for an iWatch or a new payment delivery game-changer from them- they've just been trying to figure out if they can monetize their security-related assets before their last subscriber leaves the building.
    So...good trades, and points for use of the latest catchy buzz phrase, but IMHO, a somewhat misleading header/premise.
    Jun 9 02:56 PM | 9 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Doubling Down On Apple [View article]
    You may be right about AAPL, but I believe your quotation re: "One man with courage.." is misattributed. It is most commonly attributed to Andrew Jackson, but that too, is suspect.
    Jan 28 02:06 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Where Have All The Apple Skeptics Gone? [View article]
    Am interested in what the author thinks will happen w/ the Icahn initiative....My guess is that they'll up the buyback, albeit not to the $150B level.
    Oct 25 02:24 PM | 3 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Apple Should Send Delusional Carl Icahn Packing [View article]
    Steve would not have spoken to Icahn.

    And that would have been wrong.

    Shareholders, even stupid ones, are the owners of the company. You lose your right to ignore them when you decide to be a publicly held company.

    It should be noted that Icahn has gone out of his way to say he's not challenging anything about the way the company is being run ~other than~ its financial management. Say what you want about the guy, but he has a track record of improving shareholder performance. It would be one thing if he was advocating some sort of LBO, "leverage, strip and dump" move, but he's not. He's simply pointing out what everybody knows- AAPL has more cash than it needs, and ex-cash it's metrics indicate it is tremendously undervalued. And, despite claims to the contrary, his record is not one that has been "pump and dump". Barring removing all of AAPL's financial flexibility (again, which he is NOT advocating), there is no reason his proposal should not be fully considered.
    Oct 24 11:55 AM | 3 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Apple Should Not Give In To Icahn [View article]
    ...which means they'd be taking out twice as many shares out of the market....
    Oct 1 03:30 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Apple Should Not Give In To Icahn [View article]
    Cut AAPL's revenues in half and they still have a huge cushion and enough recurring revenues to do this buy-back. They should -absolutely- do this buy back now. The mistake most companies make is buying back stock when the metrics (P/E, stock trading at all time high, etc) scream -not- to. When you take out the dividend, assuming they could issue more long debt where it trades today (~5%), they could issue debt net today at ~2.5%. Actually, given that their long bond today is trading with an $83-handle, the mistake was in not issuing more the first time around. Still makes sense though.
    Oct 1 02:36 PM | 3 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Apple Share Buyback - The Numbers Talk [View article]
    Shares in "Treasury", i.e., shares which have been repurchased, are not considered shares "outstanding" and thus don't go into those equations. Shares which are awarded via employee compensation are thrown back into the pool of outstanding shares.
    May 22 09:52 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Apple: Is It HP All Over Again? [View article]
    Keep It Simple Stupid...basically a statement or admonition which says that one need not engage in some sort of elaborate calculation to reach a determination. Sort of like saying that "truth will out" eventually for a company making so much money and trading at such a historically cheap valuation. :)
    Apr 22 11:00 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Reflections On The Current State Of Apple [View article]
    Long AAPL and waiting for the rally, but to even bring up short interest as a catalyst is silly-- as of the end of March, the short interest was only about 2% of outstanding float, with only a 1.3 days to cover ratio- hardly the amount that would cause any sort of "short covering rally".
    Apr 11 12:12 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Charting Apple's Relative Underperformance [View article]
    "...the latest monthly report reviled.."
    Ummm...I think you mean "revealed".
    Apr 2 09:57 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • A Cheaper iPhone Would Confirm A Lack Of Innovation And Declining Margins At Apple [View article]
    It is a calculated risk, but not an unprecendented move. The same argument was used when Porsche came out with the Boxster. For that matter, BMW sells 325s as well as 735s. The brand is aspirational. The goal is to get the client into the fold. I've seen very little evidence that shows folks leaving the AAPL ecosystem once they're in. AAPL wants to grab the folks who can't spend $600 on a phone, and my guess is if they go this route, they will be successful, although it might impact overall effective margins.
    Jan 9 10:38 AM | 7 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Apple Open Interest Explodes: Sets All-Time Highs [View article]
    I'm long calls/short puts and from a valuation standpoint love this stock...but there is one issue that might be a legitimate one to give bulls pause, and I wonder what folks here think about it- that is, the idea that indexers have helped drive the price to where it is, and now "have their position". It's sort of a variation on the idea that anyone who wanted to be long AAPL ~is~ long AAPL and thus it is unlikely to draw in any "new" buyers, leaving the stock to simply move up or down based upon the Hedgies daily participation. Thoughts?
    Oct 12 09:40 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
More on AAPL by wrynot