IBM has consistently outperformed every other company in its sector over the past 10 years and it has caused, at least to this blogger, much confusion due to its stagnated stock price and failure to break into the kind of percentage moves seen by so many other large cap tech stocks, particularly AAPL and RIMM. However, now that RIMM is seeing the demise of their blackberry and its popularity wane as the iPhone and more popular products take over its simple and unimaginative platform, and AAPL is skyrocketing, I'm glad that IBM is finally getting its due and is breaking through the $200/share plateau that has alluded it for the past decade.
I believe this is the true safe territory for this stock and anything less than $200 is almost insulting to a company that is at the forefront of technological innovation, has issued the largest stock buyback program in history and has outperformed the market and beat expectations every quarter for the past 15 years. It's baffling to see the stock so beat down over the years, and for a company that has been in existence for around a 100 years, and has had long-term investors for that length of time, it's about due time that their stock price reflected their successes and longevity.
I look for $200 to become its new bottom and for the price to rise from there higher each quarter. Short-term 3-month target at $215.
Monday, March 5, 2012
Sunday, March 4, 2012
YELP IPO
Yelp debuted today on the NYSE and skyrocketed more than 60% by 4 p.m., begging the question: is this just another Internet IPO fad destined to fade the way of Zillow, Groupon and Pandora?
My answer is simple: No. And a resounding one for several reasons.
First, the YELP IPO works on a diversified platform in which they rely on advertising and user donation to fund their website and do not require users to create an account or pay a subscription cost. They also have built a good reputation among users for their reliable and non-biased reviews which are both monitored and edited for content so it can be used by users of all ages.
YELP also has room to grow--with only an estimated 1/4 of regular Internet users currently visiting the website as unique visitors each month, their appeal can only grow as they expand their reviews into different genres. They also have little to no overhead cost, so they work off the same model as Facebook, whose IPO is sure to attract an ever larger first-day price increase.
I'm a buyer of YELP since people of all ages and backgrounds are always looking for advice and reviews, an the websites which can offer these services or free are the ones that are going to survive.
Look for its price to rise closer to $30 over the next few months or even a year, which is really the top of where it can reach before they demonstrate a solid ability to generate the type of revenue warranting a high share price for a "dime-a-dozen" Internet company.
My answer is simple: No. And a resounding one for several reasons.
First, the YELP IPO works on a diversified platform in which they rely on advertising and user donation to fund their website and do not require users to create an account or pay a subscription cost. They also have built a good reputation among users for their reliable and non-biased reviews which are both monitored and edited for content so it can be used by users of all ages.
YELP also has room to grow--with only an estimated 1/4 of regular Internet users currently visiting the website as unique visitors each month, their appeal can only grow as they expand their reviews into different genres. They also have little to no overhead cost, so they work off the same model as Facebook, whose IPO is sure to attract an ever larger first-day price increase.
I'm a buyer of YELP since people of all ages and backgrounds are always looking for advice and reviews, an the websites which can offer these services or free are the ones that are going to survive.
Look for its price to rise closer to $30 over the next few months or even a year, which is really the top of where it can reach before they demonstrate a solid ability to generate the type of revenue warranting a high share price for a "dime-a-dozen" Internet company.
Friday, March 2, 2012
IBM's Quantum Computer
IBM, a company and stock I have recommended in the past, is flirting with the idea of building the world's first Quantum Computer, capable of millions of computations per section and billions per minute. The computer, the company says, is vital to progressing in important areas of computer science, technology and analytical research. The theory, first brought about in the 1980s, is a challenge that few companies find themselves able to attempt. IBM being the biggest and most important to attempt to for several reasons.
Watson, IBM's supercomputer which competed successfully on Jeopardy against past champions in a route that was worthy of DVR replay, is already a huge step for a company that rarely gets its fair share. A lot of people talk about the rebuilding of Microsoft and Hewlett-Packard or about the emergence of Cisco and Oracle into the drivers' seats of technological innovation but IBM has proven, since its first unveiling of the ideas of personal computing decades ago, that it is constantly on the cutting edge of all technological innovation and will remain the forerunner.
It comes as no surprise to this blogger that IBM is attempting such a massive and important undertaking; they should be trading at a price much higher than they are at right now, have tons of room to grow, and honestly look a lot better both in person and on paper than any of their competitors. They knew when to get out of the personal computing business and have entered into the domain of servers and other essential technological equipment, which is really taking off now in terms of business sales. IBM was at the forefront of this and made this decision before any of its competitors and, when its competitors took it as a sign of the weakening of IBM, IBM knew well before the turning of the tides what was in store. This intuition and foresight, I think, is an important characteristic of a company to invest in and trust in the future.
The idea of the computer itself is mesmerizing and impressive and the result I'm sure will be nothing short of frighteningly intriguing and superb.
Full article below:
http://venturebeat.com/2012/02/27/ibm-marks-a-big-advance-toward-quantum-computing/
Watson, IBM's supercomputer which competed successfully on Jeopardy against past champions in a route that was worthy of DVR replay, is already a huge step for a company that rarely gets its fair share. A lot of people talk about the rebuilding of Microsoft and Hewlett-Packard or about the emergence of Cisco and Oracle into the drivers' seats of technological innovation but IBM has proven, since its first unveiling of the ideas of personal computing decades ago, that it is constantly on the cutting edge of all technological innovation and will remain the forerunner.
It comes as no surprise to this blogger that IBM is attempting such a massive and important undertaking; they should be trading at a price much higher than they are at right now, have tons of room to grow, and honestly look a lot better both in person and on paper than any of their competitors. They knew when to get out of the personal computing business and have entered into the domain of servers and other essential technological equipment, which is really taking off now in terms of business sales. IBM was at the forefront of this and made this decision before any of its competitors and, when its competitors took it as a sign of the weakening of IBM, IBM knew well before the turning of the tides what was in store. This intuition and foresight, I think, is an important characteristic of a company to invest in and trust in the future.
The idea of the computer itself is mesmerizing and impressive and the result I'm sure will be nothing short of frighteningly intriguing and superb.
Full article below:
http://venturebeat.com/2012/02/27/ibm-marks-a-big-advance-toward-quantum-computing/
Oil Speculation
A lot of chatter has abounded recently regarding the soaring prices of gasoline and barrels of oil on the mercantile exchange; with prices jumping nearly 10% alone in the shortest month of the year, many have reason to worry about what 2012 holds for us in terms of price stability and true reflection of supply and demand.
What's important to note is that oil speculators are raising the prices of oil artificially in comparison to what the demand for supply is, especially in the United States, in which the appetite for oil and gasoline consumption is still decreasing while prices are rising.
A few bloggers, including CNBC writer Rose Michelson, believe that if the President or congress were to step in and release some of the United States' stored oil reserves the price would fall almost immediately because it would take away some of the variables involved with the speculators' betting--they would no longer have Iran, Syria and supply disruptions to worry about, but would be looking at concrete numbers about consumption and would be forced to reduce their calls.
I agree; I think it's an important move to make, and soon, if it is to happen. Anything that can alleviate the stress most Americans feel on their wallets is going to add and quicken the pace of the fragile recovery and could stave off a period of stagnation and ennui in regards to investing in the market.
What do you think?
http://www.cnbc.com/id/46589545
What's important to note is that oil speculators are raising the prices of oil artificially in comparison to what the demand for supply is, especially in the United States, in which the appetite for oil and gasoline consumption is still decreasing while prices are rising.
A few bloggers, including CNBC writer Rose Michelson, believe that if the President or congress were to step in and release some of the United States' stored oil reserves the price would fall almost immediately because it would take away some of the variables involved with the speculators' betting--they would no longer have Iran, Syria and supply disruptions to worry about, but would be looking at concrete numbers about consumption and would be forced to reduce their calls.
I agree; I think it's an important move to make, and soon, if it is to happen. Anything that can alleviate the stress most Americans feel on their wallets is going to add and quicken the pace of the fragile recovery and could stave off a period of stagnation and ennui in regards to investing in the market.
What do you think?
http://www.cnbc.com/id/46589545
Nasdaq 3000
Jeff Cox, senior writer for CNBC, devises a good argument this morning in his article on the Nasdaq and its quest for 3,000 points. Cox argues that the Nasdaq Composite's ascent into territory that was only previously touched during its grand and terrible "irrational exuberance" era, is one that is both more noteworthy than the Dow's 13,000 touch, but is also more fundamentally essential to a recovery.
He continues on to explain that the Nasdaq, being a broader composite, and one comprised entirely of technology companies, is a better gauge and measure of technology, and thereby, global activity, which, much moreso than the Dow, is able to foretell what the future will look like in comparison to the Dow's aggregate of what has already happened. Cox asserts that during the era of the technology bubble, the multiples were out of whack and the investments weren't based off of fact and earnings, but instead off of sheer glee and dull-witted stupidity and exuberance related to the seemingly boundless end for internet companies during the early boom of the internet revolution. What's different this time around, Cox says, is that there are things like handheld devices (phones, tablets, e-readers, etc.) which are driving the market higher and the rest of the world is entering into an internet-based and technology-based marketplace driven mostly by many of the companies found in the Nasdaq; so seeing their numbers triple and quadruple is only a positive sign of what the future will hold.
In agreement with Cox, I tend to stray from putting too much hope into the Dow's number and instead look at the S&P as a broader gauge of worldwide business and look to other factors such as rates, bond auctions and sentiment reading to gauge how the "outside" world regards where the future is heading, which, at times, is more important than where companies themselves think they are headed. I buy his argument into the importance of the Nasdaq and can sense a shift in the direction of the Nasdaq from "recovering" lost points to "entering" into new territory.
I also buy that, despite these new numbers being repetitive of an era in which "irrational exuberance" ruled the game, these Nasdaq gains are representative of a better mentality, a healthier technology and internet marketplace, and a safer bet for internet companies.
Full article below:
http://www.cnbc.com/id/46573485
He continues on to explain that the Nasdaq, being a broader composite, and one comprised entirely of technology companies, is a better gauge and measure of technology, and thereby, global activity, which, much moreso than the Dow, is able to foretell what the future will look like in comparison to the Dow's aggregate of what has already happened. Cox asserts that during the era of the technology bubble, the multiples were out of whack and the investments weren't based off of fact and earnings, but instead off of sheer glee and dull-witted stupidity and exuberance related to the seemingly boundless end for internet companies during the early boom of the internet revolution. What's different this time around, Cox says, is that there are things like handheld devices (phones, tablets, e-readers, etc.) which are driving the market higher and the rest of the world is entering into an internet-based and technology-based marketplace driven mostly by many of the companies found in the Nasdaq; so seeing their numbers triple and quadruple is only a positive sign of what the future will hold.
In agreement with Cox, I tend to stray from putting too much hope into the Dow's number and instead look at the S&P as a broader gauge of worldwide business and look to other factors such as rates, bond auctions and sentiment reading to gauge how the "outside" world regards where the future is heading, which, at times, is more important than where companies themselves think they are headed. I buy his argument into the importance of the Nasdaq and can sense a shift in the direction of the Nasdaq from "recovering" lost points to "entering" into new territory.
I also buy that, despite these new numbers being repetitive of an era in which "irrational exuberance" ruled the game, these Nasdaq gains are representative of a better mentality, a healthier technology and internet marketplace, and a safer bet for internet companies.
Full article below:
http://www.cnbc.com/id/46573485
Thursday, March 1, 2012
Apple Stock
I have in the past recommended buying AAPL for its endless upside. I believe the stock has an unforeseen top right now, but it's nowhere near the top right now. This current price of $500 and change doesn't properly reflect the extent to which Apple and its products are permeating the world, especially into emerging markets. Look around and see how many people are using their iPhones to text, surf, upload, etc. Then look around and see how many people have an iPad, odds are that it's at least twice the number who had one last year, but about a tenth the number of people who have iPhones.
My point is that while the iPhone is still gaining in popularity, is still working out its kinks and has room for growth, Apple's next up-and-coming product, the iPad, has yet to embrace its full potential and the populous has yet to purchase and use one, though they will see soon that they also "need" one. The world is moving toward a technologically dependent society and Apple is at the cutting edge of this technology and soon-to-be necessity. And they're underused, under-appreciated and undervalued as a company.
So, when co-founder Steve Wozniak came out earlier today and stated that Apple's stock price could hit $1,000/share and that he wouldn't be surprised if it did, I sat back, considered, and then completely agreed with him. Apple, for too long, has been the leader in innovation since Microsoft consistently finds itself ridden with flaws, scandals, investigations and products that fail in comparison to Apple's and to many others'. And while Google's stock price has soared in the past four years, Apple's is only just beginning its meteoric rise; and where Google's stock price stopped and then began slowly ascending again, Apple's is still in its infancy of meteoric rise.
I definitely see a doubling in the stock price and see the company growing exponentially over the next five years, which is plenty of time for the price to double and even surpass that magical number. I also see Apple continuing to diversify its already diverse business model and entering into the television genre (which they have announced they are still doing), spreading into emerging markets, and streamlining its business model.
Final stock price: ???
Bottom line: Invest.
I mean, really, where is the downside? IS there even one?
Full article here: http://www.cnbc.com/id/46586012
My point is that while the iPhone is still gaining in popularity, is still working out its kinks and has room for growth, Apple's next up-and-coming product, the iPad, has yet to embrace its full potential and the populous has yet to purchase and use one, though they will see soon that they also "need" one. The world is moving toward a technologically dependent society and Apple is at the cutting edge of this technology and soon-to-be necessity. And they're underused, under-appreciated and undervalued as a company.
So, when co-founder Steve Wozniak came out earlier today and stated that Apple's stock price could hit $1,000/share and that he wouldn't be surprised if it did, I sat back, considered, and then completely agreed with him. Apple, for too long, has been the leader in innovation since Microsoft consistently finds itself ridden with flaws, scandals, investigations and products that fail in comparison to Apple's and to many others'. And while Google's stock price has soared in the past four years, Apple's is only just beginning its meteoric rise; and where Google's stock price stopped and then began slowly ascending again, Apple's is still in its infancy of meteoric rise.
I definitely see a doubling in the stock price and see the company growing exponentially over the next five years, which is plenty of time for the price to double and even surpass that magical number. I also see Apple continuing to diversify its already diverse business model and entering into the television genre (which they have announced they are still doing), spreading into emerging markets, and streamlining its business model.
Final stock price: ???
Bottom line: Invest.
I mean, really, where is the downside? IS there even one?
Full article here: http://www.cnbc.com/id/46586012
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)