Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 25, 2013 17:32:31 GMT -8
Get ready for a $440 close tomorrow. OI reports 13k call contracts at this strike, pending an update at 7-8pm later tonight. If you believe in that sort of thing, there's 8K of Put contracts at $$440 as well. Now watch, I sell a day before expiry (a Friday) and AAPL is going to Close well above my Strike. : )
|
|
|
Post by artman1033 on Jul 25, 2013 17:33:42 GMT -8
Cash burn was almost 800M. (Beg. of period: 4.5B End of period: 3.7B) I'd watch that for a trend. It'll be your first signal that not all is well in Camelot. Pity the poor supplier to Amazon! Accounts payable increased 27% to $8.99 billion and accounts payable days increased to 73 from 68 in the prior-year.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 25, 2013 17:42:26 GMT -8
Get ready for a $440 close tomorrow. OI reports 13k call contracts at this strike, pending an update at 7-8pm later tonight. If you believe in that sort of thing, there's 8K of Put contracts at $$440 as well. Now watch, I sell a day before expiry (a Friday) and AAPL is going to Close well above my Strike. : ) I really think you're in denial. It's baffling.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 25, 2013 17:43:11 GMT -8
I'd watch that for a trend. It'll be your first signal that not all is well in Camelot. Pity the poor supplier to Amazon! Accounts payable increased 27% to $8.99 billion and accounts payable days increased to 73 from 68 in the prior-year.Vendors hate AMZN, and this is probably another reason why...
|
|
|
Post by chasmac on Jul 25, 2013 18:03:33 GMT -8
Yeah, but it was Consumer Reports. ;D I have a Tesla showroom near me and I've spent time in the showroom, inspecting the fit and finish, and I wasn't impressed. It DOES test well, no doubt, and most reviews are very positive. Nonetheless, BMW makes an "ok" car too . But I'll resist silly comparisons between the Model S and my M3... Once again, remove the massive tax breaks for buying one - $7500 federal, $2500 in my state, plus thousands more in some counties - and then we'll see how profitable Tesla is. All these subsidies do is create market distortions. Just like with solar power, take away the subsidies, and watch it collapse. Too bad Big Oil doesn't get any tax breaks! Jeez, how stupid of government to give incentives for new technologies, lets keep the status quo, lets keep polluting this fine planet. Woohoo! Drill baby drill!!
|
|
|
Post by Lstream on Jul 25, 2013 18:15:16 GMT -8
Vendors hate AMZN, and this is probably another reason why... Assuming that everybody gets paid on day 73, and that A/P are divided evenly over those days, results in $616M of additional cash on their balance sheet due to stretching payables by those 5 days. Without this, cash burn would be $1.416B instead of $800M. This is like a loan from the supply chain, without showing up as debt. And unless they stretch payables again, they will not be able to camouflage true cash burn next quarter.
|
|
Mav
Member
[img style="max-width:100%;" alt=" " src="http://www.forumup.it/images/smiles/simo.gif"]
Posts: 10,784
|
Post by Mav on Jul 25, 2013 18:16:57 GMT -8
As if I needed more reasons to test downside trades on AMZN. ;D EDIT: Wait...just to make sure I have this right: Cash burn was almost 800M. (Beg. of period: 4.5B End of period: 3.7B) Yahoo Finance says $7B. So, which "cash" are we talking here? (Kinda like how Apple has "cash" of $42B or so if you add up the cash and short-term marketable securities lines, while Oppenheimer says $146B, which I have no reason to disbelieve.)
|
|
Mav
Member
[img style="max-width:100%;" alt=" " src="http://www.forumup.it/images/smiles/simo.gif"]
Posts: 10,784
|
Post by Mav on Jul 25, 2013 18:57:04 GMT -8
Quick question if anyone's interested:
At least for blue-chip companies, what's the average rate of increase in dividends in terms of payouts per year? For example, will a company like IBM increase its dividend 5% per year on average, at least for a span of 5-10 years?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 25, 2013 19:09:32 GMT -8
I'd watch that for a trend. It'll be your first signal that not all is well in Camelot. Pity the poor supplier to Amazon! Accounts payable increased 27% to $8.99 billion and accounts payable days increased to 73 from 68 in the prior-year.So what do we know that WS should know (be questioning). A. Amazon lost money (profits) B. Cash decreased by ~$800 Million C. Payables increased 27% D. Payables are being stretched (now at 2 1/2 months). Without stretching payables cash would have decreased another $1.9 Billion. E. Kindle market share is declining. The point of Kindle was to gain greater control of the customer. Burning $800 Million cash each quarter puts Amazon less than 5 quarters away from insolvency (without a cash injection - debt?). But how long are Amazon's creditors going to allow it to stretch payables? Turning this low price, commodity selling behemoth around is going to be difficult. Where do you cut without impacting service?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 25, 2013 19:09:53 GMT -8
As if I needed more reasons to test downside trades on AMZN. ;D EDIT: Wait...just to make sure I have this right: Cash burn was almost 800M. (Beg. of period: 4.5B End of period: 3.7B) Yahoo Finance says $7B. So, which "cash" are we talking here? (Kinda like how Apple has "cash" of $42B or so if you add up the cash and short-term marketable securities lines, while Oppenheimer says $146B, which I have no reason to disbelieve.) Amazon's Investor Relations and June F/S. ;D Feel free to delve into footnote disclosures for definition on cash.
|
|
Mav
Member
[img style="max-width:100%;" alt=" " src="http://www.forumup.it/images/smiles/simo.gif"]
Posts: 10,784
|
Post by Mav on Jul 25, 2013 19:13:21 GMT -8
Thanks. Dumb question, particularly for accountants - but is Oppenheimer just adding up cash + equivalents, short-term and long-term marketable securities to arrive at the cash number? That _would_ make sense.
|
|
Mav
Member
[img style="max-width:100%;" alt=" " src="http://www.forumup.it/images/smiles/simo.gif"]
Posts: 10,784
|
Post by Mav on Jul 25, 2013 19:20:10 GMT -8
Yahoo Finance says $7B. So, which "cash" are we talking here? (Kinda like how Apple has "cash" of $42B or so if you add up the cash and short-term marketable securities lines, while Oppenheimer says $146B, which I have no reason to disbelieve.) Amazon's Investor Relations and June F/S. ;D Feel free to delve into footnote disclosures for definition on cash. OK, here we go. If we do an apples-to-apples comparison (adding up marketable securities as Oppenheimer does), Amazon had $7.4B in cash as of the end of its fiscal quarter. OTOH, it had about $4B more than that six months ago. So...it's on pace to run out of cash in a year! ;D Well, of course not...I think?...but that's a staggering burn rate considering what's in the piggy bank.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 25, 2013 19:25:39 GMT -8
Re: Cash Flows.
For the 3 months ended June 30 2013, A/Pay was flat and they're paying down accrued expenses. I'm focusing on 3 months ended June 30, not six months ended June 30 YOY.
The key take away, AMZN's cash & marketable securities has dropped approx. $4B in six months (from 11.4B @ 12/31/12 to 7.5B @ 6/30/13)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 25, 2013 19:30:20 GMT -8
The market is pricing AMZN's Puts about 2X higher than AAPL Puts.
January 2012 Expiry AMZN $200 Put ~$2.00. AAPL $300 Put ~$1.20.
A $200/$220 AMZN Put Spread will cost you about $1.50. That's way to expensive for my taste. A $300/$320 AAPL Put Spread will cost you about 80¢.
Looks to me as though the vultures are sensing carrion.
Both Strikes represent a roughly 33% drop in equity pricing.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 25, 2013 19:34:22 GMT -8
Mav: You beat me to it. And I agree, AMZN cannot continue this burn rate without new debt. Note also that they're allowing A/R to rise, and to lesser extent, inventory to grow, which ain't helping any.
|
|
JDSoCal
Member
Aspiring oligarch
Posts: 4,182
|
Post by JDSoCal on Jul 25, 2013 20:03:38 GMT -8
Once again, remove the massive tax breaks for buying one - $7500 federal, $2500 in my state, plus thousands more in some counties - and then we'll see how profitable Tesla is. All these subsidies do is create market distortions. Just like with solar power, take away the subsidies, and watch it collapse. Too bad Big Oil doesn't get any tax breaks! Jeez, how stupid of government to give incentives for new technologies, lets keep the status quo, lets keep polluting this fine planet. Woohoo! Drill baby drill!! Actually, I pay 72 cents per gallon taxes in my state, and 18.4 cents federal. Tesla purchasers get tax credits. Oil companies gets tax breaks for depreciation, etc, like any other business does. Oil is great, because earth has already done the 95% of the work in crushing organic matter into hydrocarbon, unlike "green" fuels bullshit. Of course, all of this is irrelevant to my post, which is that subsidized businesses are bad investments, because eventually, they cannot survive in the real world. In contrast, oil companies will be cash cows for the next 100 years without any tax subsidies. Government's job is not to pick winners and losers. Because they suck at it, it causes market disruptions, inflates prices, and leads to corruption and cronyism like Solyndra.
|
|
JDSoCal
Member
Aspiring oligarch
Posts: 4,182
|
Post by JDSoCal on Jul 25, 2013 20:10:37 GMT -8
Get ready for a $440 close tomorrow. OI reports 13k call contracts at this strike, pending an update at 7-8pm later tonight. I think you meant 439.99?
|
|
Mav
Member
[img style="max-width:100%;" alt=" " src="http://www.forumup.it/images/smiles/simo.gif"]
Posts: 10,784
|
Post by Mav on Jul 25, 2013 20:14:17 GMT -8
440.01. I'm an eternal optimist. ;D
(I may try a small put bet if AAPL trades a couple points over 440 early Friday.)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 25, 2013 20:23:22 GMT -8
Get ready for a $440 close tomorrow. OI reports 13k call contracts at this strike, pending an update at 7-8pm later tonight. I think you meant 439.99? Sure did. My bad for rounding. #439.97 is my runway....
|
|
|
Post by BillH on Jul 25, 2013 20:51:54 GMT -8
Just finished watching a 5 minute segment on CNN international comparing the chromecast dongle to the Apple TV. Ignoring the commentary about it for now - this is by far and away the most media coverage I have ever seen for the Apple TV box. Consider how many millions of people worldwide are now seeing news coverage about the apple tv, and the fact that Apple has never ever made a television advertisement for the apple TV. Apple made a commercial for AppleTV early on. It ran in my market anyway. www.youtube.com/watch?v=1HpHyMQR058The early reviews of Googles dongle haven't been very impressive and they've already cut off their netflix offer. We've had really great experiences with our AppleTV 2's. Didn't love the first iteration much. If you're an Apple user the TV is a no-brainer. I was reading the comment section of Dilger's bit on iOS for automobiles where someone posted that the lack of iOS integration wouldn't keep anyone from buying a BMW. I'd beg to differ. Having the interoperability between all these segments makes life (and tech) a lot easier.
|
|
JDSoCal
Member
Aspiring oligarch
Posts: 4,182
|
Post by JDSoCal on Jul 25, 2013 20:52:44 GMT -8
440.01. I'm an eternal optimist. ;D (I may try a small put bet if AAPL trades a couple points over 440 early Friday.) Most options are closed out, either manually or automatically, in the last 30-45 anyway...so a one cent beat isn't all that dramatic. The last hour is usually the only "fun" part of Fridays.
|
|
|
Post by Red Shirted Ensign on Jul 25, 2013 20:54:02 GMT -8
I can't believe google cut off the Netflix deal already....as Gruber says:" get your shit together"
Google wasn't sure how much of a hit its Web-to-TV streaming dongle, Chromecast, would be. So to sweeten the deal, it included three months of Netflix for free. But Google has put a halt to the deal, only one day after the device debuted, because it was too popular. Google told the Los Angeles Times in a statement, "Due to overwhelming demand for Chromecast devices since launch, the three-month Netflix promotion (which was available in limited quantities) is no longer available." Related stories:
The Netflix deal was quite the sweetener. While the Chromecast retails for $35, three months of Netflix's streaming service normally costs $23.97, and Netflix made it available to both new and current subscribers. But less than an hour after the Chromecast was introduced, it was backordered by a week. And a day after Google unveiled the device, people were paying more than $100 for it on eBay.
|
|
Mav
Member
[img style="max-width:100%;" alt=" " src="http://www.forumup.it/images/smiles/simo.gif"]
Posts: 10,784
|
Post by Mav on Jul 25, 2013 21:09:13 GMT -8
Was being facetious, JD, so don't mind me. We'd need at least 440.50 or so at the close for it to be bullish.
|
|
Mav
Member
[img style="max-width:100%;" alt=" " src="http://www.forumup.it/images/smiles/simo.gif"]
Posts: 10,784
|
Post by Mav on Jul 25, 2013 21:12:12 GMT -8
I'm not even sure why anyone thought the three free months of Netflix were an incentive...
Well, good on Google for the loss-leader. A great companion for the Nexus Q. Oh wait, they don't sell that anymore. ;D
|
|
JDSoCal
Member
Aspiring oligarch
Posts: 4,182
|
Post by JDSoCal on Jul 25, 2013 21:23:57 GMT -8
I can't believe google cut off the Netflix deal already....as Gruber says:" get your shit together" Google wasn't sure how much of a hit its Web-to-TV streaming dongle, Chromecast, would be. So to sweeten the deal, it included three months of Netflix for free. But Google has put a halt to the deal, only one day after the device debuted, because it was too popular. Google told the Los Angeles Times in a statement, "Due to overwhelming demand for Chromecast devices since launch, the three-month Netflix promotion (which was available in limited quantities) is no longer available." Related stories: The Netflix deal was quite the sweetener. While the Chromecast retails for $35, three months of Netflix's streaming service normally costs $23.97, and Netflix made it available to both new and current subscribers. But less than an hour after the Chromecast was introduced, it was backordered by a week. And a day after Google unveiled the device, people were paying more than $100 for it on eBay. What a clusterfuck. And people here are calling for Tim Cook's head? He's not even banging mistresses two at a time like Schmidt.
|
|
|
Post by BillH on Jul 25, 2013 21:35:17 GMT -8
I can't believe google cut off the Netflix deal already....as Gruber says:" get your shit together" Google wasn't sure how much of a hit its Web-to-TV streaming dongle, Chromecast, would be. So to sweeten the deal, it included three months of Netflix for free. But Google has put a halt to the deal, only one day after the device debuted, because it was too popular. Google told the Los Angeles Times in a statement, "Due to overwhelming demand for Chromecast devices since launch, the three-month Netflix promotion (which was available in limited quantities) is no longer available." Related stories: The Netflix deal was quite the sweetener. While the Chromecast retails for $35, three months of Netflix's streaming service normally costs $23.97, and Netflix made it available to both new and current subscribers. But less than an hour after the Chromecast was introduced, it was backordered by a week. And a day after Google unveiled the device, people were paying more than $100 for it on eBay. What a clusterfuck. And people here are calling for Tim Cook's head? He's not even banging mistresses two at a time like Schmidt. And I thought the Weiner image was bad!
|
|
Mav
Member
[img style="max-width:100%;" alt=" " src="http://www.forumup.it/images/smiles/simo.gif"]
Posts: 10,784
|
Post by Mav on Jul 25, 2013 21:37:14 GMT -8
Stuff like this makes me both amazed AND not surprised that Steve ever let him be on the Board. Steve was a much more mature and stable release at version 2.0, but maybe the old 1.0 resonated with that "openness"? Or is it the "closed" part, complete with soundproofing? ;D
Or maybe it was straight-up not doing his homework.
|
|
|
Post by Red Shirted Ensign on Jul 25, 2013 21:49:40 GMT -8
Check out this little inside Android speculation... www.androidbeat.com/2013/07/android-chromecast/A Chromecast running Android used to exist, but it got killed, so Andy Rubin left Android Posted by Stefan Constantinescu on Jul 26, 2013 | 1 Comment I’m not one for corporate politics, but get this: According to The Wall Street Journal, Google was showing off an Apple TV like device at the Consumer Electronics Show behind closed doors. This was in January. The device was said to have a video camera and motion sensor, like Microsoft’s Kinect, it ran Android, and it was more like a mini-computer than anything else. But we all know what happened in March, right? Andy Rubin left the Android team, and the guy in charge of Chrome, Sundar Pichai, took over. Four months after that, Chromecast pops out. No, the report in the WSJ doesn’t connect the dots like I just did above, but something tells me these events are related. If Google did release such a device, they’d have to publish the source code, which means a ton of clones. With Chromecast, Google hits a lower price point, while also retaining the ability to track each and every thing you stream to your television. Brilliant, no?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 25, 2013 22:06:57 GMT -8
The market is pricing AMZN's Puts about 2X higher than AAPL Puts. January 2012 Expiry AMZN $200 Put ~$2.00. AAPL $300 Put ~$1.20. A $200/$220 AMZN Put Spread will cost you about $1.50. That's way to expensive for my taste. A $300/$320 AAPL Put Spread will cost you about 80¢. Looks to me as though the vultures are sensing carrion. Both Strikes represent a roughly 33% drop in equity pricing. Put pricing sounds reasonable to me (I presume you mean Jan 2013 expiry) - AAPL at $300 is almost an impossibility, whereas Amazon at $200 seems entirely reasonable.
|
|
|
Post by BillH on Jul 25, 2013 22:19:23 GMT -8
Check out this little inside Android speculation... www.androidbeat.com/2013/07/android-chromecast/A Chromecast running Android used to exist, but it got killed, so Andy Rubin left Android Posted by Stefan Constantinescu on Jul 26, 2013 | 1 Comment I’m not one for corporate politics, but get this: According to The Wall Street Journal, Google was showing off an Apple TV like device at the Consumer Electronics Show behind closed doors. This was in January. The device was said to have a video camera and motion sensor, like Microsoft’s Kinect, it ran Android, and it was more like a mini-computer than anything else. But we all know what happened in March, right? Andy Rubin left the Android team, and the guy in charge of Chrome, Sundar Pichai, took over. Four months after that, Chromecast pops out. No, the report in the WSJ doesn’t connect the dots like I just did above, but something tells me these events are related. If Google did release such a device, they’d have to publish the source code, which means a ton of clones. With Chromecast, Google hits a lower price point, while also retaining the ability to track each and every thing you stream to your television. Brilliant, no? I wonder if ten years of Android wasn't enough. He'd always been a three year guy prior to that.
|
|