NEW YORK (
fills his blog on
every day with his up-to-the-minute reactions to what's happening in the market and his legendary ahead-of-the-crowd ideas. This week he blogged on:
- why catastrophe has been averted for Bank of America;
- why Germany's SAP is such an attractive stock; and
- why shares of Apple remain cheap.
for information on
, where you can see all the blogs, including Jim Cramer's -- and reader comments -- in real time.
Buffett's Buy Lowers BofA's Risk
Posted at 3:41 p.m. EDT on Thursday, Aug. 25.
Bank of America
give away the store to Warren Buffett? Does it not matter? Is Doug Kass within the realm with his "
Here's my take. I heard this same sort of criticism when Prince Alaweed took the historic plunge and bought a huge chunk of
, the first time it imploded in 1990-1991. People thought that the store had been given away. That the dilution was ridiculous. The critics were ridiculous. He saved Citigroup.
> > Bull or Bear? Vote in Our Poll
Now Bank of America wasn't in as bad shape as Citigroup back then. But you have to understand that the pressure on this institution's stock was eventually going to show up on the ratings agencies' screens. We know that they downgrade when they see stocks plummet endlessly. We saw that time and again. Even when they shouldn't.
Bank of America has a gigantic deposit base, so a run on the bank is pretty inconceivable. But notice the caveat "pretty." We have learned that when people do not trust banks, they have a habit of needing outside help. There is no doubt in my mind that the shorts were trying to break this bank and its big shareholders, forcing the company not into a dilutive fund raise but into a handout from the government.
That would be catastrophic for bank shareholders and dreadful for the stock market.
That's what was averted here.
So I say, three cheers for Warren. I know the market is ugly today, but you take that systemic issue off the table, and you know how much better things are now than they were. I now trust the book value. I now believe the mortgage issues will work out over time.
Does that mean I think that BAC is a double? I wish so. Can it go up 50%? I hope so -- my charitable trust owns some.
But what I care about is catastrophe here removed. We have enough over there in Europe. This is good news, and the price? Well, let's just say it's downright cheap vs. the alternative.
At the time of publication, Cramer was long Bank of America
Don't Be a Sap About SAP
Posted at 9:17 a.m. EDT on Friday, Aug. 26.
If you have never looked at
, you should.
It's dirt cheap and doing everything right. When I spoke to co-CEO Bill McDermott last night on "Mad Money," I was struck by how strong the business software maker is in Europe. Japan's been terrific as companies have gone to SAP to help rebuild intellectual infrastructure, including supply-chain management, customer-relations software and real-time updates about the whole process. Even though recurring revenue accounts for almost 60% of SAP's business, the company trades with a price-to-earnings ratio of only 10.
But what struck me most about the company, in addition to its reach, including its mobile reach, is its use of the cloud. Everything's on
iPad -- everything -- and SAP is the biggest buyer of iPads because it has moved away from personal computers, which SAP disdains.
SAP may touch more large- and medium-sized companies than anyone other than the IRS. It is widely respected and I have never heard a CEO ever say he regrets bringing in SAP. The fact that SAP says that the iPad is the only way to go should tell you where the PC is headed. If people don't want PCs and enterprises, as represented by SAP, don't want PCs, then you have to believe PCs are ultimately a declining business that is secular, not just cyclical.
SAP? Good stock. PC plays? Awful.
At the time of publication, Cramer was long Apple
Apple, by the Numbers
Posted at 7:12 a.m. EDT on Thursday, Aug. 25.
Sometimes math helps. Let's do some
Right now people are using $6.80 as an EPS estimate for the coming quarter, which is the fourth quarter of Apple's fiscal year. I think that's low. Way low. To me $9 is more like it. People are chattering about $27 for fiscal year 2012. Me? I am thinking $40, if everything goes right.
If you look at the way cash is accumulating, it is reasonable to think that Apple could have $110 per share in the bank.
Now, armed with those numbers, let's say Apple is at $350. Big hit, right?
We back out $110 in cash. Why not? It is just cash.
Now we are staring at $240 a share.
Let's say $40 in earnings power. Six times earnings? Now that's what I call a Tim Cook discount, even though there has been no evidence whatsoever that this company skips a lot of beats when Steve Jobs doesn't have day-to-day input.
Look, I am not saying Jobs is unimportant. I got into a wild tiff on Twitter last night by saying he may be the greatest industrialist to ever live. The Ford backers, the Edison backers, the Carnegie backers, they came in with guns blazing. Heavy machine guns. I had to admonish a couple of them, but blocked none! A warranted discussion.
But the idea that this company with all of the momentum in the world is trading at 6 times future earnings? Well, let's just say some people must have seen this coming. Or more important, how could you not have given the sequence of events that Jobs has so carefully laid out?
Now, the inevitable
comparison because Apple's going to sink below the oil behemoth's valuation.
Exxon has $55.9 billion in cash flow and $25.5 billion in free cash flow. Apple has $32.8 billion in cash flow and $29.4 billion in free cash flow.
Let's call it a relative FCF push. But let's look at it another way -- would you like to go long Exxon and short Apple?
At the time of publication, Cramer was long shares of Apple