Saturday, November 21, 2009

Reliably Tech

Laptop reliability, or tech reliability for that matter is hard to measure. How do we really know if a laptop purchased from Dell will last longer than HP for example? We all theorise of course, based on different indicators... these including reviews from users, blogging, word of month, salespeople and of course personal experience... but this really isn't empirical data at all, and often the assumptions we make are flawed.

Interestingly, SquareTrade released statistical data today regarding just this. The data is based on the failure rates of leading laptop brands, and ranked on warranty claims in the first year. SquareTrade generally appeals to eBay buyers, who are given the opportunity to purchase a warranty after an eBay purchase. I need to add at this stage that this data is, in its own way, flawed. Its based on the premise of the majority of purchases being eBay based, rather than market purchased... and it also does not list all manufacturers, just a random cross section from someone at ST who obviously thought would be interesting.

Its also flawed by user type in the fact that different users purchase different tech. Could it be for example that Toshiba came out on top because the people that choose to purchase Toshiba are more technically aware or more careful? Could it be that HP is the first call for a great deal of tech first-timers, aiding their poor score?

So the message is simple, take it with a pinch of salt but it still makes for interesting reading... when the unquantifiable becomes empiric it is always interesting.

Saturday, October 24, 2009

Corruption on the Bay

I should start with the caveat that I am not generally a moaner. Working in both corporate America and corporate Europe, I understand the challenges large businesses face to become leaner, meaner, more cost effective and more resilient. Understanding these challenges gives me a unusual insight into why companies take actions which often seem, to the end consumer, heartless, rash, reactionary or just plain old senseless.

eBay however has forced me to break the rules. Over the last couple of months in the UK, eBay has been making changes to the way in which sellers can charge postage fees. Since last year, eBay has imposed maximum postage charges in categories, and the business logic behind this is just about tolerable.

It goes back to sellers abusing the postage system. For many years, across both the Americas and Europe, sellers have been “cheating the system” by charging say $0.99 for the item and $18.99 for postage. The net result? Two fold. Firstly, the seller does not have to pay final value fees on the $18.99 because it is technically postage, and secondly in the event of a refund for an unwanted item (in which postage is non-refundable), the buyer would simply receive their $0.99 back.

So eBay clearly thought long and hard about this one and came up with the detailed seller rating system. This is a great system, which allows for a more detailed feedback on the seller, in terms of speed of postage, cost of postage, item description etc. Each of these categories can be marked out of 5 stars. eBay's plan for this was simple... they would penalize sellers who had a poor postage cost rating by limiting them in one way or another, for example using maximum postage restrictions.

For some reason, this either never took off, or took off for a very short amount of time because before sellers knew what had hit them, this logic had been applied seller-wide... and postage restrictions had been imposed. It was a bad deal for sellers, simply for the fact that sometimes, on some items, postage just costs more.

So eBay reverted from an idea which would have allowed sellers to moderate themselves, via the rating of buyers, to a system which in effect penalized everyone. Still at this stage I did not blog. I could understand eBay's reasoning for doing this, the smart business logic (in being able to charge more of a FVF) and the possible legal avenues opening of discrimination based on a sellers feedback... I could just about understand.

Then it happened. Earlier this year some categories started imposing zero postage fees allowed. This is a complete scandal, and I'm not even sure it is legal. The books category for example has just been zero rated. This means that you must offer free postage, and build the postage into your item value. The net result is a vast amount more money for eBay in final value fees, as the item is now 100% chargeable. It truly is an unashamedly greedy ploy.

For sellers, this means increased fees, and an untrue reflection of an items value. If the whole item cost is built in, postage costs become opaque. As a seller I pride myself on being able to quote accurate postage, and guaranteeing on the auction that they will only pay for the postage plus a very small surcharge in packaging. I guarantee that if it costs me any less to post that I will refund the extra. That avenue is now closed.

For such a pioneering company like eBay to do something like this is bad for everyone. It's bad for the buyers, for the sellers, for the economies in which eBay operates, and for the Internet as a whole. Just because eBay does have a markable monopoly on online auctions, they have clearly become a law unto themselves... and when any company does this it represents the very worst of human nature, that of greed.

Tuesday, September 15, 2009

Reply to the Congressman

Today I replied to Congressman Murphy's response I blogged about last month on net neutrality. I thought it was important in my own words to let the Congressman know my thoughts on net neutrality and the importance of the issue:

Dear Congressman,

Thank you for your email. I do understand your position on net neutrality, but I cannot agree with you. Free access to the Internet is something which must be protected at all cost, and the issue of providers charging for regulated access to the Internet is something which we must protect against, even if the plans and proposals are not immanent.

Your concern that net neutrality would limit customer choices is simply unfounded. Net neutrality would mean that a class based system would exist on the Internet, with the better system being available to those that could afford it. In essence, it would completely restructure the Internet as we know it, in what I believe to be a very commercial way, one that is ultimately bad for the consumer.

My concern is also that big networks and businesses are behind this with vast amounts of money, and I would hope that you could remain independent from this, and consider this issue from that of the consumer and the provider (who are of course often your constituents too).

The Internet and America use similar models. The Internet rewards individuals for their creativity and their independent thought. It does not judge individuals on their classes or beliefs, or who they are "subscribed" to, and more importantly the Internet is a place of free thinking and the sharing of information and ideas. It is truly is so much to so many people. As such I urge you to consider your opinion on net neutrality and ask you to join me in our fight to protect it, as you would fight to protect the values and foundations of this great country.

Yours faithfully,

Luke O'Connell

Wednesday, September 2, 2009

Cramer's 'Mad Money' Recap: My Mobile Internet Index (Final)

Cramer's 'Mad Money' Recap: My Mobile Internet Index (Final)

Scott Rutt

08/11/09 - 06:46 PM EDT

NEW YORK (TheStreet) -- "When you get across the board weakness like today, use the opportunity to buy into the themes that are working," Jim Cramer told the viewers of his "Mad Money" TV show Tuesday.

He said today's decline in the market was a gift, and investors need to use the dip to buy into what he calls the "Mobile Internet Tsunami," a multi-year trend that could be as big as the personal computer and Internet revolutions.

Cramer unveiled his new "Mobile Internet Index," a group of 21 stocks that encompasses what he considers the best when it comes to what's needed to make the mobile Internet a reality. Cramer said this index will use today's closing prices, and start at a value of 100, to tracks the performance of these great companies.

Some of the notable stocks in the index include Google (GOOG Quote), the leader in the Web space, along with device makers Apple (AAPL Quote) and Research In Motion (RIMM Quote).

Cramer said the index also needs the component makers, such as Starent Networks (STAR Quote) and backbone providers like Cisco (CSCO Quote), a stock which Cramer owns for his charitable trust, Action Alerts PLUS, and its smaller speculative rivals Ciena (CIEN Quote) and Tellabs (TLAB Quote).

Cramer's index also included companies providing text messaging services, Tekelec (TKLC Quote), and antenna specialists like CommScope (CTV Quote). Finally, Cramer said there will be a need for more storage, and that means Sandisk (SNDK Quote).

Cramer said his Mobile Internet Index is the place to be, especially on weak days like today.

The remainder of the stocks in the index include: Palm (PALM Quote); ADC Telecom (ADCT Quote); Qualcomm (QCOM Quote), which is in his charitable trust; Broadcom (BRCM Quote); NetLogic (NETL Quote); Xilinx (XLNX Quote); Skyworks Solutions (SWKS Quote) RF Micro Devices (RFMD Quote); ON Semiconductor (ONNN Quote); Cypress Semiconductor (CY Quote); and Tessera Technologies (TSRA Quote).

Tuesday, September 1, 2009

Cramer's 'Mad Money' Recap: July 1

Cramer's 'Mad Money' Recap: July 1

TheStreet.com Staff

07/01/09 - 07:01 PM EDT

On Wednesday's "Mad Money" TV show, Jim Cramer continued filling viewers in on the methods of his madness -- all the little tricks and tools he uses to pick stocks, to know when to buy and sell, and generally to be a great investor.

He started off by giving people a "rainy day" tip for when the market is having a really bad, down day. "What you need to be looking for after a down day is buying opportunities," Cramer said. "There is no better opportunity to buy than when you find a stock that's been upgraded by some analyst on a down day."

Usually when a stock gets upgraded, it jumps higher immediately, he said. But not when that upgrade comes out on a bad day for the market. "On those days, a stock that gets upgraded isn't going higher. In fact, there's a good chance it will go lower depending on how awful the action is," Cramer said.

"And there is your opportunity -- the day after the selloff, when things have calmed down and are less negative," he said.

Another method to his madness, Cramer said, has to do with how he determines if an individual stock is truly undervalued. "People like to throw around terms like over- or undervalued," but Cramer said he has his own rule of thumb for figuring it out.

"If a stock has a price-to-earnings multiple -- remember E (the earnings) times M (the multiple) equals P (the price) -- that's lower than its growth rate, then that stock is cheap," Cramer said.

"If a company has 10% growth but trades at eight times earnings, this rule says it's cheap. If it has 10% growth and trades at 10 times earnings, it's still dirt cheap."

However, a stock with 10% growth and a 20 multiple is a stock that market players should take profits in, he said. Any stock with a multiple that's more than twice its growth rate is too expensive.

At the same time, Cramer warned viewers that like any of his methods, this one is a rough approximation. "It's useful, but it's not always right," he said. "A lot of times a stock will get cheap, based on its earnings estimates, because those estimates need to be cut."

"Plenty of inexpensive-looking stocks are actually quite pricey if the fundamentals are declining, and the earnings are going to miss the estimates," Cramer explained.

"It's the same at the top of the price range, but less dangerous: A stock that's trading with a multiple that's twice its growth rate looks expensive, but if its earnings need to be revised higher, its multiple will come down, and it has more room to run," he said.

While the market is "too dynamic" for there to be any hard and fast rules to define how the growth affects a stock's price, there are some important points that come out of the connection, he continued. "The most important is that stocks with accelerating growth, be it sales growth or earnings growth, are worth more than stocks with decelerating growth."

Sell on Slowing Growth

Wall Street doesn't like decelerating growth, and growth funds tend to lighten up their positions when they see growth decelerating. "When you see the growth start to slow, you should sell," Cramer said.

"Even if you think the stock goes higher after the decline brought about by the deceleration, you should still sell beforehand and buy back shares later to sidestep the pain," he said.

The next method Cramer talked about was buying with "wide scales" on the way down. This method, he explained, is what he used at his hedge fund to buy declining stocks that he thought were nearing their bottoms.

Because it's "nearly impossible" to call an actual bottom in an individual stock, "the smart move is to buy incrementally on the way down," Cramer said.

With wide scales, people buy larger and larger positions as the stock goes lower, and "when it's so low you can hardly believe how poorly the stock is trading, you double down," he said.

But, he said, "be sure to leave yourself room, because when the stock bottoms, you're going to want to pour your money in."

While it's nearly impossible to call an actual bottom in a stock, there are signs that can help people know when the time is right to really "bulk up" a position, Cramer said.

Doubling Down

First, most, if not all, of the analysts who follow the stock have to downgrade it to sell, even though it's already been through a "sickening" decline.

Also, when a company gets hit with bad news or a negative rumor and the stock doesn't actually go down, it's a great sign that the stock has bottomed and that it's time to double down, he added.

Plus, significant insider buying after a huge decline is a "sure sign" that people should buy more.

At the same time, Cramer warned viewers that these things are difficult to bet on and that they don't always happen at the bottom. "That's why my best advice is still that you shouldn't try to call bottoms in individual stocks," he said.

"Instead just use wide scales as the stock falls, buying in larger and larger increments as the stock declines," he said.

Furthermore, Cramer urged viewers to look for broken stocks, not broken companies. "When we get hit with a decline of sufficient magnitude, almost everything gets knocked down, every stock gets punished," he said. "But not every stock deserves the beating."

People tend to assume that when a stock gets knocked down, the company deserves it, but this is wrong. "Plenty of great companies are unfairly sold off by investors who simply don't get it," Cramer said.

This is why investors must do their homework, he stressed. "It's not hard to tell the difference between a damaged stock and damaged goods if you've listened to the conference calls and read all the findings."

Suppose "the market is getting hammered and Cramer's nowhere to be seen," he said. At this time, the "discipline" or method that will let people take advantage of all the stocks that the market's breaking in spite of the fact that they belong to great companies is "the shopping list."

"While the selloff is happening, you put together a shopping list of stocks you like that are going down," Cramer said. "These are the stocks you've done the homework on and know belong to strong companies."

Keep an eye on these stocks as they decline, he advised. But "don't look for the biggest decliners and assume they're the cheapest and that they should be bought," Cramer said. "Most of those companies are damaged goods, and you don't want to waste your time."

In addition, don't put alleged "blue chip" names on the shopping list under the assumption that they couldn't possibly be broken companies, he pleaded. "There's no such thing as a blue chip," Cramer said.

Once people have done their homework on the stocks, differentiating between the broken stocks and the broken companies, and feel the bottom is close, "that's when you start putting on your positions in your unbroken shopping list names," he said.

Finally, "always try to sell into strength," Cramer said, but not all at once. "Sell part of your position now, but wait for some strength before you unload the rest," he said.

However, if the wait is too long and either there's no strength or you have evidence the stock will only go lower, then you can sell.

Check out the latest edition of "Cramer's Take on Top-Searched Stocks" on Stockpickr.

Want more Cramer? Check out Jim's rules and commandments for investing from his latest book by clicking here.

For more of Cramer's insights during the Lightning Round, click here.

Thursday, August 13, 2009

Reply from Congressman Murphy

Today I received a response from Congressman Murphy on the issue of net neutrality. This was in response to my asking him to support it.

Dear Mr. O'Connell,

Thank you for writing my office about net neutrality. I appreciate being able to address your concerns.


The issue of net neutrality is an ongoing issue under review in the Energy and Commerce Committee, on which I serve. Though there is no single definition, the term "net neutrality" is used in reference to the practice of a network provider controlling a subscriber's access to Internet-based content. Supporters of "net neutrality" legislation argue that Congressional action is needed to prevent Internet service providers from building a multi-tier Internet. Under a multi-tier Internet, providers would bill users based on their consumption of bandwidth or limit unfettered access to content located outside the internal infrastructure. Net neutrality proponents worry that network providers will begin to favor content located on their internal network and restrict access to content located elsewhere.

Essentially, net neutrality legislation would allow the government to regulate access to the Internet. At this time, I see no impending threat to the Internet that requires legislation to protect access.

I remain concerned that "net neutrality" would actually limit consumer choices down the road by deterring innovation and other communications technology advances. The U.S. has enjoyed rapid expansion in high-speed Internet service and broadband applications in recent years, largely due to a balanced approach to Internet regulation.

Please do not hesitate to contact me with further questions or concerns. If you are interested in receiving my email newsletter describing important votes and key committee activity, I invite you to visit my website at http://murphy.house.gov and sign up.

Sincerely,

Tim Murphy
Member of Congress

Sunday, July 26, 2009

Deliver us from New Media


I just took the time out to watch the documentary "Deliver us from Evil" at the request of a close friend in order to "see where I stood". First off, I hate the all-too-frequent plight of new media to scaldalise the church... or in fact to scaldalise anything they can get their hands on.

I'm not going to play some sort of defense here... because all the way up to those Bishops there was simply a cover up on a grand scale. A real detachment of the wards of the parishes those Bishops were ordained to protect, a real failure on so many levels.

I would say though that this is one case... sure there are others, but I guess I object to the way the documentary tries to make it out to be the common practice of the church. I'm not saying that it hasn't happened, or that it hasn't happened more than once, but there is a real jump from "has occurred in the past" to "commonplace". Also, I think the showing of O'Grady's interview at all was completely pointless; the guy is obviously out of his mind. I don't think he was out of his mind at the time, because he would perhaps not have passed as such a social person, but all the same this current testimony seems to be nothing more than the ramblings of a crazy person who truly believes that just by talking to his victims will allow him and them to move on.

The worst part of the documentary was seeing the abuse victims. There is just something so crushing, so abhorrent about the damage done to abuse victims that... I don't know... takes me far away from any type of religious thinking. Fill in the blanks here!

Anywho, must go, meeting early tomorrow. I'll get off my soap box now.