Prerequisite: Read, skim or scour my previous article titled -- "An Apple Story: Alpha, Algo's and a Poorman"
I am writing an informal instablog as I only want to give the results from full year 2012 while adding a few missing items.
So How Did Year Two Fare?
If you bought Apple on the close of 12/30/2011, you paid $405.00. Your buy and hold YTD result is a very respectable 104.19 point gain or 25.7% return. (for the purpose of this article, I will say Apple closed 2012 at $509.19) To achieve this, you carried market or time risk equaling 365 days.
How Did The Poorman Manage?
The long only side was able to squeeze out 253.80 points or 62.6% return using the same $405.00 basis. This was on ~208 days of market or time risk. So, not only did the long side double the stocks gain, it did it on 157 days less.
The stock lost 180.69 points on a Wednesday close - Friday close basis. Since The Poorman goes short on Wednesday close, this is a 180.69 point or 44.2% gain. If we combine the long and short side to complete the full algo, 2012 reported a 434.49 point or 107.2% gain.
Read the full story (here)
I normally don't blog it up, but 140 characters is just too short.
RE: Apple's Earnings Growth
Wall St type thinking is something to stay away from. It will poison your mind with "this is what the books say". Use what is real and what we know to be fact. When people use a comp on Apple for, 'what should happen in the future' -- stop listening right there. There is no comp for Apple, it doesn't exist.
Earnings Need to Keep Growing, Myth
Apple has no comp therefore perpetual growth need not apply. In a normal stock, yes, the company would need to keep growing gross revenue 10% Y/Y, just to keep its EPS flat. Apple is not normal. It has software margins. Apple also dumps $13B cash in its coffers per qtr.
So, if we take a 0% growth rate from right this second (AAPL's weakest qtr) we get $52B added to the B-Sheet per year or $260B in 5 years. Oh, but we need to add in the $110B current. This equals $370B in cash. Now, suppose a company that had an operating cash flow of $72B per year accompanied a stock where 50% of its value: Was in cash. This company would have a market cap of $740B on 0% growth from 5 years past.
Since we used the cash from 0% growth, it was derived from somewhere right? Oh, earnings. Apple's ttm EPS is $41.01. If $41.01 ttm EPS can create a market cap of $740B in 5 years; what does earnings growth have to do with stock growth? After all, the company and the stock are two different things -- right bears?
Since there has never been an Apple, Wall St isn't prepared for a perpetual $41.01 EPS, yet the cash keeps climbing, $300B, $500B, $700B etc. If cash piles to the moon, what does growth have to do with anything? If Apple has $400B cash and $20 ttm EPS, you really think P/E matters? All about that cash flow.
Apple going from 100% growth to 0% on 5% global PC share, 10% cell phone and a tablet share that is in zygote phase is ridiculous.
In other words, have Wall St show me another company that has 90% FY/FY growth that went to 0% the next? There is no legitimate business which has. Why would it happen to Apple? One reason, Fabrication....
I knew the facts in 2007 at $202.96 and I knew the facts at $78.20 in 2009. Never sold a share. I knew what was real and what was fabricated. I'll attach a few ASYMCO graphs to bring home the point but, I leave you with,
Have confidence in yourself, do whats right, let your point prove you.
Asymco - Link 1
Asymco - Link 2
(Didn't proof read, just let go)