MUScoop
MUScoop => The Superbar => Topic started by: Tugg Speedman on April 29, 2016, 03:59:05 PM
-
Apple's stock is getting crushed. Down 25% in the last year to near a new two-year of $93.74. Here is the timeline that is hurting the stock.
October 5, 2011, Steve Jobs passes away. The last product he worked on was the iPhone5
September 21, 2012, the iPhone 5 was released. Stock was at $99 (Nearly $700 pre-split)
September 22, 2012, Steve Jobs influence on Apple products was over. The Tim Cook era really started.
April 29, 2016 (today), Apple stock is $93.74, below the iPhone5 release.
The problem ... in the post Jobs era, Apple has no new product release. The watch was a bust and the iPad was introduced in 2010. Apple desperately needs a post Steve Jobs product hit, something Tim Cook has not been able to create.
If Apple is now merely a replacement cycle** company, it has been the tech equivalent of an auto company. Auto companies trade at a 5 or 6 PE. That means Apple is a $50 to $75 dollar stock.
** Replacement cycle = marginally better refresh of the iPhone, the iPad, the Mac etc. The purpose is to offer a new model to buy when you current model breaks. Think an auto company introducing new models every year. No one runs to the dealer to buy them (save some specialty models) but they are really to entice you to buy once you're done with your current car and ready for a new one.
Why is the stock getting crushed now? This week they released their Q1 2016 earnings and for the first time since the iPhone was introduced in 2007, year-over-year sales was lower. 80% of Apple's revenue is the iPhone.
The fear is moving forward Apple is population growth plus replacement of busted phones (roughly every two years). That is not a growth stock!
So stick a fork in Apple or time to buy?
-
Most of us are still desperately trying to recover from the Crash of '16 that you predicted, so we don't have the time or the sanity to even think about this.
Just as the dire crash that you went into a panic over was normal, so is this.
You want be a great financial advisor. I think the suicide rate among your clients might be a bit high.
-
Most of us are still desperately trying to recover from the Crash of '16 that you predicted, so we don't have the time or the sanity to even think about this.
Just as the dire crash that you went into a panic over was normal, so is this.
You want be a great financial advisor. I think the suicide rate among your clients might be a bit high.
I predicted a crash in 2016? News to me.
-
I predicted a crash in 2016? News to me.
You haven't predicted it yet
-
I predicted a crash in 2016? News to me.
and do you realize that you are losing clients like "hot cakes" to suicide
-
I predicted a crash in 2016? News to me.
You were panicking in January. The sky was falling. You might have said:
DJIA lost 1,079 points or 6.19%. Its worst start to a new year ever (data back to 1897).
The S&P is down 7.5% in the first 8 trading days this year. Worst start ever.
*RUSSELL 2000 CAPS 22% DROP FROM JUNE RECORD, ENTERS BEAR MARKET Almost a quarter of the value of small stocks now gone. This is normal? Only happened 4 times in the last 25 years.
So what is going to happen next?
* irrational move and time to buy
* Figure your next worth on December 31 and if you don't get out now, it will be the same in 5 to 7 years (meaning you not getting "richer" for several more years.)
The energy sector is like the financial sector in 2008. Continental, Pioneer are collapsing, they might not make it to the end of the week before filing for bankruptcy.
-
You were panicking in January. The sky was falling. You might have said:
DJIA lost 1,079 points or 6.19%. Its worst start to a new year ever (data back to 1897).
The S&P is down 7.5% in the first 8 trading days this year. Worst start ever.
*RUSSELL 2000 CAPS 22% DROP FROM JUNE RECORD, ENTERS BEAR MARKET Almost a quarter of the value of small stocks now gone. This is normal? Only happened 4 times in the last 25 years.
So what is going to happen next?
* irrational move and time to buy
* Figure your next worth on December 31 and if you don't get out now, it will be the same in 5 to 7 years (meaning you not getting "richer" for several more years.)
The energy sector is like the financial sector in 2008. Continental, Pioneer are collapsing, they might not make it to the end of the week before filing for bankruptcy.
Pretty accurate.
Where is the 2016 crash stuff I did not say?
And are you buying Apple?
-
Also.......even with it's recent hit, the stock has both doubled in the last 5 years and this is the 6th such 'dramatic' reduction it's suffered. Unless you are under 30 (with your Trump and conservative news feed obsession I highly doubt that) a 5 year growth pattern of 100% should be considered fantastic. Worrying about an abrupt downturn on a specific stock that has shown the ability to rebound from downturns is insane, unless the entire industry or market is heading in that direction.
This is not my profession, but it reminds me of the conversation about how much hedge fund managers charge. I'm not saying you're not getting sound advice, but unless you are under 30 you may want to get a second opinion.
-
Pretty accurate.
Where is the 2016 crash stuff I did not say?
And are you buying Apple?
I'd enter at 90. Great price for a company with that much cash on hand. Plus the pain of change for all of those people in the Apple ecosystem is too high, they'll buy the crap out of the iPhone 7 when it comes out. AAPL will be doing great by Christmas, imo.
Even if Apple isn't up again by EoY, with as much cash as they have I believe that they'll be up in the next 10 years.
But I'm a boring long-term value investor. You guys might be looking for returns on different timeframes than I am.
-
Also.......even with it's recent hit, the stock has both doubled in the last 5 years and this is the 6th such 'dramatic' reduction it's suffered. Unless you are under 30 (with your Trump and conservative news feed obsession I highly doubt that) a 5 year growth pattern of 100% should be considered fantastic. Worrying about an abrupt downturn on a specific stock that has shown the ability to rebound from downturns is insane, unless the entire industry or market is heading in that direction.
This is not my profession, but it reminds me of the conversation about how much hedge fund managers charge. I'm not saying you're not getting sound advice, but unless you are under 30 you may want to get a second opinion.
For the record, I'm agnostic on the stock. So don't take the following as a sell ...
a 5 year growth pattern of 100% should be considered fantastic.
That five year growth rate occurred 4 years ago. As I noted above
September 21, 2012 $99
Today $93
What has also happened since September 21, 2012?
* Tim Cook is running the company with the influence of Jobs
* No new products (the watch was a bust), only upgrades to existing products.
Isn't the stock saying your return has been zero and will remain zero until they invent something new? Replacement cycle is worth collecting a dividend and nothing more.
-
I'd enter at 90. Great price for a company with that much cash on hand. Plus the pain of change for all of those people in the Apple ecosystem is too high, they'll buy the crap out of the iPhone 7 when it comes out. AAPL will be doing great by Christmas, imo.
Even if Apple isn't up again by EoY, with as much cash as they have I believe that they'll be up in the next 10 years.
But I'm a boring long-term value investor. You guys might be looking for returns on different timeframes than I am.
Plus the pain of change for all of those people in the Apple ecosystem is too high, they'll buy the crap out of the iPhone 7 when it comes out. AAPL
Did you just make my point? You seem to be saying Apple is waiting for population growth and old phones to break to make sales? If so, it is a great buy at $90, and will be again next year, and the year after, and the year after.
In other words, they are just like GM, the new model will come out and all those with all broken cars will rush to the dealer to buy a new one. Then they should be a low auto company like PE.
-
For the record, I'm agnostic on the stock. So don't take the following as a sell ...
a 5 year growth pattern of 100% should be considered fantastic.
That five year growth rate occurred 4 years ago. As I noted above
September 21, 2012 $99
Today $93
What has also happened since September 21, 2012?
* Tim Cook is running the company with the influence of Jobs
* No new products (the watch was a bust), only upgrades to existing products.
Isn't the stock saying your return has been zero and will remain zero until they invent something new? Replacement cycle is worth collecting a dividend and nothing more.
A five year growth rate from today is comparing $93.74 to what it was on May 6,2011 which was $49.52.
Why the arbitrary high water mark comparison? Why not June 21, 2013 when it was at $59.07? That's 9 months after your benchmark and $40 lower......aren't they doing great compared to that?
Again, i'm not a financial planner, but you need to seek better advice in financial matters
-
Plus the pain of change for all of those people in the Apple ecosystem is too high, they'll buy the crap out of the iPhone 7 when it comes out. AAPL
Did you just make my point? You seem to be saying Apple is waiting for population growth and old phones to break to make sales? If so, it is a great buy at $90, and will be again next year, and the year after, and the year after.
In other words, they are just like GM, the new model will come out and all those with all broken cars will rush to the dealer to buy a new one. Then they should be a low auto company like PE.
Average cell phone is life is 3-4 if you take care if it. Cars have at least 10+ years, not quite apples to apples. Not too mention the price point, 300-500 dollars for a cell phone (which most people can get 0% financing for for 20 bucks a month), versus new car payments around 200-400 per month, and being credit worthy.
I understand your point, but disagree with the comparison.
-
A five year growth rate from today is comparing $93.74 to what it was on May 6,2011 which was $49.52.
Why the arbitrary high water mark comparison? Why not June 21, 2013 when it was at $59.07? That's 9 months after your benchmark and $40 lower......aren't they doing great compared to that?
Again, i'm not a financial planner, but you need to seek better advice in financial matters
Please read the first post ...
May 6, 2011 $43.11 to September 21, 2012 $99. Today $93. So nothing in 3 1/2 years.
September 21, 2012 is not a arbitrary date. It is the release date of the iPhone5, the last product that Steve Jobs worked on.
Starting on September 22, 2012 Apple released the following products that Jobs did not work on ...
October 11 2012
iPod Touch (5th gen) (32 & 64 GB)
iPod Nano (7th gen)
October 22 2012
Macbook Pro with Retina display
November 1 2012
iPad Air (16 & 32 GB)
iPad Air (64 & 128 GB)
November 12, 2012
iPad Mini 2 (16 & 32 GB)
iPad Mini 2 (64 & 128 GB)
December 19 2012
Mac Pro (Late 2013)
January 28 2013
Apple TV (3rd Gen)
February 13 2013
MacBook Pro with Retina display (3rd gen)
May 30 2013
iPod Touch (5th gen) (16 GB)
June 10 2013
AirPort Extreme 802.11ac (6th gen)
Time Capsule (5th gen)
MacBook Air
September 20 2013
iPhone 4S (8 GB)
iPhone 5C (16 & 32 GB)
iPhone 5S (16 & 32 GB)
iPhone 5S (64 GB)
September 24 2013
iMac (21.5")
iMac (27")
October 22 2013
MacBook Pro with Retina display (3rd gen)
iWork (2013)
iLife (2013)
November 1 2013
iPad Air (16 & 32 GB)
iPad Air (64 & 128 GB)
November 12 2013
iPad Mini 2 (16 & 32 GB)
iPad Mini 2 (64 & 128 GB)
December 19 2013
Mac Pro (Late 2013)
March 18 2014
iPhone 5C (8 GB)
April 29 2014
MacBook Air
June 18 2014
iMac (21.5")
June 26 2014
iPod Touch (16 GB)
July 29 2014
MacBook Pro with Retina display
September 19 2014
iPhone 6 (16 & 64 GB)
iPhone 6 Plus (16 & 64 GB)
iPhone 6 (128 GB)
iPhone 6 Plus (128 GB)
October 16 2014
iMac with Retina 5K display (27")
Mac Mini
October 22 2014
iPad Air 2 (16, 64 & 128 GB)
iPad Mini 3 (16, 64 & 128 GB)
March 9 2015
MacBook Air
MacBook Pro with Retina display (3rd gen)
April 10 2015
MacBook (Early 2015)
April 24 2015
Apple Watch
May 19 2015
MacBook Pro with Retina display (3rd gen) (15")
iMac with Retina 5K display (27")
June 30 2015
Apple Music
July 15 2015
iPod Touch (6th gen)
September 9 2015
iPad Mini 4
September 25 2015
iPhone 6S
iPhone 6S Plus
October 13 2015
iMac with Retina 4K display (21.5")
iMac with Retina 5K display (27")
Magic Mouse 2
Magic Trackpad 2
October 26 2015
Apple TV (4th generation)
November 11 2015
iPad Pro (12.9")
March 31 2016
iPad Pro (9.7")
iPhone SE
April 19 2016
MacBook (Early 2016)
Collectively the market has said that Apple is worth less now than it was the day after the iPhone5 was released. Restated, all these products are collectively worth zero per the market.
Why? because other than the watch, they are all upgrades. The watch was a bust. Upgrades are worth zero (no upgrades causes your stock to fall).
Apple needs a new idea, it does not have it.
-
Apple still has an I sane amount of cash on hand. They are contemplating cars. Maybe they buy Tesla. Maybe they buy fca, or use them to manufacture an autonomous CT of apple design. Apple will be fine.
-
Apple still has an I sane amount of cash on hand. They are contemplating cars. Maybe they buy Tesla. Maybe they buy fca, or use them to manufacture an autonomous CT of apple design. Apple will be fine.
Again, I think you're making my point. Apple has to do something completely different because all they are is a replacement cycle company.
oh, and I forgot to mention they have intense competition from android. Above was mentioned the iphone7. Yes the fanboys and paid mobs will wait in line to get it. By why not get it now for half the price? The Samsung Galaxy has all the features of the iphone7, is out now and is half the price. The Apple ecosystem is getting less and less a must as you can replace it with everything from Android pay to Pandora.
The worst cut one can give Apple is they rely on old people that either don't know or don't want to get out of the apple ecosystem. The same sweater vests that were incapable of downloading MU lights for Nova game. The all had older version Apple phones.
-
I didn't miss a thing. I disagree with your assessment.
-
Is AAPL a replacement company? Sure.
Should they be trading at auto company multiples? No.
-
Apple's stock is getting crushed. Down 25% in the last year to near a new two-year of $93.74. Here is the timeline that is hurting the stock.
That is the timeline? What would you have said just TWO WEEKS AGO when the price was 18%+ higher than today?
Also, why are you ignoring dividends?
-
That is the timeline? What would you have said just TWO WEEKS AGO when the price was 18%+ higher than today?
Also, why are you ignoring dividends?
Because he's an alarmist, a reactionist, or both. Which is why i was poking at him about his choice of a high point as his comparison vs one of the low points +/- 5months.
-
That is the timeline? What would you have said just TWO WEEKS AGO when the price was 18%+ higher than today?
Also, why are you ignoring dividends?
He can't find anything to copy/paste on the subject.
-
That is the timeline? What would you have said just TWO WEEKS AGO when the price was 18%+ higher than today?
Also, why are you ignoring dividends?
I actually first did that timeline last year (but not here).
Because even when the stock was 18% higher two weeks ago, the S&P 500 was 45% higher over the same period, back to September 2012.
Putting your money into Treasuries returned you more than Apple has since the release of the last Steve Jobs product, the iPhone5. It's been dead money for 3 1/2 years and will stay that way until they invent something new that everybody wants to buy.
Otherwise they can view themselves as a replacement cycle company start cutting overhead, cutting stores, cutting salaries and start running the company lean and mean bare-bones to keep profit margins as high as they can.
Conversely, if they want to be a high growth company again, I think you're going to have to get rid of Tim Cook. He said 4 years and all he can do is put out a crappy music service, a crappy watch, and a bunch of replacements that gets nobody excited.
-
Because he's an alarmist, a reactionist, or both. Which is why i was poking at him about his choice of a high point as his comparison vs one of the low points +/- 5months.
Again September 21, 2012 was the last release of the last Steve Jobs product, the iPhone5. It's not an arbitrary date it's not even close to the high stock price as it went 30% higher before fell back down.
September 21, 2012 is the true benchmark of the post Steve Jobs era, and nothing is happened with the stock since.
Oh did you also see that Carl Icahn, who is been a big proponent of the stock for years, sold his entire position in the last two weeks.
So the worlds most important ivestor, which is what TIME magazine called Icahn, no Longer believes in Apple.
-
Again September 21, 2012 was the last release of the last Steve Jobs product, the iPhone5. It's not an arbitrary date it's not even close to the high stock price as it went 30% higher before fell back down.
September 21, 2012 is the true benchmark of the post Steve Jobs era, and nothing is happened with the stock since.
Oh did you also see that Carl Icahn, who is been a big proponent of the stock for years, sold his entire position in the last two weeks.
So the worlds most important ivestor, which is what TIME magazine called Icahn, no Longer believes in Apple.
The reason that the market reacted so strongly to AAPL over the last week is because the market, as a whole, are emotional investors with a weak grasp on technicals.
If you take anything that Icahn says seriously, then I'm disappointed in your critical thinking ability. He uses his wealth as a platform to move equities in a direction that's profitable for himself, nothing more.
-
Again September 21, 2012 was the last release of the last Steve Jobs product, the iPhone5. It's not an arbitrary date it's not even close to the high stock price as it went 30% higher before fell back down.
September 21, 2012 is the true benchmark of the post Steve Jobs era, and nothing is happened with the stock since.
It's obviously their stock has been in a death spiral since Jobs left. Your method of ignoring dividends seems reasonable.
But... care to explain why the stock outperformed the S&P 500, S&P Tech Index, and the Dow Jones US Tech Supersector Index from FYE13 to FYE 15? The starting point is a year after Jobs... the end point is the most recently completed fiscal year... how in the world did crappy AAPL do so well?
(http://i.imgur.com/dNyouEP.png?1)
-
The reason that the market reacted so strongly to AAPL over the last week is because the market, as a whole, are emotional investors with a weak grasp on technicals.
If you take anything that Icahn says seriously, then I'm disappointed in your critical thinking ability. He uses his wealth as a platform to move equities in a direction that's profitable for himself, nothing more.
The reason the stock reacted so crappy in the last week was the disastrous quarterly report released this week.
Regarding Icahn
(http://static3.businessinsider.com/image/529f8c5369bedd0276db2386-480/carl-icahn-time.jpg)
-
It's obviously their stock has been in a death spiral since Jobs left. Your method of ignoring dividends seems reasonable.
But... care to explain why the stock outperformed the S&P 500, S&P Tech Index, and the Dow Jones US Tech Supersector Index from FYE13 to FYE 15? The starting point is a year after Jobs... the end point is the most recently completed fiscal year... how in the world did crappy AAPL do so well?
(http://i.imgur.com/dNyouEP.png?1)
C'mon Jaybee, a BS year old chart is your best argument???
Serious question, how much money do you have to lose before you re-think your position?
Here the same chart updated through yesterday.
Total return (incl dividends) since 9.21.2012 (iphone5 release)
Apple Stock = 0.79%
S&P 500 = 52.60%
Info Tech Sector = 46.04%
-
C'mon Jaybee, a BS year old chart is your best argument???
Serious question, who much money do you have to lose before you re-think your position?
Here the same chart updated through yesterday.
Total return (incl dividends) since 9.21.2012 (iphone5 release)
Apple Stock = 0.79%
S&P 500 = 52.60%
Info Tech Sector = 46.04%
Factor in the dividends please
Apple pays a healthy one, that's real money. They're also going to buyback a crap ton of their stock with the money they have on hand, which is going to drive the stock up. As an Apple stock holder, I'm pleased, but I've been in the stock for a long time.
http://www.dividend.com/news/2016/04/29/apple-increases-dividend-10-raises-stock-buyback-by-35-billion/
-
Factor in the dividends please
I didn't have my math right. Ellenson is correct.
-
Factor in the dividends please
Apple pays a healthy one, that's real money. They're also going to buyback a crap ton of their stock with the money they have on hand, which is going to drive the stock up. As an Apple stock holder, I'm pleased, but I've been in the stock for a long time.
http://www.dividend.com/news/2016/04/29/apple-increases-dividend-10-raises-stock-buyback-by-35-billion/
(incl dividends) = including dividends. They are already factored into the performance shown for that time period. Price performance alone it is down 5% cumulative, not up the 0.79% that Heisenberg references. Argue with the period selected for analysis if you want, but those #'s are accurate.
-
(incl dividends) = including dividends. They are already factored into the performance shown for that time period. Price performance alone it is down 5% cumulative, not up the 0.79% that Heisenberg references. Argue with the period selected for analysis if you want, but those #'s are accurate.
Thank you
-
First off, the iPhone 5 was announced on 9/12/2012. I would have used that date, as that starts the run up to the stock...the release date the upside is already built in.
The annualized return, including dividends, of AAPL stock purchased on 9/12/2012 is 2.19% (assumes DRIP). 1.44% without DRIP.
Your total gain would have been 5.33%
-
C'mon Jaybee, a BS year old chart is your best argument???
Serious question, who much money do you have to lose before you re-think your position?
[/qoute]
No, I could use a a TWO-WEEK OLD chart...
who (sic) much money do I have to lose before I re-think (sic) my position? Who said I'm in AAPL?
(I have no positions in AAPL.)
-
First off, the iPhone 5 was announced on 9/12/2012. I would have used that date, as that starts the run up to the stock...the release date the upside is already built in.
The annualized return, including dividends, of AAPL stock purchased on 9/12/2012 is 2.19% (assumes DRIP). 1.44% without DRIP.
Your total gain would have been 5.33%
Below is the same chart as above starting on September 12, 2012 (the announcement date versus the release date of Sept 21)
Total Return (Including Dividends) September 12, 2012 to April 29, 2016
Apple Stock = 5.33%
S&P 500 = 55.16%
S&P 500 Tech Index = 49.23%
-
Below is the same chart as above starting on September 12, 2012 (the announcement date versus the release date of Sept 21)
Total Return (Including Dividends) September 12, 2012 to April 29, 2016
Apple Stock = 5.33%
S&P 500 = 55.16%
S&P 500 Tech Index = 49.23%
'
Go to April 15, 2016 and you get 23.44%, a''inal?
-
'
Go to April 15, 2016 and you get 23.44%, a''inal?
vs. what performance for the overall market & sector? Heisenberg is correct to show AAPL performance relative to broader market alternatives, it is highly relevant information.
-
vs. what performance for the overall market & sector? Heisenberg is correct to show AAPL performance relative to broader market alternatives, it is highly relevant information.
Substantially the same as above.. it was 2 weeks. AAPL happened to have dropped almost 20% in that time period.
-
Substantially the same as above.. it was 2 weeks. AAPL happened to have dropped almost 20% in that time period.
Okay, so it still lagged fairly significantly.
-
Heisey's larger point is that it really hasn't done anything all that innovative for quite a while. And I think that is a pretty accurate assessment. More of a value / income stock than a growth one.
-
Okay, so it still lagged fairly significantly.
Heisenb's claim was that it's done nothing (actually gone down) because of a series of bad events since Jobs left.
The reality is it's been up over 20% until 2 weeks ago, and still up even after the (relatively) poor earnings release.
-
AAPL is one of my smaller holdings. It has become more of an income play than a growth play, which is fine because I primarily invest in dividend growth companies.
I'm not planning to sell as I'm largely a buy-and-hold investor and it's still an outstanding, profitable company with a growing dividend.
I'm not buying any more right now, but maybe I should ... I think DIS is up about 15% since Heisy's "death of Disney" post!
-
Heisenb's claim was that it's done nothing (actually gone down) because of a series of bad events since Jobs left.
The reality is it's been up over 20% until 2 weeks ago, and still up even after the (relatively) poor earnings release.
What series of bad events? I said they have not created a new product in the post Jobs era. The watch is a bust, Apple Music is a bust.
And the last two weeks are not random, it is a response to a horrific quarterly report and Icahn selling (yes, Icahn matters).
If 82 is right it is now an income stock, it is too expensive. It still has a valuation of a growth company.
-
If 82 is right it is now an income stock, it is too expensive. It still has a valuation of a growth company.
AAPL's current EV/EBITDA says this to you?
-
AAPL's current EV/EBITDA says this to you?
Depends on what you think revenues are going to do? Are they going to keep falling (yes falling) like they have ove rhet last year? If so, it's very expensive. Are they going to stabilize? If so, why (because you need them too?)
How about China? their biggest growth market is a big problem for them.
Why Apple's China problem is likely to get much, much worse
Friday, 29 Apr 2016 | 9:04 AM ET
http://www.cnbc.com/2016/04/29/why-apples-china-problem-is-likely-to-get-much-much-worse.html
Apple is coming off a 26 percent sales decline in Greater China, the steepest drop among its five regions.
More worrisome: The greatest risks lie ahead.
That's the view of a growing chorus of experts and prognosticators concerned about the unpredictability of the Chinese government.
---------------
I'll ask again, how much money do you have to lose before you stop getting angry, rationalizing and re-assess?
-
AAPL is one of my smaller holdings. It has become more of an income play than a growth play, which is fine because I primarily invest in dividend growth companies.
I'm not planning to sell as I'm largely a buy-and-hold investor and it's still an outstanding, profitable company with a growing dividend.
I'm not buying any more right now, but maybe I should ... I think DIS is up about 15% since Heisy's "death of Disney" post!
And what post would that be?
-
(incl dividends) = including dividends. They are already factored into the performance shown for that time period. Price performance alone it is down 5% cumulative, not up the 0.79% that Heisenberg references. Argue with the period selected for analysis if you want, but those #'s are accurate.
Actually, they aren't, at least not as they relate to Apple.
-
Depends on what you think revenues are going to do? Are they going to keep falling (yes falling) like they have ove rhet last year? If so, it's very expensive. Are they going to stabilize? If so, why (because you need them too?)
----
I'll ask again, how much money do you have to lose before you stop getting angry, rationalizing and re-assess?
No, depends on what YOU think the sales and profits are going to do, because you must have a very unique view if you believe they are trading like a growth company today. The EV/EBITDA certainly wouldn't say so. I'm asking what your measurement to come to the conclusion that "It still has a valuation of a growth company."
I haven't lost a dime on AAPL. Not in, as I previously stated. I think our views on AAPL overall are probably very similar -- the layout of your argument and some of the claims are my issue (e.g., "it still has a valuation of a growth company").
-
Heisey's larger point is that it really hasn't done anything all that innovative for quite a while. And I think that is a pretty accurate assessment. More of a value / income stock than a growth one.
This I would agree with, but a company with that much capital is going to do big things again.
If you got in 2010, you did 171%. Along the way, the stock split, the dividends rolled and the value per share exploded. Timing is everything. Yes, it's taken a hit the last two weeks, I know I'm not bailing. Tons of money, buying back stocks, increasing the dividend 10%, they will invest in new technologies and\or buy out successful companies if need be.
-
This I would agree with, but a company with that much capital is going to do big things again.
If you got in 2010, you did 171%. Along the way, the stock split, the dividends rolled and the value per share exploded. Timing is everything. Yes, it's taken a hit the last two weeks, I know I'm not bailing. Tons of money, buying back stocks, increasing the dividend 10%, they will invest in new technologies and\or buy out successful companies if need be.
Ancient history as that all stop in 2012. They have done nothing since. No new products (save the bust of the watch and music) and only wishful thinking that they have something coming.
Need to show Tim Cook the door. He is the male version of Marissa Meyer (Yahoo CEO).
-
Ancient history as that all stop in 2012. They have done nothing since. No new products (save the bust of the watch and music) and only wishful thinking that they have something coming.
Need to show Tim Cook the door. He is the male version of Marissa Meyer (Yahoo CEO).
Mayer vs. Meyer
-
I don't think Apple has ever "invested in new technologies" or "buy out successful companies." Apple's DNA is all about creating new products - Mac, iPod, iTunes, iPhone, iPad, etc. Products that use technology to innovate. The watch was a failure. Where is that next product?
-
My basis in AAPL is about $1 , my view is to keep holding it for the long term. I bought as a value stock when it traded for cash and then I got lucky.
I think you can trade it from time to time as well.
I think the company will have some solid new products over the next 5-7 years.
-
This I would agree with, but a company with that much capital is going to do big things again.
If you got in 2010, you did 171%. Along the way, the stock split, the dividends rolled and the value per share exploded. Timing is everything. Yes, it's taken a hit the last two weeks, I know I'm not bailing. Tons of money, buying back stocks, increasing the dividend 10%, they will invest in new technologies and\or buy out successful companies if need be.
Apple's hope was China ...
http://www.cnbc.com/2016/04/29/why-apples-china-problem-is-likely-to-get-much-much-worse.html
Blame 26% decline in China's sales for lion's share of Apple's loss
Earlier this month, China shut down iTunes Movies and iBooks just six months after Apple introduced the services there. Billionaire investor Carl Icahn told CNBC on Thursday that he sold his Apple shares because "you worry a little bit — and maybe more than a little — about China's attitude."
Decline in iPhone sales leads to first revenue decline in 13 years for Apple
Much of the falloff is attributable to the stuggling Chinese economy, still the second-largest market in the world for Apple products behind the US
Wednesday 27 April 2016 02.28 EDT
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/apr/26/apple-iphone-first-revenue-decline-13-years
A year ago Apple sold $58bn of gadgets – or nearly $650m a day – in the first three months of the year. Two-thirds of that revenue came from iPhones and sales were powered by the new iPhone 6.
Tuesday afternoon after the company reported a nearly 13% fall in quarterly sales, the first time revenue at the world’s most valuable publicly traded company has declined in 13 years.
iPhone sales in China – a crucial market for Apple to continue growing – have plunged 26% as its economy stalls, with some reports indicating the Apple brand is losing prestige there. In the US, customers are upgrading their phones more slowly as the differences between generations, like the iPhone 6 to 6s, become more incremental.
-
I don't think Apple has ever "invested in new technologies" or "buy out successful companies." Apple's DNA is all about creating new products - Mac, iPod, iTunes, iPhone, iPad, etc. Products that use technology to innovate. The watch was a failure. Where is that next product?
Initially many hoped something called "iTV" was coming and that would revolutionize the TV industry. never happened and is not happening. (Note this is not the same thing as the "me too" Apple TV which competes with Roku, Tivo, Sling, etc.)
Now the hope is "iCar" is coming ... they will wow the world with an electric car, probably self-driving.
If they do this, $250 stock. If not, $75.
-
I don't think Apple has ever "invested in new technologies" or "buy out successful companies." Apple's DNA is all about creating new products - Mac, iPod, iTunes, iPhone, iPad, etc. Products that use technology to innovate. The watch was a failure. Where is that next product?
With all due respect, they have probably acquired 50 to 100 companies over the years. I worked with these guys extensively last two years while in the OTT space.
Whether it was Siri (which they bought), or Beats, or mapsense, or recently Flyby....the list is really long. Next computing way back in the day.
At&t does the same thing as do many others. Buy smaller firms tech, put it into your own and claim it as yours...cuz they can...they bought the tech.
-
With all due respect, they have probably acquired 50 to 100 companies over the years. I worked with these guys extensively last two years while in the OTT space.
OF COURSE YOU HAVE!!!!
-
Ancient history as that all stop in 2012. They have done nothing since. No new products (save the bust of the watch and music) and only wishful thinking that they have something coming.
Need to show Tim Cook the door. He is the male version of Marissa Meyer (Yahoo CEO).
You might be right about Cook....some political baggage will come with that of course. As far as Mayer goes, I've got a few friends at Yahoo and some that have left. I think they were sunk regardless of who took over, but they will be bought soon.
-
OF COURSE YOU HAVE!!!!
Yup. Mostly on trying to get them off their ridiculous 30% Apple tax....bastards. But we released a number of apps on the iOS platform and AppleTV, mostly working with their biz dev teams to do some deals around the Apple Store. Last year or so around placement within their products, but that is an amazingly difficult thing to do without writing a massive check that isn't worth it in my opinion.
-
Initially many hoped something called "iTV" was coming and that would revolutionize the TV industry. never happened and is not happening. (Note this is not the same thing as the "me too" Apple TV which competes with Roku, Tivo, Sling, etc.)
Now the hope is "iCar" is coming ... they will wow the world with an electric car, probably self-driving.
If they do this, $250 stock. If not, $75.
Told you guys what, 4 or 5 years ago that iTV was never going to happen. The programming conglomerates (Disney, Viacom, 20th Century, CBS, etc) are a powerful bunch and they aren't just going to roll over. Apple kept thinking they would, and of course they found out the hard way they wouldn't.
-
Apple mergers and acquisitions.....yup, I was write. Between 50 and 100. Closer to 100.
78 thus far
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mergers_and_acquisitions_by_Apple
It's what they do....then slap an Apple logo on it. Don't get me wrong, they do a lot of R&D internally and have churned out great products. End of the day, however, it is often cheaper to buy someone else's tech and that's typically what we do on the tech side. It's what we did at DIRECTV. It's what we did at Disney. It's what others have done for many years. Let someone else make the mistakes, see who survives, then buy them.
-
And what post would that be?
http://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=48239.0
Among numerous "Disney is doomed" posts within that thread, you said on Feb. 9:
Disney reported record earnings and profits largely because of the monster money made off Star Wars. Disney profits topped $1 billion in Q4 2015 for the first time ever. Disney profits blew away analyst forecasts.
So what is the stock doing? It is getting crushed! Down 6% or $5 and under $87 for the first time since late 2014. It is down more than 25% since November 20th. Why? The death star pull of ESPN is so great that not even a billion dollar quarter can stop it from crushing Disney.
You also quoted your hedge fund boyfriend Kass saying this on Feb. 10:
I remain short Disney despite its recent fall to $89 a share, but I am down to tag ends.
Given that DIS has gone up 18% in the 10 weeks since, I hope Kass' minions, clients and butt-kissers have enjoyed that short.
-
http://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=48239.0
Among numerous "Disney is doomed" posts within that thread, you said on Feb. 9:
Disney reported record earnings and profits largely because of the monster money made off Star Wars. Disney profits topped $1 billion in Q4 2015 for the first time ever. Disney profits blew away analyst forecasts.
So what is the stock doing? It is getting crushed! Down 6% or $5 and under $87 for the first time since late 2014. It is down more than 25% since November 20th. Why? The death star pull of ESPN is so great that not even a billion dollar quarter can stop it from crushing Disney.
You also quoted your hedge fund boyfriend Kass saying this on Feb. 10:
I remain short Disney despite its recent fall to $89 a share, but I am down to tag ends.
Given that DIS has gone up 18% in the 10 weeks since, I hope Kass' minions, clients and butt-kissers have enjoyed that short.
You neglected all the posts from November when it was $120 that said the same thing.
http://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=48239.msg778507#msg778507
And from August when the stock was coming off $122 when this thread was started
http://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=48239.msg747514#msg747514
-
You neglected all the posts from November when it was $120 that said the same thing.
http://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=48239.msg778507#msg778507
And from August when the stock was coming off $122 when this thread was started
http://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=48239.msg747514#msg747514
OK. But did or did not your man Kass say it was a great short at $89? And by trumpeting that article, were you or were you not endorsing that view?
You also called it dead money - when it was in the $80s.
I sure wish I had a bunch of dead-money investments that gained 15-20% in 10 weeks' time!
Don't worry, Heisy, you don't have to say it. We all know you have trouble admitting you were wrong.
Anyway, this post wasn't about DIS, it's about AAPL. All I said was that if this AAPL call is as correct as the DIS call was when it was priced in the $80s, maybe this bearish AAPL call is a buy signal.
Of course, none of us really can know if AAPL will go up or down, either short-term or long-term. Just as none of us really knew that about DIS.
What some of us CAN do is pretend to know ... about this and pretty much everything else.
-
OK. But did or did not your man Kass say it was a great short at $89? And by trumpeting that article, were you or were you not endorsing that view?
You also called it dead money - when it was in the $80s.
I sure wish I had a bunch of dead-money investments that gained 15-20% in 10 weeks' time!
Don't worry, Heisy, you don't have to say it. We all know you have trouble admitting you were wrong.
Anyway, this post wasn't about DIS, it's about AAPL. All I said was that if this AAPL call is as correct as the DIS call was when it was priced in the $80s, maybe this bearish AAPL call is a buy signal.
Of course, none of us really can know if AAPL will go up or down, either short-term or long-term. Just as none of us really knew that about DIS.
What some of us CAN do is pretend to know ... about this and pretty much everything else.
All investments are relative. If one calls something dead money for years, that means a majority of other options will be better. Not whether it will be above or below the price on that date. The relative metric everyone uses is the S&P 500 and its that company's industry sector, for Disney that is consumer discretionary (con des).
On August 4 Disney announced huge subscriber losses at ESPN. It annihilated it's stock (which was at $122). To be clear, this is not an arbitrary date. This is the date that Disney let it be known that ESPN is hemorrhaging subscribers, a significant event. ESPN is 40% of Disney's revenues.
August 4, 2015 to February 9, 2016
(total return, including dividends)
Disney Stock = -23.65%
S&P 500 = -10.48%
Con Des Index= -13.75%%
So relative to the S&P 500, Disney was crushed. This includes the release of Star Wars, the highest grossing movie ever. It did nothing to stop the bleeding ... Because Disney should change it's ticker symbol from DIS to ESPN so everyone understands what matters.
You are correct that I called it dead money for years on February 10, in addition to saying other bearish things about it for months before. So what happened after that statement (using the day before close)
Feb 9, 2016 to April 29
(total return, including dividends)
Disney Stock = +11.85%
S&P 500 = +12.03%
Con Des Index= +15.93%
So yes Disney rebounded since February 10. But so has the overall market. And yet Disney could not keep up with the overall market. This is the very definition of dead money. First it tears you a new one. Then it cannot outperform the overall market on a rebound.
Next up for Disney, May 10 ... its release date for Q2 earnings. Ignore all the stuff about movies and theme parks, how many people canceled ESPN is all that matters.
-
Apple mergers and acquisitions.....yup, I was write. Between 50 and 100. Closer to 100.
78 thus far
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mergers_and_acquisitions_by_Apple
It's what they do....then slap an Apple logo on it. Don't get me wrong, they do a lot of R&D internally and have churned out great products. End of the day, however, it is often cheaper to buy someone else's tech and that's typically what we do on the tech side. It's what we did at DIRECTV. It's what we did at Disney. It's what others have done for many years. Let someone else make the mistakes, see who survives, then buy them.
But the market is telling us that all this R&D is a waste of time and resources. That is why is has been a terrible investment since the last Jobs influenced product was released (iPhone5).
Restated, Tim Cook and Jony Ive (Chief Design Officer) are not earning their pay because they have done nothing but create a failed music service, a failed watch and merely upgraded existing products.
-
But the market is telling us that all this R&D is a waste of time and resources. That is why is has been a terrible investment since the last Jobs influenced product was released (iPhone5).
Restated, Tim Cook and Jony Ive (Chief Design Officer) are not earning their pay because they have done nothing but create a failed music service, a failed watch and merely upgraded existing products.
Again, your last sentence may be dead on correct. What I'm saying, however, is that with the capital they are sitting on, they can make some very big noise and do fine, even if it means through an acquisition or some pivot. Maybe a better way to say it, the lump of cash they are sitting on gives them a huge margin for error currently and in the future to buy their way out.
Smart phones are commoditized now to a large extent now. The leaps and bounds they take are smaller and smaller, so they will have to come up with something new, no question about it. But much like Disney, I'm not bailing on this stock anytime soon.
-
You can both be correct. Chicos sounds like a long-term value holder, while Heisey approaches it like a short-term growth stock.
-
All investments are relative. If one calls something dead money for years, that means a majority of other options will be better. Not whether it will be above or below the price on that date. The relative metric everyone uses is the S&P 500 and its that company's industry sector, for Disney that is consumer discretionary (con des).
On August 4 Disney announced huge subscriber losses at ESPN. It annihilated it's stock (which was at $122). To be clear, this is not an arbitrary date. This is the date that Disney let it be known that ESPN is hemorrhaging subscribers, a significant event. ESPN is 40% of Disney's revenues.
August 4, 2015 to February 9, 2016
(total return, including dividends)
Disney Stock = -23.65%
S&P 500 = -10.48%
Con Des Index= -13.75%%
So relative to the S&P 500, Disney was crushed. This includes the release of Star Wars, the highest grossing movie ever. It did nothing to stop the bleeding ... Because Disney should change it's ticker symbol from DIS to ESPN so everyone understands what matters.
You are correct that I called it dead money for years on February 10, in addition to saying other bearish things about it for months before. So what happened after that statement (using the day before close)
Feb 9, 2016 to April 29
(total return, including dividends)
Disney Stock = +11.85%
S&P 500 = +12.03%
Con Des Index= +15.93%
So yes Disney rebounded since February 10. But so has the overall market. And yet Disney could not keep up with the overall market. This is the very definition of dead money. First it tears you a new one. Then it cannot outperform the overall market on a rebound.
Next up for Disney, May 10 ... its release date for Q2 earnings. Ignore all the stuff about movies and theme parks, how many people canceled ESPN is all that matters.
You're a peach.
BTW, I don't own DIS. All I know is that you made it sound like it was doomed when it was in the 80s and it's up 15-20% since then.
Now, it might be doomed long-term. We'll see. But none of us KNOW. Except you, of course.
-
I'll just leave this right here:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Efficient-market_hypothesis
-
I'll just leave this right here:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Efficient-market_hypothesis
I think the weak form might work. Not semi-strong or Strong.
-
Next up for Disney, May 10 ... its release date for Q2 earnings. Ignore all the stuff about movies and theme parks, how many people canceled ESPN is all that matters.
Such short term thinking.
Hulu announced on Friday that ESPN will now be part of their services. AT&T is launching OTT services later this year with ESPN a major part of it. As I told you months ago, they will be picking up subscribers in other areas.
-
Such short term thinking.
Hulu announced on Friday that ESPN will now be part of their services. AT&T is launching OTT services later this year with ESPN a major part of it. As I told you months ago, they will be picking up subscribers in other areas.
I am extremely interested to see how the ESPN thing plays out with Hulu.
-
I am extremely interested to see how the ESPN thing plays out with Hulu.
It will likely be a skinny (industry term) that will require a$35 to $45 per month service with limited concurrent streams...which for you would be fine. Family of 3+, not so much.
We had some meetings with Hulu last week, they said they were working on some new things so this is likely it.
One thing I think Disney will demand are tighter piracy controls, but we shall see.
-
It will likely be a skinny (industry term) that will require a$35 to $45 per month service with limited concurrent streams...which for you would be fine. Family of 3+, not so much.
We had some meetings with Hulu last week, they said they were working on some new things so this is likely it.
One thing I think Disney will demand are tighter piracy controls, but we shall see.
Do you know what timing would be? My DirecTV 2 years are up on Aug. 31. I would love to at least be able to consider pulling the plug.
If I could watch ESPN, Show, HBO and a few other networks, the only thing I'd be missing would be FS1 - and I guess that would give me an excuse to meet my fellow Marquetters at bars more, which isn't necessarily a bad thing.
-
Just catching up on this thread. I think its a little early to be calling the Apple Watch a bust. I don't own one, nor do I plan to, but I think it will become a decent niche product for them (in the same realm as the Apple TV). Look at adoption rates for the iPad and iPhone. Neither sold that many units in its first year, relative to their peak volume several years later. The Apple Watch will get there.
-
Just catching up on this thread. I think its a little early to be calling the Apple Watch a bust. I don't own one, nor do I plan to, but I think it will become a decent niche product for them (in the same realm as the Apple TV). Look at adoption rates for the iPad and iPhone. Neither sold that many units in its first year, relative to their peak volume several years later. The Apple Watch will get there.
There is a reason they are coming out with the Watch 2. There's also a reason that they still pull the best engineering talent, even from other very exciting companies. Apple has enough cash to innovate and fail and with that will also come great successes.
And this is coming from a guy that works at an exciting public tech company, wouldn't buy an iPhone if you gave him $1000, and wishes that Apple would stop recruiting his best co-workers but not him :)
-
If you you all invested in STZ and MCD as I told you gamicks back in September, your best friend would be your Capital Gains Advisor.
-
If you you all invested in STZ and MCD as I told you gamicks back in September, your best friend would be your Capital Gains Advisor.
What are your thoughts now, Doc?
-
What are your thoughts now, Doc?
Would have said MNST earlier this week. Two of top sellers out of 10 items for immediate consumption at Cstore and Gas. Took off big with a beat recently, but I think they are poised to break out over historical highs. Will Coke buy them with distribution agreements already in place?
-
Would have said MNST earlier this week. Two of top sellers out of 10 items for immediate consumption at Cstore and Gas. Took off big with a beat recently, but I think they are poised to break out over historical highs. Will Coke buy them with distribution agreements already in place?
Thanks
-
Do you know what timing would be? My DirecTV 2 years are up on Aug. 31. I would love to at least be able to consider pulling the plug.
If I could watch ESPN, Show, HBO and a few other networks, the only thing I'd be missing would be FS1 - and I guess that would give me an excuse to meet my fellow Marquetters at bars more, which isn't necessarily a bad thing.
Why not just pivot to DIRECTV Now that is coming out in Q4? What you are asking for they will have, and in that same price range.
-
Tim Cook talks about time for a MAJOR ACQUISITION.
8-)
Hmm, sounds like something I said a few days ago. ;) Netflix believed to be one of the targets. Apple has so much cash, they can do a lot of damage with their check book.
-
Tim Cook talks about time for a MAJOR ACQUISITION.
8-)
Hmm, sounds like something I said a few days ago. ;) Netflix believed to be one of the targets. Apple has so much cash, they can do a lot of damage with their check book.
They have been terrible at acquisitions. They acquire lesser companies and waste them.
What did they get with Beats? They acquire it and it disappeared. What brand equity are they getting from it?
They should acquire Tesla and have Musk run Apple, Cook to resign.
They should acquire Netflix and have Hastings run Apple, Cook to resign.
This is exactly why they will not do it.
Instead Cook showed his desperation by going on Jim Cramer's show Monday.
-
They have been terrible at acquisitions. They acquire lesser companies and waste them.
What did they get with Beats? They acquire it and it disappeared. What brand equity are they getting from it?
They should acquire Tesla and have Musk run Apple, Cook to resign.
They should acquire Netflix and have Hastings run Apple, Cook to resign.
This is exactly why they will not do it.
Instead Cook showed his desperation by going on Jim Cramer's show Monday.
Not all of their acquisitions have been terrible. They have done some acquisitions around specific technologies that were integrated into their products which were highly succesful. Like certain touch screen technologies and the fingerprint reader. These make up the iPhone, its most successful product ever.
Acquisitions are not always just about acquiring an entire new product or service. Sometimes it is a component that improves an existing product. Apple has been extremely successful at these types of acquisitions.
-
Why not just pivot to DIRECTV Now that is coming out in Q4? What you are asking for they will have, and in that same price range.
Hadn't looked into DirecTV Now. I will.
I haven't been thrilled with DirecTV, but I don't hate it either.
-
They have been terrible at acquisitions. They acquire lesser companies and waste them.
What did they get with Beats? They acquire it and it disappeared. What brand equity are they getting from it?
They should acquire Tesla and have Musk run Apple, Cook to resign.
They should acquire Netflix and have Hastings run Apple, Cook to resign.
This is exactly why they will not do it.
Instead Cook showed his desperation by going on Jim Cramer's show Monday.
They have had close to 80 acquisitions, to suggest they are terrible is kind of funny.
Again, I'm not a Cook fan, so I could give a rip if he is ousted or not. I just don't sour on the stock like you are and think with the cash they have they have tremendous upside if they wish to exercise it. As for Hastings, well he has done very well on the stock front, not so great on the profit front.
-
Not all of their acquisitions have been terrible. They have done some acquisitions around specific technologies that were integrated into their products which were highly succesful. Like certain touch screen technologies and the fingerprint reader. These make up the iPhone, its most successful product ever.
Acquisitions are not always just about acquiring an entire new product or service. Sometimes it is a component that improves an existing product. Apple has been extremely successful at these types of acquisitions.
They have had close to 80 acquisitions, to suggest they are terrible is kind of funny.
Again, I'm not a Cook fan, so I could give a rip if he is ousted or not. I just don't sour on the stock like you are and think with the cash they have they have tremendous upside if they wish to exercise it. As for Hastings, well he has done very well on the stock front, not so great on the profit front.
On page one I laundry listed the product released since iPhone5 was released (Sept 2012). It is a very long list. Again the stock is lower today than September 2012 so collectedly all the acquisitions and products that were spun out of them the market values at zero.
Apple is a $500 billion market market capitalization stock. You realize it is worth more than every public company headquartered in the state of Wisconsin! (Wisconsin - $172 billion spread over 54 companies, led by Snap-on)
Apple needs to think big, huge to move the needle. Try buying t-Mobile to start to start Apple wireless, Tesla to get into electric cars and Ford to manufacture them. Maybe not these exact targets but this big is how they need to think.
All these ticky-tack acquisitions are collectively a rounding error to zero so far. And their current strategy will keep them this way.
The criticism is Apple is afraid of a large acquisitions becasue they have to dominate everything they buy. They are afraid to buy something that might be considered their equal.
-
On page one I laundry listed the product released since iPhone5 was released (Sept 2012). It is a very long list. Again the stock is lower today than September 2012 so collectedly all the acquisitions and products that were spun out of them the market values at zero.
Apple is a $500 billion market market capitalization stock. You realize it is worth more than every public company headquartered in the state of Wisconsin! (Wisconsin - $172 billion spread over 54 companies, led by Snap-on)
Apple needs to think big, huge to move the needle. Try buying t-Mobile to start to start Apple wireless, Tesla to get into electric cars and Ford to manufacture them. Maybe not these exact targets but this big is how they need to think.
All these ticky-tack acquisitions are collectively a rounding error to zero so far. And their current strategy will keep them this way.
The criticism is Apple is afraid of a large acquisitions becasue they have to dominate everything they buy. They are afraid to buy something that might be considered their equal.
But you also realize in two weeks if the stock goes up $20, it isn't valued at zero. You're also not factoring in avoidance, that if those acquisitions weren't made, the stock could be much worse. Stock prices are a snapshot in time. You really think Apple buying Siri and putting that into their phones was a terrible investment? $200M for Siri where it has become a cultural play in this country. Come on.
Their purchase of VocalIQ will take it a step further.
Not all acquisitions work out, clearly. But to suggest they are terrible or added zero value is silly.
-
But you also realize in two weeks if the stock goes up $20, it isn't valued at zero. You're also not factoring in avoidance, that if those acquisitions weren't made, the stock could be much worse. Stock prices are a snapshot in time. You really think Apple buying Siri and putting that into their phones was a terrible investment? $200M for Siri where it has become a cultural play in this country. Come on.
Their purchase of VocalIQ will take it a step further.
Not all acquisitions work out, clearly. But to suggest they are terrible or added zero value is silly.
They are managing their decline. They are ensuring you will lose money slowly. They are not capable of finding something that can cause them to growth. To grow fast again it has to significant, like an electric car or redesigning the way we watch TV. Otherwise they are an upgrade cycle low PE stock. That means you'll get a chance to by it in the 80s soon, and again to buy it in the 80s years from now as well.
And please tell me you have a better idea than getting on your knees and praying the stock magically rise $20 and bails you out.
Remember the stock was not arbitrarily crushed. It was crushed in response to its horrific earnings report and terrible outlook.
-
FWIW--Having done business in China my entire adult life I have seen the lows and highs of the Chinese economy over the past 30 years. Having seen good days and bad days I believe I have a very solid feel for the environment and I am VERY, VERY bearish on Chinese economy. Cannot predict when the floor falls out toa specific date but it is far closer than I would like to believe. When it happens I believe it send shocks waves around the world.
-
FWIW--Having done business in China my entire adult life I have seen the lows and highs of the Chinese economy over the past 30 years. Having seen good days and bad days I believe I have a very solid feel for the environment and I am VERY, VERY bearish on Chinese economy. Cannot predict when the floor falls out toa specific date but it is far closer than I would like to believe. When it happens I believe it send shocks waves around the world.
The floor began to fall out last August. It is underway.
-
FWIW--Having done business in China my entire adult life I have seen the lows and highs of the Chinese economy over the past 30 years. Having seen good days and bad days I believe I have a very solid feel for the environment and I am VERY, VERY bearish on Chinese economy. Cannot predict when the floor falls out toa specific date but it is far closer than I would like to believe. When it happens I believe it send shocks waves around the world.
Thanks for your perspective, Goose.
What are you doing with your portfolio to shield it from a potential Chinese economic collapse?
BTW, this is not me being sarcastic. I'd really like to know because this is one of the many ways I learn about investing.
-
MU82
Limited exposure to the market currently. I am an optimist by nature but very concerned about China and affect a crash could have on USA. Their stock market means nothing to me, I am concerned about the real estate and banking sectors.
Knock on wood, a beat down China is good for my business. That said, I hope it does not get beat down too badly.
-
MU82
Limited exposure to the market currently. I am an optimist by nature but very concerned about China and affect a crash could have on USA. Their stock market means nothing to me, I am concerned about the real estate and banking sectors.
Knock on wood, a beat down China is good for my business. That said, I hope it does not get beat down too badly.
I have a pretty good chunk of my portfolio in the U.S. stock market, mostly in blue-chip, dividend-growing companies. Also have some bonds and cash for ballast.
I mean, what's the alternative? I know of people who got all worried in 2012 and have been mostly in cash since then. They have missed out on a pretty nice bull market.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I wish you good fortune. I wish me good fortune, too!
-
I have a pretty good chunk of my portfolio in the U.S. stock market, mostly in blue-chip, dividend-growing companies. Also have some bonds and cash for ballast.
I mean, what's the alternative? I know of people who got all worried in 2012 and have been mostly in cash since then. They have missed out on a pretty nice bull market.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I wish you good fortune. I wish me good fortune, too!
Cash is only one alternative
Gold is another (up 20% this year)
Bonds are a third option(they have handily outperformed stocks over the last many years)
Annuities are a fourth
Actively managed balanced or flexible funds are another (let an expert do it) are a fifth
and if not of that is appealing. Try my favorite ... a gold-plated gun. Both utility and investment at the same time!
-
UBS puts buy target for DIS at $116
-
I've said this before, but trying to time the market is a fool's errand. I know I posted it once before but the S&P 500 averaged 9.2% from 1994-2013, the average individual investor during that same time frame made 2.5% annual returns. The biggest threat to anyone's investment portfolio is not from financial, economic or geopolitical events, it is the individual investor's emotions, that causes them to respond to the events that does the most harm.
Stay diversified, US Large Caps(growth & value), mid caps, Small caps, international, REITS, EM. On the bond side, buy Treasuries, corporates, short duration and intermediate, I would probably avoid the long end of the curve though. Buy high yield and I do think EM debt is attractive, although it is off to a great start this year, maybe wait to see if it pulls back a little.
Figure out what mix you should have based on your own personal risk tolerance and rebalance your portfolio at least annually.
-
Cash is only one alternative
Gold is another (up 20% this year)
Bonds are a third option(they have handily outperformed stocks over the last many years)
Annuities are a fourth
Actively managed balanced or flexible funds are another (let an expert do it) are a fifth
and if not of that is appealing. Try my favorite ... a gold-plated gun. Both utility and investment at the same time!
I have never owned gold, for the following reason: No Yield. In my mind, you have to be a trader and sell high to make a profit. Also, Gold trades more like a currency than a commodity.
So, that is how I think. Please tell me if I'm wrong, especially on the zero yield and you have to be a buyer and seller of gold to make it a worthy investment. Because of this I prefer real estate (rental not vacant land), bonds and stocks. I want my money making money even if I don't sell (because frankly, I don't sell often and I am not a trader).
I see gold as too up and down and it does strange things and appears rather unpredictable.
-
There is a reason they are coming out with the Watch 2. There's also a reason that they still pull the best engineering talent, even from other very exciting companies. Apple has enough cash to innovate and fail and with that will also come great successes.
And this is coming from a guy that works at an exciting public tech company, wouldn't buy an iPhone if you gave him $1000, and wishes that Apple would stop recruiting his best co-workers but not him :)
I tend to agree with this analysis. Apple is on top so it is hard to stay on top. To keep where they are at may not be realistic over the next year or two. Longer term, Apple will fine, most likely.
I don't see the Apple Watch as a flop. I didn't expect much when it first came out and thought it would take about 3 years and 3rd edition before people started seeing it as something they have to have. The big thing will be health sensors, of course. Once it can continueoulsy take your temp, pulse, blood pressure, irregular heart beat detection, glucose, oxygen levels... it will be a killer product and your doctor will be telling you to get one. it will tell you if you are about to have a medical emergency and need to get help or it will dial 911. Will they be the first to get there, no. Calls without being connected to a phone, would be enough to sell it without the health features. Apple won't be the first with these features (some are already out on other platforms), but Apple's will actually work and be usable. Give it a year or two and see where the product is at... iPhone one was not much of a success, the iPad didn't seem like it would be much when it first came out (many said it is just a big iPhone, who needs it).
I also don't think the Apple car will be the next big product line. They still haven't really gotten into the "smart house" business as a product line, they still haven't gotten into the virtual reality space. I think VR will be the next big thing they do. It will replace our TV's and be a must have.
-
UBS puts buy target for DIS at $116
That was on April 18
27 analyst of Wall Street have DIS price targets. Average $110.48 (last $105.65)
19 Buys
14 Holds (which is Wall Street talk for Sell)
2 Sells (which means Sell Now!!!)
Last analyst changes
May 6, RBS Neutral, target $103
May 5, Cowen, Sell, target $88
May 3, Drexel Hamilton, Buy, target $118
May 2, Jeffries, Hold target $92
May 2, Bernstein, Hold, target $110
May 1, Piper Jaffrey, Buy, target $120
May 1, FBR Capital Markets, Buy, $111
seems like Wall Street is all over the place on DIS. And that is just the last week!
-
I have never owned gold, for the following reason: No Yield. In my mind, you have to be a trader and sell high to make a profit. Also, Gold trades more like a currency than a commodity.
So, that is how I think. Please tell me if I'm wrong, especially on the zero yield and you have to be a buyer and seller of gold to make it a worthy investment. Because of this I prefer real estate (rental not vacant land), bonds and stocks. I want my money making money even if I don't sell (because frankly, I don't sell often and I am not a trader).
I see gold as too up and down and it does strange things and appears rather unpredictable.
You're exactly correct.
HOWEVER ... $8 trillion dollars of government interest rates now have negative yields worldwide. 65% is in Japan (most of their bond market is now negative) and the rest is in Europe (Germany and France leading the way). Switzerland has rates approaching -2% (lowest ever recorded in human history).
So, in this upside down world, a 0% yield is a high yield alternative! This is precisely why gold is soaring, and with the expectations that negative rates will be around for years (per recent central banker statements) this will benefit gold.
-
That was on April 18
27 analyst of Wall Street have DIS price targets. Average $110.48 (last $105.65)
19 Buys
14 Holds (which is Wall Street talk for Sell)
2 Sells (which means Sell Now!!!)
Last analyst changes
May 6, RBS Neutral, target $103
May 5, Cowen, Sell, target $88
May 3, Drexel Hamilton, Buy, target $118
May 2, Jeffries, Hold target $92
May 2, Bernstein, Hold, target $110
May 1, Piper Jaffrey, Buy, target $120
May 1, FBR Capital Markets, Buy, $111
seems like Wall Street is all over the place on DIS. And that is just the last week!
Actually it was April 25th
-
Would have said MNST earlier this week. Two of top sellers out of 10 items for immediate consumption at Cstore and Gas. Took off big with a beat recently, but I think they are poised to break out over historical highs. Will Coke buy them with distribution agreements already in place?
MNST up another $4.31 today...up $30 since end of April. Close to a breakout of their historical ceiling. STZ up to $163 (another 2.38 today). MCD at an all time high as our many others in food and beverage. Money has been flowing into this sector as it is safer in a softening economy, per below.
(https://www.chicagofed.org/~/media/images/publications/cfnai-monthly-ma3-png.png?h=282&la=en&w=525)
https://www.chicagofed.org/research/data/cfnai/current-data
-
UBS puts buy target for DIS at $116
DIS misses on earnings, revenues. Down 6% in the after market, trading around 100.
-
MNST up another $4.31 today...up $30 since end of April. Close to a breakout of their historical ceiling. STZ up to $163 (another 2.38 today). MCD at an all time high as our many others in food and beverage. Money has been flowing into this sector as it is safer in a softening economy, per below.
You're on a roll Dr. Blackheart! Keep giving stock tips to help fellow MU'ers!
-
Apple slammed again today, thanks to the story below ... now under $90.
This means Alphabet (Google) is now the largest market cap company
May 12, 2016 12:20 am JST
Apple suppliers face bleak year as demand for iPhone 7 weak
http://asia.nikkei.com/Business/AC/Apple-suppliers-face-bleak-year-as-demand-for-iPhone-7-weak
Taiwan's tech suppliers will get significantly fewer orders from Apple Inc. in the second half of this year compared with a year ago, no thanks to an ongoing slump in demand for premium smartphones and a lack of groundbreaking features for the upcoming iPhone 7, sources familiar with the matter told the Nikkei Asian Review.
"Suppliers are saying that they are getting fewer orders for the second half of this year compared with the year-ago period," a source said. "The traditional peak season this year will not be able to compare to the past few years."
Another source said that for Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company, the sole supplier for the latest A10 chips used in iPhone 7, its iPhone 6s and iPhone 7 chip shipments for the June to December period will likely shrink to 70%--80% of the level reached in the second half of 2015.
-
Warren Buffett putting a ton of money into Apple.
-
Warren Buffett putting a ton of money into Apple.
Actually he is not, it is new Lieutenants they are doing it. And it is not a ton of money. It's a small amount for Berkshire and small amount for Apple.
They bought in it the first quarter with an average price of $99. Closed at $93.88 today.
This is Berkshire's second big technology investment. The first was IBM.
Berkshire started acquiring IBM in Q1 2011. He has amassed a $12 billion position with an average cost of $154. Last price is $149, so Buffett is sitting on a small loss.
Over the same period (Q1 2011 to April 30, 2016) the S&P 500 total return is exactly 100%. So Buffett managed a small loss while the market doubled.
Sum it up and good luck with the Apple position Warren.
-----------------
David Tepper, Cal Icahn, Julian Robertson, and Leon Cooperman, all extremely successful billionaire investors, sold all their Apple stock at the same time Buffett was buying.
-
$1 billion investment is large in my book.
-
$1 billion investment is large in my book.
Agreed. That's almost twice what my entire portfolio is worth!
-
$1 billion investment is large in my book.
Everything is relative. For a $500 billion company and an investor with hundreds of billions under management, it is a small investment.
-
Everything is relative. For a $500 billion company and an investor with hundreds of billions under management, it is a small investment.
It's his second largest position...yes? Thus, big
-
Agreed. That's almost twice what my entire portfolio is worth!
Damn, Mike - and I thought you were a player!
-
It's his second largest position...yes? Thus, big
Now even close.
If you include his public holdings only, around 16th
1. Kraft - $25B
2. Wells Fargo - $23B
3. Coke - $19B
4. IBM - $12B
5. AMEX - $9B
6. Phillips 66 - $6.5BB
7. Wal-Mart - $3.7B
8. US Bancorp - $3.5B
9. Davita - $2.8B
10. Moodys - $2.4B
11. Charter - $2.1B
12. Deere - $1.8B
13. Goldman - $1.8B
14. GM - $1.6B
15. Verisign - $1.2B
16. Apple $1.07B
17. USG - $1.0B
Of course he owns 100% of about 80 companies outright (Berkshire, Fruit of the Loom, Nebraska Furniture Mart, Dairy Queen, Marmom Group, Business Wire, Clayton Homes,. Netjets, Lubrizol, Johns Manville, Helzberg Diamonds, General Re, Geico, FlightSafety, See's Candies, Duracell, Burlington Northern, Benjamin Moore... and about 60ish more). Include these and Apple is not in the top 30.
And this does not count various non-stock bets like perferreds, loans (which he will do with Yahoo) derivatives, silver, bonds etc.
As of March 31, 2016 - Berkshire had total assets of $427 billion. Apple is worth $500 billion. viewed this way, a $1 billion position is not that significant.
It's an after-thought for for him. And again, it was not even him anyway. He 83 and has two portfolio managers working for him becasue many investors are worried if he assumes room temperature. They initiated this position.
-
Stock up about 4.5% since Heis's post re: below $90 on Thursday.. a couple of trading days can make a difference when you pick-n-choose, a''ina? #PraiseCook
-
Stock up about 4.5% since Heis's post re: below $90 on Thursday.. a couple of trading days can make a difference when you pick-n-choose, a''ina? #PraiseCook
Nope, this thread was started at $93.74 as the price was listed in the first post (April 30). Needed Uncle Warren to raise the dead and get it to close at $93.88 yesterday. This thread is 14 cents under water.
Also remember Uncle Warren's cost is $99 so he is 5% underwater.
-
Here's something Heisy and other market followers should appreciate ...
On Monday, The Street posted an article headlined: "5 Safe, Stable Stocks with Big Upside Potential."
The companies it named were Hormel, Verizon, Sanderson Farms, UnitedHealth and AT&T.
https://www.thestreet.com/story/13572639/1/5-defensive-stocks-with-big-upside-potential.html?puc=yahoo&cm_ven=YAHOO
On Tuesday, The Street posted an article headlined: "These 5 Defensive Stock Picks Aren't as Safe as They Seem."
You'll never guess which 5 companies they named!!!
https://www.thestreet.com/story/13573027/1/these-5-defensive-stock-picks-aren-t-as-safe-as-they-seem.html?puc=yahoo&cm_ven=YAHOO
Hilarious ... to anybody who didn't invest in the 5 "safe" companies based upon Monday's article.
Then again, if one invests based upon something the yahoos at The Street say, one gets what one deserves.
-
Isn't Berkshire buying up a bunch of Apple stock a sign that Warren views it more of a value company than a growth one?
-
Isn't Berkshire buying up a bunch of Apple stock a sign that Warren views it more of a value company than a growth one?
Probably. But pretty much any stock that has that large of a dividend is a "value" stock (http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2016/05/16/apples-dividend-makes-the-stock-a-bargain.aspx)
But it is also a sign that he thinks it is a bargain. I'd say its an undervalued value stock. It doesn't have massive growth potential, but it is still selling at a discount. He might have some paper losses since he bought, but I'm sure he's confident that the stock will erase those losses.
One of my favorite quotes from Mr. Buffett (from his 2013 letter):
"It should be an enormous advantage for investors in stocks to have wildly fluctuating valuations
placed on their holdings – and for some investors, it is. After all, if a moody fellow with a farm bordering my
property yelled out a price every day to me at which he would either buy my farm or sell me his – and those prices
varied widely over short periods of time depending on his mental state – how in the world could I be other than
benefited by his erratic behavior? If his daily shout-out was ridiculously low, and I had some spare cash, I would
buy his farm. If the number he yelled was absurdly high, I could either sell to him or just go on farming.
Owners of stocks, however, too often let the capricious and often irrational behavior of their fellow owners
cause them to behave irrationally as well. Because there is so much chatter about markets, the economy, interest
rates, price behavior of stocks, etc., some investors believe it is important to listen to pundits – and, worse yet,
important to consider acting upon their comments"
-
Now even close.
If you include his public holdings only, around 16th
1. Kraft - $25B
2. Wells Fargo - $23B
3. Coke - $19B
4. IBM - $12B
5. AMEX - $9B
6. Phillips 66 - $6.5BB
7. Wal-Mart - $3.7B
8. US Bancorp - $3.5B
9. Davita - $2.8B
10. Moodys - $2.4B
11. Charter - $2.1B
12. Deere - $1.8B
13. Goldman - $1.8B
14. GM - $1.6B
15. Verisign - $1.2B
16. Apple $1.07B
17. USG - $1.0B
Of course he owns 100% of about 80 companies outright (Berkshire, Fruit of the Loom, Nebraska Furniture Mart, Dairy Queen, Marmom Group, Business Wire, Clayton Homes,. Netjets, Lubrizol, Johns Manville, Helzberg Diamonds, General Re, Geico, FlightSafety, See's Candies, Duracell, Burlington Northern, Benjamin Moore... and about 60ish more). Include these and Apple is not in the top 30.
And this does not count various non-stock bets like perferreds, loans (which he will do with Yahoo) derivatives, silver, bonds etc.
As of March 31, 2016 - Berkshire had total assets of $427 billion. Apple is worth $500 billion. viewed this way, a $1 billion position is not that significant.
It's an after-thought for for him. And again, it was not even him anyway. He 83 and has two portfolio managers working for him becasue many investors are worried if he assumes room temperature. They initiated this position.
Thank you
I would clarify one thing. Yes, Berkshire's total assets are around half a billion, but their stock holdings are about $128 billion.
-
Thank you
I would clarify one thing. Yes, Berkshire's total assets are around half a billion, but their stock holdings are about $128 billion.
Half a billion in assets? Close. Your only off by a measly $450 billion.
-
Half a billion in assets? Close. Your only off by a measly $450 billion.
And each quarter Berkshire makes about $50 billion in revenues, and about $5.5 billion in net income. So if their $1 billion Apple investment instantly went to zero, they would not even have a loss this quarter.
The point again, is this is a rounding error investment. But because it is Warren and Apple, we have to make it a much bigger deal than its economic meaning would suggest.
-
The point again, is this is a rounding error investment. But because it is Warren and Apple, we have to make it a much bigger deal than its economic meaning would suggest.
I understand what you're saying, and I agree with your general thesis.
Nevertheless, Buffett/BRK could have taken their billion bucks and bought any number of other companies. He/they chose Apple.
Of course it's "news," whether you want to admit it or not.
-
The point again, is this is a rounding error investment.
Ridiculous.
-
Half a billion in assets? Close. Your only off by a measly $450 billion.
Half a trillion. Sorry, typing fast before going to work. Half a billion we used to do about every two months...or as my old boss would say, "you're on the hook for $8 million a day come hell or high water". Never missed in 6 years.
-
Half a trillion. Sorry, typing fast before going to work. Half a billion we used to do about every two months...or as my old boss would say, "you're on the hook for $8 million a day come hell or high water". Never missed in 6 years.
Ummm... cool?
-
$100.54 after hours with a 2.27%div.
-
Half a trillion. Sorry, typing fast before going to work. Half a billion we used to do about every two months...or as my old boss would say, "you're on the hook for $8 million a day come hell or high water". Never missed in 6 years.
Turning your own F up into an off topic, uncomfortable (for everyone but you), self aggrandizing expression of self love. The World According to Chico.
-
$100.54 after hours with a 2.27%div.
Must be Cook's doing.
-
For the record, I'm agnostic on the stock. So don't take the following as a sell ...
a 5 year growth pattern of 100% should be considered fantastic.
That five year growth rate occurred 4 years ago. As I noted above
September 21, 2012 $99
Today $93
What has also happened since September 21, 2012?
* Tim Cook is running the company with the influence of Jobs
* No new products (the watch was a bust), only upgrades to existing products.
Isn't the stock saying your return has been zero and will remain zero until they invent something new? Replacement cycle is worth collecting a dividend and nothing more.
AAPL up to $104... what new invention do they have, bud?
-
Half a trillion. Sorry, typing fast before going to work. Half a billion we used to do about every two months...or as my old boss would say, "you're on the hook for $8 million a day come hell or high water". Never missed in 6 years.
Totally. I've got an 8-inch unit, and I think Warren Buffett is long on Apple.
-
AAPL up to $104... what new invention do they have, bud?
None ...
You seem like a nice guy Jay Bee. Haven't you suffered enough as everything else goes up 50% and this dog has done nothing since 2012? Take this gift, sell and go make some real money in something that has a future.
Apple is now a replacement cycle phone utility. Tons of better alternatives (but not Disney).
-
None ...
You seem like a nice guy Jay Bee. Haven't you suffered enough as everything else goes up 50% and this dog has done nothing since 2012? Take this gift, sell and go make some real money in something that has a future.
Apple is now a replacement cycle phone utility. Tons of better alternatives (but not Disney).
I haven't had a position in AAPL at anytime from 2012 through today. My comment has only to do with your comments on the stock, company & CEO
-
AAPL at $111.77. Livermore continues to cost us $$$$
-
AAPL at $111.77. Livermore continues to cost us $$$$
And now closing in on $114. Glad I didn't listen to the pro's recommendation.
-
And now closing in on $114. Glad I didn't listen to the pro's recommendation.
Up to $115.27. That damn T-Cook!!!
-
LOL Any other hot tips JL?
-
Wake up guys. Jesse attacks certain companies strictly for political reasons.
I seriously hope no one here uses his posts as any kind of advice.
-
Wake up guys. Jesse attacks certain companies strictly for political reasons.
I seriously hope no one here uses his posts as any kind of advice.
I don't think its political. I think he's genuinely clueless.
-
Wake up guys. Jesse attacks certain companies strictly for political reasons.
I seriously hope no one here uses his posts as any kind of advice.
Most of what I do is directly contrary to his advice, as the vast majority of my investments are buy and hold of low cost index funds. I have never made a panic sale or purchase based on his threads about crashes due to the Greek default, the Brexit, etc...and my portfolio is set up very nicely for my retirement in a few years.
-
Most of what I do is directly contrary to his advice, as the vast majority of my investments are buy and hold of low cost index funds. I have never made a panic sale or purchase based on his threads about crashes due to the Greek default, the Brexit, etc...and my portfolio is set up very nicely for my retirement in a few years.
How many years have you been doing this strategy?
-
This guys investment is looking good
http://www.netonenews.com/2016/05/10/man-bets-retirement-on-cubs-world-series/
-
Most of what I do is directly contrary to his advice, as the vast majority of my investments are buy and hold of low cost index funds. I have never made a panic sale or purchase based on his threads about crashes due to the Greek default, the Brexit, etc...and my portfolio is set up very nicely for my retirement in a few years.
This is the kind of idiotic strategy that made Buffett, Lynch, Bogle, etc, rich, and made millionaires out of the guys (and ladies) next door. Shame on you!
-
My little buy-limit order that triggered a few months ago on AAPL at $90 has made me quite a bit of money :)
This is the kind of idiotic strategy that made Buffett, Lynch, Bogle, etc, rich, and made millionaires out of the guys (and ladies) next door. Shame on you!
+1
-
How many years have you been doing this strategy?
The long-term approach and absence of panic sales? 37 years. When I was 17, I bought 7 shares of KO at $37 with money from a summer job. The stock rose and split many times over the ensuing years...and there were lots of times I thought it'd be cool to take some earnings. Ultimately, I waited about 20 years, when it was a nice chunk of the down payment on our first house.
More seriously, a little over 20 years. I have been investing in 401ks and 403bs since my first job out of law school through dollar cost averaging, and the only adjustments have been rebalancing as I get closer to retirement.
The only "play money" I have is an old Roth IRA that I threw a few bucks into until my income prevented it. I use that for the occasional game of stock trader. I did well on the AAPL I just sold today at $115.31 after buying at around $100. Biggest failure was buying BDSI a day before its CEO unexpectedly quit to go to a competitor. On balance, I've probably made a few bucks...but nothing close to the other stuff.
-
This guys investment is looking good
http://www.netonenews.com/2016/05/10/man-bets-retirement-on-cubs-world-series/
Fake. Just like your advice, eh?
-
This is the kind of idiotic strategy that made Buffett, Lynch, Bogle, etc, rich, and made millionaires out of the guys (and ladies) next door. Shame on you!
Warren is a little lighter in the wallet lately...
http://time.com/money/4492947/warren-buffett-wells-fargo-scandal/
-
Warren is a little lighter in the wallet lately...
http://time.com/money/4492947/warren-buffett-wells-fargo-scandal/
Soon will apply for food stamps, I'm sure.
-
Soon will apply for food stamps, I'm sure.
Pretty sure they don't accept them at Gorat's, ai-na?
-
Tech is dead. Retail driving the profits, ai-na
https://www.google.com/search?q=amazon+stock&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en-us&client=safari
-
Closed Friday at $119.04. Less than a buck off 52-week high.
Smuggles, I hope you didn't actually short it when it was under $100.
-
All time high is $132 in 2015.
Still a dog that badly lags the overall market. Throw a dart at the stack tables and you'll probably do better.
Only reason it even near 52 week high is the overall market is enjoying a massive Trump rally that has dragged it screaming and kicking higher. (Or it is an Obama is leaving rally, take your pick)
As I said last summer, not short it. Have not been short the market since I covered election night.
-
http://www.investors.com/news/technology/click/iphone-8-could-be-last-hurrah-for-apple-smartphone-growth/
January 13, 2017
Apple (AAPL) will benefit from pent-up demand for handset upgrades with the iPhone 8 later this year, but after that, growth in the business is unclear, Bernstein analyst Toni Sacconaghi told CNBC on Friday.
"The smartphone is an increasingly mature product, and that's the preponderance of Apple's revenues and profits," he said. "For Apple to really grow meaningfully again, it's going to have to find new things beyond the phone, and that's a big question mark."
Sacconaghi's remarks come two days after Silicon Valley investor Peter Thiel agreed with the notion that "the age of Apple is over." There's not much major innovation to be had in smartphones anymore, he said in an interview with the New York Times.
"Apple's fortunes going forward will need to come from other sources and, if Apple is unable to move from the smartphone, it's unclear if this company will be an on-going growing company," Sacconaghi said. "Many investors have rightfully had that question for a couple of years and I think that continues to be the operative question."
Apple is investing in a number of areas to find the next growth opportunities for the company, including the Apple Watch and streaming video, he said. Other analysts have pointed to self-driving cars and augmented reality products as businesses Apple could pursue.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/11/fashion/peter-thiel-confirm-or-deny.html?_r=0
January 11, 2017
Q: The age of Apple is over.
A; Confirm. We know what a smartphone looks like and does. It’s not the fault of Tim Cook, but it’s not an area where there will be any more innovation.
-
Still a dog that badly lags the overall market. Throw a dart at the stack tables and you'll probably do better.
You started this thread on April 29th of last year. Since then AAPL is up 11.4%, while the S&P 500 is up 4.7%.
I hope that you aren't in charge of your family's finances. If you are, then stick to target date funds. There's no shame in letting someone else take the reigns if you don't have enough time to learn about something this important.
-
You started this thread on April 29th of last year. Since then AAPL is up 11.4%, while the S&P 500 is up 4.7%.
I hope that you aren't in charge of your family's finances. If you are, then stick to target date funds. There's no shame in letting someone else take the reigns if you don't have enough time to learn about something this important.
You might be surprised how prominent and successful he is as a financial market expert.
-
You might be surprised how prominent and successful he is as a financial market expert.
A crapposting "expert" on the internet is just a crapposter.
-
You started this thread on April 29th of last year. Since then AAPL is up 11.4%, while the S&P 500 is up 4.7%.
I hope that you aren't in charge of your family's finances. If you are, then stick to target date funds. There's no shame in letting someone else take the reigns if you don't have enough time to learn about something this important.
Did you actually read the April post? Because if you did, you would realize this does not begin to offset the crap show Apple has been the last 5 years.
-
You might be surprised how prominent and successful he is as a financial market expert.
Keep it to yourself.
-
A crapposting "expert" on the internet is just a crapposter.
Except he does it in real life with his and others' $$.
-
Did you actually read the April post? Because if you did, you would realize this does not begin to offset the crap show Apple has been the last 5 years.
Yeah, my response is on the first page. I did exactly what I said I would and did alright for myself
I'd enter at 90. Great price for a company with that much cash on hand. Plus the pain of change for all of those people in the Apple ecosystem is too high, they'll buy the crap out of the iPhone 7 when it comes out. AAPL will be doing great by Christmas, imo.
Even if Apple isn't up again by EoY, with as much cash as they have I believe that they'll be up in the next 10 years.
But I'm a boring long-term value investor. You guys might be looking for returns on different timeframes than I am.
I think that your posts in this thread display a fundamental misunderstanding of what Apple has been great at.
1. Hiring the best tech talent available: I'm in the industry and my last two companies have been ones that people will kill themselves to get into. One a recently public company in Chicago, now at a place that's still operating in the shadows. Apple continues to poach the tech talent that they want. The guys they've picked up are excellent and they stay at Apple for the rest of their careers. Only Google holds a torch to that. People leave FB, Amazon, & Microsoft as quickly as they have built a name for themselves for somewhere better.
2. Never being the 1st through the wall: Apple has a long history of never innovating, and that's what's made them successful. They wait for others to be 'first through the wall' and then they perfect the usability and industrial design of those products and make them even more successful than the original. Apple, but like Blizzard (now paired up with Activision), frequently enters markets as a big disruptor but rarely defines a new market.
With the cash that they have on hand and the moat they've built with the tech talent only they recruit and retain, I still believe that Apple is an excellent value in the long term.
Regarding Thiel's comment: There's a reason he constrained his comments to the iPhone and not the rest of Apple's businesses. Smartphone innovation has stalled, but Apple has the resources to fund plenty more market-disrupting products/services. Way more than Thiel and YCombinator could hope to fund.
BTW: It's anecdotal based on personal connections, but YCombinator does a terrible job at identifying tech talent. They've had their unicorns, but I wouldn't invest with them.
-
Except he does it in real life with his and others' $$.
Lots of people pass their Series exams. Lots of people crappost on the internet. Maybe the relationship is causal? :p
A couple of my friends are algo traders. I bet they are crapposters too.
-
Except he does it in real life with his and others' $$.
So, Mr. Potato is ether Peter Lynch, Dicks Strong, or Warren Buffett, ai na?
-
Or it is an Obama is leaving rally
Yeah, because 44's presidency was terrible for the market.
-
Only reason it even near 52 week high is the overall market is enjoying a massive Trump rally that has dragged it screaming and kicking higher. (Or it is an Obama is leaving rally, take your pick)
An 8-year Trump rally.
Who woulda thunk it?
Even for Heisy, this is beyond silly.
-
Yeah, my response is on the first page. I did exactly what I said I would and did alright for myself
I think that your posts in this thread display a fundamental misunderstanding of what Apple has been great at.
1. Hiring the best tech talent available: I'm in the industry and my last two companies have been ones that people will kill themselves to get into. One a recently public company in Chicago, now at a place that's still operating in the shadows. Apple continues to poach the tech talent that they want. The guys they've picked up are excellent and they stay at Apple for the rest of their careers. Only Google holds a torch to that. People leave FB, Amazon, & Microsoft as quickly as they have built a name for themselves for somewhere better.
2. Never being the 1st through the wall: Apple has a long history of never innovating, and that's what's made them successful. They wait for others to be 'first through the wall' and then they perfect the usability and industrial design of those products and make them even more successful than the original. Apple, but like Blizzard (now paired up with Activision), frequently enters markets as a big disruptor but rarely defines a new market.
With the cash that they have on hand and the moat they've built with the tech talent only they recruit and retain, I still believe that Apple is an excellent value in the long term.
Regarding Thiel's comment: There's a reason he constrained his comments to the iPhone and not the rest of Apple's businesses. Smartphone innovation has stalled, but Apple has the resources to fund plenty more market-disrupting products/services. Way more than Thiel and YCombinator could hope to fund.
BTW: It's anecdotal based on personal connections, but YCombinator does a terrible job at identifying tech talent. They've had their unicorns, but I wouldn't invest with them.
This is an excellent history lesson of what Apple was. What have then invented in the last 5 years? Hint, why has their suck underperformed so badly in the last 5 years?
-
This is an excellent history lesson of what Apple was. What have then invented in the last 5 years? Hint, why has their suck underperformed so badly in the last 5 years?
Your suck seems to be performing as well as ever
-
This is an excellent history lesson of what Apple was. What have then invented in the last 5 years? Hint, why has their suck underperformed so badly in the last 5 years?
Five years is generous of you, thanks!
First of all, underperforming by what measure? Apple has run up 98% to the S&P 500s 73%.
Apple released their smartwatch and continue to dominate smartwatch market share, but they (and the other players) vastly overestimated the size of that pie. That could have been a big analyst miss.
The iCloud release 5 years ago was not the first of its kind for mobile devices, but Apple marketed it better. It could be a catalyst for their current drive into the services space. We'll see how they compete as a television producer against Amazon & Netflix. The iCloud was expected to be a huge source of revenue, whereas it turned into a nice recurring income stream. That could have been a big analyst miss.
In the past 5 years Apple released both the first iPad Mini and iPad Pro, growing their slice of the pie in the tablet market. While they continue to dominate the tablet market, people aren't continuing to buy them. The analysts probably didn't see that coming.
Apple's iPhone 7 has disrupted the cellular market yet again, dragging all of the other manufacturers to getting rid of their headphone jacks. I'm not a fan, but I'm not surprised that other manufacturers are following suit.
Apple's Airpods (those bluetooth headphones) were released just under a month ago. I've been seeing about (anecdotally on Chicago's public transport) a 10% market penetration of other manufacturer's ugly bluetooth headphones. I expect the Airpods to be a hit with commuters in the coming year. I'm usually wrong with these short-term guesses.
Phones/Laptops/Desktops/Tablets are ripe for disruption like the CRT TV market was in the late 90s. There is parity for all of the players involved. We'll see what happens next, and I expect Apple to perfect the user experience of whatever seems to have a little traction. Again, they have the best talent and a pile of cash. I'm keeping my AAPL position, even though it's a little tempting to lock in my 30% gain and call it a win.
-
Five years is generous of you, thanks!
First of all, underperforming by what measure? Apple has run up 98% to the S&P 500s 73%.
Apple released their smartwatch and continue to dominate smartwatch market share, but they (and the other players) vastly overestimated the size of that pie. That could have been a big analyst miss.
The iCloud release 5 years ago was not the first of its kind for mobile devices, but Apple marketed it better. It could be a catalyst for their current drive into the services space. We'll see how they compete as a television producer against Amazon & Netflix. The iCloud was expected to be a huge source of revenue, whereas it turned into a nice recurring income stream. That could have been a big analyst miss.
In the past 5 years Apple released both the first iPad Mini and iPad Pro, growing their slice of the pie in the tablet market. While they continue to dominate the tablet market, people aren't continuing to buy them. The analysts probably didn't see that coming.
Apple's iPhone 7 has disrupted the cellular market yet again, dragging all of the other manufacturers to getting rid of their headphone jacks. I'm not a fan, but I'm not surprised that other manufacturers are following suit.
Apple's Airpods (those bluetooth headphones) were released just under a month ago. I've been seeing about (anecdotally on Chicago's public transport) a 10% market penetration of other manufacturer's ugly bluetooth headphones. I expect the Airpods to be a hit with commuters in the coming year. I'm usually wrong with these short-term guesses.
Phones/Laptops/Desktops/Tablets are ripe for disruption like the CRT TV market was in the late 90s. There is parity for all of the players involved. We'll see what happens next, and I expect Apple to perfect the user experience of whatever seems to have a little traction. Again, they have the best talent and a pile of cash. I'm keeping my AAPL position, even though it's a little tempting to lock in my 30% gain and call it a win.
The start date is 9/21/2012 the release date of the iPhone5. As I noted in the first post, that was the last Steve Jobs product and the next day it was Tim Cook's company Yes Cook started in October 2011 but he was "using the previous coaches players." On September 21, 2012 was the day Cook started with his own players and since that date the S&P 500 is up 70% and AAPL is up 32%
Airpods? ... they are a bust. like the watch, and Apple TV before it. This is a $625 billion company, four times the size of all the companies headquartered in WI combined. Apple needs a BIG product that will sell tens of billions every year. So I'll conceded all of those were good products (many of which I have and enjoy) but collectively if they don't generate enough revenues to matter, which is why I call them a bust. It is all rounding error stuff for Apple.
The answer is VR or Driverless and both will be blockbusters ... by someone else.
-
So, Mr. Potato is ether Peter Lynch, Dicks Strong, or Warren Buffett, ai na?
Pretty much,
-
Yeah, my response is on the first page. I did exactly what I said I would and did alright for myself
I think that your posts in this thread display a fundamental misunderstanding of what Apple has been great at.
1. Hiring the best tech talent available: I'm in the industry and my last two companies have been ones that people will kill themselves to get into. One a recently public company in Chicago, now at a place that's still operating in the shadows. Apple continues to poach the tech talent that they want. The guys they've picked up are excellent and they stay at Apple for the rest of their careers. Only Google holds a torch to that. People leave FB, Amazon, & Microsoft as quickly as they have built a name for themselves for somewhere better.
Again above is the way it was, not is
Tesla Is Snatching Apple’s Stars to Make Itself the New Apple
https://www.wired.com/2017/01/tesla-snatching-apples-stars-make-new-apple/
IF YOU DON’T follow the ins and outs of Silicon Valley personnel moves, you might have missed the news. Even if you saw it, it may not have made much sense. Chris Lattner is leaving Apple for Tesla? Chris who?
Lattner doesn’t enjoy the name recognition of a Tim Cook or a Jony Ive. But he’s a rock star among software engineers. As the guy who built Swift, Apple’s iPhone-centric programming language, he’s one of those coders that other coders put on a pedestal. He personifies Silicon Valley’s relentless push toward technology capable of changing the world.
Now, he’s moving on, becoming the head of software engineering for Autopilot, the technology that’s transforming Tesla’s electric vehicles into autonomous vehicles. Apple’s innovation machine is losing another key cog to a company that has lured so many others away from the House That Jobs Built. And that provides an obvious storyline for the tech press and so many other Silicon Valley watchers: Tesla is the new Apple.
------------------
While I question Apple and panned Disney, I am very bullish on Elon Musk. Warning, owning his stocks are not for the faint of heart, you're in for a wild ride but he's the true game changer.
-
Again above is the way it was, not is
Tesla Is Snatching Apple’s Stars to Make Itself the New Apple
https://www.wired.com/2017/01/tesla-snatching-apples-stars-make-new-apple/
IF YOU DON’T follow the ins and outs of Silicon Valley personnel moves, you might have missed the news. Even if you saw it, it may not have made much sense. Chris Lattner is leaving Apple for Tesla? Chris who?
Nobody reads Wired. They're shallow and completely out of the loop. Here: https://techcrunch.com/2017/01/10/tesla-hires-apples-creator-of-swift-as-new-vp-of-autopilot-software/
We'll see how impactful he is. His entire career has been spent on building tools for developers making his way up to director, and now he's going to be a senior leader in charge of an innovation department working on Tesla's Autopilot? I mean that's not a lateral move and a vote against your previous firm, who wouldn't take that huge promotion?
Matt Casebolt left from Apple to Tesla recently, but he career jumped from product design to engineering. A loss, but not unexpected with Apple closing their car division.
The other two people that Wired tried to tie together in their trend are a huge stretch:
Doug Field was a bigger loss, because that was a lateral move... but that was in 2013.
Rich Heley from Apple that left for Tesla in 2013 already left Tesla for Facebook.
Airpods? ... they are a bust. like the watch, and Apple TV before it. This is a $625 billion company, four times the size of all the companies headquartered in WI combined. Apple needs a BIG product that will sell tens of billions every year. So I'll conceded all of those were good products (many of which I have and enjoy) but collectively if they don't generate enough revenues to matter, which is why I call them a bust. It is all rounding error stuff for Apple.
They could be a bust. Hard to call it a bust, though, when the very first advertisement ran for it just yesterday. Most of the public hasn't made a purchasing decision yet, but it was a miss that they didn't get released in time for the holidays. I haven't seen anyone wearing a pair yet, but they could all be hidden behind wool hats this time of year.
The rest of the products have been relative busts, but they're all also market leaders (except for the Apple TV which got disrupted by Google's Chromecast, but they're still close in market share). It's really hard to accurately predict how big the market is going to be for new products, or if they'll just be fads.
The answer is VR or Driverless and both will be blockbusters ... by someone else.
Judging by their recent acquisitions, Apple will be a player in the VR market. If you haven't played extensively on FB's Occulus or HTC's Vive yet, you should. They're cool but they don't have that Apple touch. As of yet nobody has made a killer app for either. Most of my colleagues with VR systems are the same types that bought the Google Glass. They're still novelties, and people use their VR systems about as often as they used their Google Glass. Not much.
Tesla and Apple success aren't mutually exclusive. Again, I bought Apple as a long term value play more similar to KO. I think you're looking at them like they're going to continue being a growth company.
-
Again, I bought Apple as a long term value play more similar to KO. I think you're looking at them like they're going to continue being a growth company.
Here is my issue with this. Apple's valuation is still along the lines of a growth stock, not a value stock. You're paying a hefty premium for a value stock. It needs growth to work at these numbers.
(The "pure" indices split the S&P 500 into "growth" and "value.")
Apple
12-month trailing p/e = 14.49
12-month forward p/e = 13.32
Price/Book = 4.95
Price/Sales = 3.0
S&P 500 Pure Value
12-month trailing p/e = 13.95
12-month forward p/e = 12.68
Price/Book = 1.29
Price/Sales = 0.62
S&P 500 Pure Growth
12-month trailing p/e = 25.44
12-month forward p/e = 20.27
Price/Book = 3.95
Price/Sales = 2.53
-
Here is my issue with this. Apple's valuation is still along the lines of a growth stock, not a value stock. You're paying a hefty premium for a value stock. It needs growth to work at these numbers.
(The "pure" indices split the S&P 500 into "growth" and "value.")
Apple
12-month trailing p/e = 14.49
12-month forward p/e = 13.32
Price/Book = 4.95
Price/Sales = 3.0
S&P 500 Pure Value
12-month trailing p/e = 13.95
12-month forward p/e = 12.68
Price/Book = 1.29
Price/Sales = 0.62
S&P 500 Pure Growth
12-month trailing p/e = 25.44
12-month forward p/e = 20.27
Price/Book = 3.95
Price/Sales = 2.53
KO looks like a growth equity right now according to your S&P split. So does JNJ. Do you consider them to be as deeply flawed as AAPL? Because purely by the numbers if I were forced to choose between only those 3 I would be adding to my AAPL position even though it's overpriced right now.
Coca-Cola Company
Trailing P/E 24.79
Forward P/E 20.65
Price/Book (mrq) 6.76
Price/Sales (ttm) 4.15
Johnson & Johnson
Trailing P/E 20.12
Forward P/E 1 16.07
Price/Sales (ttm) 4.35
Price/Book (mrq) 4.29
-
KO looks like a growth equity right now according to your S&P split. So does JNJ. Do you consider them to be as deeply flawed as AAPL? Because purely by the numbers if I were forced to choose between only those 3 I would be adding to my AAPL position even though it's overpriced right now.
Coca-Cola Company
Trailing P/E 24.79
Forward P/E 20.65
Price/Book (mrq) 6.76
Price/Sales (ttm) 4.15
Johnson & Johnson
Trailing P/E 20.12
Forward P/E 1 16.07
Price/Sales (ttm) 4.35
Price/Book (mrq) 4.29
Pure Growth has 115 members AAPL, KO and JNJ are not among them
Pure Value has 116 members AAPL, KO and JNJ are not among them either
To be clear, S&P identified 115 stocks as clearly have growth characteristics and 116 as clearly having value characteristics. The other 273** stocks in the S&P 500 are mixed. AAPL, KO and JNJ are in this group.
So KO and JNJ have growth valuation but are not clearly growth stocks.
(** = did you know the S&P 500 actually has 504 stocks in it?)
-
Pure Growth has 115 members AAPL, KO and JNJ are not among them
Pure Value has 116 members AAPL, KO and JNJ are not among them either
To be clear, S&P identified 115 stocks as clearly have growth characteristics and 116 as clearly having value characteristics. The other 273** stocks in the S&P 500 are mixed. AAPL, KO and JNJ are in this group.
So KO and JNJ have growth valuation but are not clearly growth stocks.
(** = did you know the S&P 500 actually has 504 stocks in it?)
I did not know any of that. Interesting!
-
I did not know any of that. Interesting!
S&P classifications are based on an algorithm meaning they are based on HISTORY. The market discounts the FUTURE. So the market thinks KO and JNJ are still growth stocks even though their recent history suggests otherwise.
Conversely, AAPL is a very rich value stock. I take that to mean the market has NEARLY given up on AAPL continuing to be a growth stock and it MOSTLY convinced it is a value stock. (This is why it has underperformed since September 2012. In market parlance, AAPL multiples have been contracting from growth to value.)
-
Smuggles, you do realize that if your boy Comrade Twitler succeeds in letting big companies bring their cash back to the U.S. without severe (or any) penalties, it will likely push AAPL to new highs and then some, right?
-
Smuggles, you do realize that if your boy Comrade Twitler succeeds in letting big companies bring their cash back to the U.S. without severe (or any) penalties, it will likely push AAPL to new highs and then some, right?
It will have little to no effect on the stock price (either way). See the 2004 version Bush did, it too had no effect on stock prices.
Question, where is that money now? Answer, in a NY bank. If the money is allowed back in the US, where does it go? Answer, a NY bank. Instead of "Apple Europe" the account is called "Apple US" and beyond that nothing really changes.
What will they do with that money once freed in the US? Nothing different than they are now. They have borrowed against to do whatever that wanted to now.
Where it does matter is smaller companies that deal overseas that do not have the flexibility of a fortune 500 company.
Thought for you ... if you really believe that their is $2+ trillion trapped overseas, in foreign banks, and if we have a tax holiday and that money comes back to the US and causes US stocks to soar (presumably as they use it to buy back stock) do you also believe that foreign banking systems will collapse as $2+ trillion flees to the US? Do you also believe the dollar will soar (foreign currencies will decline). Can't have it both ways. If it affects stocks, it hurts something else. This is largely zero-sum which is why it does noit effect stock prices (like 2004).
-
It's about investor sentiment, Smuggles. And I disagree with you. Investors will feel good about AAPL's future and therefore share prices will rise.
Maybe we'll get the chance to see if Comrade Twitler can make Apple great again.
-
It's about investor sentiment, Smuggles. And I disagree with you. Investors will feel good about AAPL's future and therefore share prices will rise.
Maybe we'll get the chance to see if Comrade Twitler can make Apple great again.
He hates Apple and uses a Samsung.
-
He hates Apple and uses a Samsung.
Actually, that is a good point.
If it's not all about Comrade Twitler, it sucks, so I take it back and I'm considering selling my AAPL today.
-
Heisey is this you???
https://www.reddit.com/r/wallstreetbets/comments/5qhzcy/well_this_is_it_going_allin_my_last_stand_my/
-
Heisey is this you???
https://www.reddit.com/r/wallstreetbets/comments/5qhzcy/well_this_is_it_going_allin_my_last_stand_my/
Not quite crazy enough to be Heisy
-
AAPL at $121.95. Dude cost us a lot of money.
-
AAPL at $121.95. Dude cost us a lot of money.
Against my better judgment I will respond to this post.
On a relative (to the S&P 500) basis, the stock peaked the day the iPhone5 was released on September 21, 2012. This was the last product Steve Jobs worked on (he died in October 2011).
If the stock had kept pace with the market since that date, it would be about $177 today, not $122. It has been an awful performer. Why, because the iPhone5 was Apple's last trick. That is the clear message of the market. Or, show me a "big" idea. They don't have one.
Here is the problem ... Apple is a phone company. Next is iPad and then the Mac
(sorry about the size of the graphic)
(http://static3.businessinsider.com/image/580fc7b4362ca444038b4bb3-2341/bii%20apple%20quarterly%20revenue%20share%20by%20product%203q16.png)
81% of its revenues is iPhones, iPads and Macs. Everything else does not matter. (In fact iPads may not matter.) Repeat, they are a three product company. So, watches, TV, air-pods, iTunes and the rest simply do not matter.
The problem as shown here is all three of these products have negative growth.
http://www.businessinsider.com/apple-q4-2016-earnings-2016-10
Let me say it bluntly, Apple is out of "big" ideas. The last "big" idea was the iPhone5, which is also the last product Jobs worked on. Everything since has been a marginal upgrade. Apple is now a utility, they get a sale because someone's phone breaks and they buy a new one. So they trade like a utility and therefore, badly lag the overall market.
The only way Jay Bee statement is true is he yet another rapid fire trader/speculator and short-term speculated correctly. Congrats to Jay Bee, I'm sure you are very wealthy and look forward to the Jay Bee Annex to the AL.
-
Curious, what made the iPhone 5 more "big idea" than the iPhone 6?
-
Curious, what made the iPhone 5 more "big idea" than the iPhone 6?
That was it for the innovation of this product ... the 5s, 6, 6S and now 7 are the same thing with a faster processor and more memory.
No reason to sleep on the sidewalk for two days to get the new iPhone, it just a slightly faster version of the previous iPhone. Get it when your current phone breaks.
-
That was it for the innovation of this product ... the 5s, 6, 6S and now 7 are the same thing with a faster processor and more memory.
No reason to sleep on the sidewalk for two days to get the new iPhone, it just a slightly faster version of the previous iPhone. Get it when your current phone breaks.
I guess I'm missing how the 5 wasn't the same thing as the 4s if the 6 is the same thing as the 5.
-
I guess I'm missing how the 5 wasn't the same thing as the 4s if the 6 is the same thing as the 5.
The 5 was a redesign from the 4S. It was also the first full LTE phone.
The 7 is essentially the same phone, just faster. Yes the 7 comes in different sizes but, again, Apple is a $500 billion company and a different sizes alone is not going to support it.
Apple needs a whole new product that makes everyone stop what they are doing and go out and get it. They had that with the MAC, iPod, iPhone and iPad. Amazing they had 4 such products. But without another such product the stock is too high.
See many of the comments on previous pages, they admit they don't have anything but "hope" they will pull a rabbit out of their hat. Good luck with that.
-
The 5 was a redesign from the 4S. It was also the first full LTE phone.
The 7 is essentially the same phone, just faster. Yes the 7 comes in different sizes but, again, Apple is a $500 billion company and a different sizes alone is not going to support it.
Apple needs a whole new product that makes everyone stop what they are doing and go out and get it. They had that with the MAC, iPod, iPhone and iPad. Amazing they had 4 such products. But without another such product the stock is too high.
See many of the comments on previous pages, they admit they don't have anything but "hope" they will pull a rabbit out of their hat. Good luck with that.
Different sizes helped this quarter, bud...
-
Killed earnings. As Smuggles' orange boy would say, BIG TIME.
I guess the only thing wrong with Apple stock is that I don't own enough of it!!
-
Curious, what made the iPhone 5 more "big idea" than the iPhone 6?
Mainly because the latter doesn't fit his agenda. The iphone 5 was considered a disappointment by man, which led to many consumers skipping the 5 and waiting for the 6.
Trying to claim the 5 was a "big idea" and the 6 wasn't is inane. They were both incremental advancements on their technology and platform.
-
Mainly because the latter doesn't fit his agenda. The iphone 5 was considered a disappointment by man, which led to many consumers skipping the 5 and waiting for the 6.
Trying to claim the 5 was a "big idea" and the 6 wasn't is inane. They were both incremental advancements on their technology and platform.
No ...
By the 5 and LTE the product was fully developed. Since the only thing they have offered is faster processors and different sizes. That is why phone sales are merely replacements, no new people are coming in.
I'll amend that last statement ... they did get new customers in Q4 because Samsung's Note 7 phones caught fire. So unless another Samsung phone blows up this quarter, they are going back to waiting for someone's phone to break to get another sale. See their guidance ... they downgraded the first quarter because the replacement cycle and new sales (again thanks to competitors phones exploding) were higher in Q4, so Apple warned that Q1 will not be as good.
Again, if this company was everything you think, it would be $177 today not $125.
Sell Apple buy the S&P 500 ETF and make a lot more money, that has been the case the last four years and will continue to be the case going forward. And that has been my argument all along, they under-perform the broad market.
-
Heisey is this you???
https://www.reddit.com/r/wallstreetbets/comments/5qhzcy/well_this_is_it_going_allin_my_last_stand_my/
Edit, faked account.
-
No ...
By the 5 and LTE the product was fully developed. Since the only thing they have offered is faster processors and different sizes. That is why phone sales are merely replacements, no new people are coming in.
I'll amend that last statement ... they did get new customers in Q4 because Samsung's Note 7 phones caught fire. So unless another Samsung phone blows up this quarter, they are going back to waiting for someone's phone to break to get another sale. See their guidance ... they downgraded the first quarter because the replacement cycle and new sales (again thanks to competitors phones exploding) were higher in Q4, so Apple warned that Q1 will not be as good.
Again, if this company was everything you think, it would be $177 today not $125.
Sell Apple buy the S&P 500 ETF and make a lot more money, that has been the case the last four years and will continue to be the case going forward. And that has been my argument all along, they under-perform the broad market.
I am not entering the apple stock good/bad argument. Not my area, I can not offer any accurate insight.
But you're wrong on claiming iphone 5 was a "big idea" and the iPhone 6 was not. Either they are both "big ideas" or neither are, which is a matter of opinion. But they both fit in the same box.
-
How about those AAPLs?
-
Sell Apple buy the S&P 500 ETF and make a lot more money, that has been the case the last four years and will continue to be the case going forward. And that has been my argument all along, they under-perform the broad market.
Uh ... no ... unless you are using some of your comrade's alternative facts. Smuggles.
I just plugged the numbers into the investment calculator at longrundata.com using a start date of 1/31/13 and an end date of 1/31/17 - in other words, the last 4 years.
$1,000 invested in AAPL on 1/31/13 was worth $2,029.42 at market close yesterday, an annual gain of 19.34% and a total gain of 103%.
$1,000 invested in SPY on 1/31/13 was worth $1,648.17 at market close yesterday, an annual gain of 13.30% and a total gain of 65%.
So unless you are in a universe in which 65% is better than 103% and 13% is better than 19%, you are mistaken.
Oh, and that doesn't even count today's big jump for AAPL. If we run the numbers again tomorrow using 2/1 dates instead of 1/31 dates, AAPL's outperformance will be even more sizable.
Just for giggles and snorts, I also ran the numbers for 1-year, 3-year, 5-year, 10-year and 15-year periods. AAPL beat SPY in every time period, usually by a considerable margin.
I'm sure you could cherry-pick dates and find some period in which SPY beat AAPL, but that's not the point here, right? You sounded very sure of yourself - some might even say smug - with your 4-year declaration.
Going forward? Who really knows? You claim to, but I'm guessing that 1, 3 and 5 years ago you were making similar claims about SPY being a lock to beat AAPL going forward.
Smuggles, I'm not even a huge AAPL bull. I only own about 100 shares. I'm a buy-and-hold guy who may never sell them but very well might not buy any more (except via dripping).
I simply prefer facts to silly statements that are presented as facts but aren't facts at all.
#actualfacts
-
Uh ... no ... unless you are using some of your comrade's alternative facts. Smuggles.
I just plugged the numbers into the investment calculator at longrundata.com using a start date of 1/31/13 and an end date of 1/31/17 - in other words, the last 4 years.
$1,000 invested in AAPL on 1/31/13 was worth $2,029.42 at market close yesterday, an annual gain of 19.34% and a total gain of 103%.
$1,000 invested in SPY on 1/31/13 was worth $1,648.17 at market close yesterday, an annual gain of 13.30% and a total gain of 65%.
So unless you are in a universe in which 65% is better than 103% and 13% is better than 19%, you are mistaken.
Oh, and that doesn't even count today's big jump for AAPL. If we run the numbers again tomorrow using 2/1 dates instead of 1/31 dates, AAPL's outperformance will be even more sizable.
Just for giggles and snorts, I also ran the numbers for 1-year, 3-year, 5-year, 10-year and 15-year periods. AAPL beat SPY in every time period, usually by a considerable margin.
I'm sure you could cherry-pick dates and find some period in which SPY beat AAPL, but that's not the point here, right? You sounded very sure of yourself - some might even say smug - with your 4-year declaration.
Going forward? Who really knows? You claim to, but I'm guessing that 1, 3 and 5 years ago you were making similar claims about SPY being a lock to beat AAPL going forward.
Smuggles, I'm not even a huge AAPL bull. I only own about 100 shares. I'm a buy-and-hold guy who may never sell them but very well might not buy any more (except via dripping).
I simply prefer facts to silly statements that are presented as facts but aren't facts at all.
#actualfacts
(https://media.tenor.co/images/f13a71af50a1edf19aa3ef3621eb01b8/raw)
-
Uh ... no ... unless you are using some of your comrade's alternative facts. Smuggles.
I just plugged the numbers into the investment calculator at longrundata.com using a start date of 1/31/13 and an end date of 1/31/17 - in other words, the last 4 years.
$1,000 invested in AAPL on 1/31/13 was worth $2,029.42 at market close yesterday, an annual gain of 19.34% and a total gain of 103%.
$1,000 invested in SPY on 1/31/13 was worth $1,648.17 at market close yesterday, an annual gain of 13.30% and a total gain of 65%.
So unless you are in a universe in which 65% is better than 103% and 13% is better than 19%, you are mistaken.
Oh, and that doesn't even count today's big jump for AAPL. If we run the numbers again tomorrow using 2/1 dates instead of 1/31 dates, AAPL's outperformance will be even more sizable.
Just for giggles and snorts, I also ran the numbers for 1-year, 3-year, 5-year, 10-year and 15-year periods. AAPL beat SPY in every time period, usually by a considerable margin.
I'm sure you could cherry-pick dates and find some period in which SPY beat AAPL, but that's not the point here, right? You sounded very sure of yourself - some might even say smug - with your 4-year declaration.
Going forward? Who really knows? You claim to, but I'm guessing that 1, 3 and 5 years ago you were making similar claims about SPY being a lock to beat AAPL going forward.
Smuggles, I'm not even a huge AAPL bull. I only own about 100 shares. I'm a buy-and-hold guy who may never sell them but very well might not buy any more (except via dripping).
I simply prefer facts to silly statements that are presented as facts but aren't facts at all.
#actualfacts
You need to consider two things (not sure longrundata.com does):
1) Transactions cost. It is often cheaper to purchase an index than it is to purchase one stock. These costs can eat into your total return.
2) Risk. True evaluation of stock performance accounts for risk, i.e., focusing on a risk-adjusted return (e.g., Sharpe Ratio).
-
Damn it. Heisy keeps losing us $$
AAPL up another 6%+ today to a close of $128.79. Headlines about how great the 7 Plus is... #SizeMatters
-
I am not entering the apple stock good/bad argument. Not my area, I can not offer any accurate insight.
But you're wrong on claiming iphone 5 was a "big idea" and the iPhone 6 was not. Either they are both "big ideas" or neither are, which is a matter of opinion. But they both fit in the same box.
No, the big idea was the iPhone and by the 5 it was fully exploited. All the 6 offered was a different size, you cannot support a $630 billion market cap in different phone sizes. You need something new. That means VR, cars, TVs and Apple has nothing on these fronts.
Uh ... no ... unless you are using some of your comrade's alternative facts. Smuggles.
I just plugged the numbers into the investment calculator at longrundata.com using a start date of 1/31/13 and an end date of 1/31/17 - in other words, the last 4 years.
$1,000 invested in AAPL on 1/31/13 was worth $2,029.42 at market close yesterday, an annual gain of 19.34% and a total gain of 103%.
$1,000 invested in SPY on 1/31/13 was worth $1,648.17 at market close yesterday, an annual gain of 13.30% and a total gain of 65%.
So unless you are in a universe in which 65% is better than 103% and 13% is better than 19%, you are mistaken.
Oh, and that doesn't even count today's big jump for AAPL. If we run the numbers again tomorrow using 2/1 dates instead of 1/31 dates, AAPL's outperformance will be even more sizable.
Just for giggles and snorts, I also ran the numbers for 1-year, 3-year, 5-year, 10-year and 15-year periods. AAPL beat SPY in every time period, usually by a considerable margin.
I'm sure you could cherry-pick dates and find some period in which SPY beat AAPL, but that's not the point here, right? You sounded very sure of yourself - some might even say smug - with your 4-year declaration.
Going forward? Who really knows? You claim to, but I'm guessing that 1, 3 and 5 years ago you were making similar claims about SPY being a lock to beat AAPL going forward.
Smuggles, I'm not even a huge AAPL bull. I only own about 100 shares. I'm a buy-and-hold guy who may never sell them but very well might not buy any more (except via dripping).
I simply prefer facts to silly statements that are presented as facts but aren't facts at all.
#actualfacts
Why did you pick the low to measure this? September 21, 2012 AAPL was $100. January 31, 2013 it was $60. You ignored the decline.
And Again the 5 was the last product that Jobs worked on. While Cook started in October 2011, his legacy really starts when the last Jobs product was released ... September 21, 2012 and iPhone 5.
AAPL all-time high was $132 May 2015 the S&P 500 is 15% higher and AAPL is still 5% below this level.
So yes, pick the low of anything, even gold, and it beats the S&P500
Damn it. Heisy keeps losing us $$
AAPL up another 6%+ today to a close of $128.79. Headlines about how great the 7 Plus is... #SizeMatters
The market is begging you with a high price to book your profits and take Ms Jay Bee a week long bender with the money. Instead you seem to be insisting you hold on until AAPL shows it has no more new ideas and you run these gains down your leg.
-
For you Jay Bee
(https://www.biancoresearch.com/bianco/SubscriberArea/newsclips/2017/01/Barronscartoon011617.PNG)
-
Why did you pick the low to measure this? September 21, 2012 AAPL was $100. January 31, 2013 it was $60. You ignored the decline.
Um ... I believe your exact quote was "that has been the case the last four years."
So, stupid me, I went back four years from the day you said that and reported the facts. Shame on me. I should have searched for a low that would have fit your narrative instead of simply doing what you suggested.
But the date you now are suggesting is classic cherry-picking.
AAPL has beaten SPY over the last 1-year, 3-year, 5-year, 10-year and 15-year periods.
But go ahead, Smuggles, take Comrade Twitler's advice about the Iraq War and declare victory.
#actualfacts.
-
You need to consider two things (not sure longrundata.com does):
1) Transactions cost. It is often cheaper to purchase an index than it is to purchase one stock. These costs can eat into your total return.
2) Risk. True evaluation of stock performance accounts for risk, i.e., focusing on a risk-adjusted return (e.g., Sharpe Ratio).
1. If you are a buy-and-hold investor, as I am, with a stock you are making one purchase. My commission on AAPL was $9. Even if I sell it someday, that's a total of $18. Period.
Even though VOO (Vanguard S&P 500 ETF) has a microscopic .05% expense ratio, that's $5 every year. If you hold it for even 4 years, that's $20. Every year you hold it after that, it's more expensive than if you had bought one stock from a discount brokerage. And in my Vanguard account (which is not where I hold AAPL), my commissions are only $2, so that's cheaper than holding VOO for only a few months.
2. I agree that a risk-averse person probably should not own individual stocks. If one is really, really freaked out by risk, one probably shouldn't even own a mutual fund - which, after all, are just a collection of stocks.
-
The spikes are new phone releases. So Q1 and Q2 will fall dramatically. As noted in a post on the previous page, smooth out the new release speikes and iPhones have negative growth since 2014.
And again, the new peak was helped by Samsung phones blowing up in Q4. Oh, and Samsung sells more phones than Apple, even after the Note 7 debacle.
Why is the stock at an 18 month high? The hope that Apple has something else. Today's hope is it will be services and not a new product (and even some vague talk that will start producing TV shows like Amazon and Netflix). None of this is concrete, just hope talk.
(https://infographic.statista.com/normal/chartoftheday_7800_apple_s_quarterly_iphone_sales_n.jpg)
-
OK.
And yet AAPL has beaten SPY in 1-, 3-, 5-, 10- and 15-year periods. In fact, it has beaten SPY handily over most of those periods. I wish I had owned it for 15 years instead of 1.5 years!
But you know that AAPL will lag from here on out. Just as you knew it 5 years ago, I'm sure.
#actualfacts.
-
The spikes are new phone releases. So Q1 and Q2 will fall dramatically. As noted in a post on the previous page, smooth out the new release speikes and iPhones have negative growth since 2014.
You either love #alternativefacts, or really suck at math.
2015 was their all time high. So they couldn't have seen negative growth since 2014, as every Q of 2015 was a year over year high compared to 2014.
Now, it would be correct to say that total sales in 2016 were down compared to 2015, but year over year sales for 2017 Q1 are an all time high again. So none of what you say is actually true.
But looking at this chart refutes another one of your claims. You claim the iPhone5 was a "big idea" and the iPhone6 was not. iPhone 5 was released in Q4 2012, iPhone 6 in Q4 2014. Q1 2013 shows only about a 25% increase in sales (year over year) due to the Q4 iPhone5 release, but Q1 2016 shows a 40% increase in sales. Seems like iPhone 6 was a bigger deal.
Its sad, if you do this for a living, that my instincts on the iPhone 5 vs. iPhone 6 is more accurate than your professional research.
-
OK.
And yet AAPL has beaten SPY in 1-, 3-, 5-, 10- and 15-year periods. In fact, it has beaten SPY handily over most of those periods. I wish I had owned it for 15 years instead of 1.5 years!
But you know that AAPL will lag from here on out. Just as you knew it 5 years ago, I'm sure.
#actualfacts.
The chart below is the ratio of Apple's stock price to the S&P 500 Index. It is a total return chart so dividends are included. Highlighted on the chart are important milestones in blue and peaks and troughs of the ratio in black.
To be clear, when the ratio is rising Apple is beating the overall market. When it is falling it is lagging the overall market.
The ratio peaked three days before the release of the iPhone5 (September 18, 2012). That was the end of Apple being a relentless out-performer (ratio always going up). Or, as I have said before, the market thinks Apple as an innovator stopped with the release of the iPhone5 as the smart phone was completely developed by that release (and LTE compatible). This was the last product Steve Jobs worked on.
If you really believe that the introduction of new sizes with the iPhone6 and its different sizes was a game changer, see the release dates on the ratio chart. The ratio went up and down after the 6 and was still below the iPhone6 release date just two weeks ago.
This means if you bought Apple's stock the day the iPhone6 was released believing the new sizes were game changers, the market has not validated this belief. In other words, the iPhone6 and new sizes has not re-established the ratio's relentless uptrend seen before 2012.
Since September 21, 2012 the ratio of Apple's stock has moved sideways meaning it is moving in-line with the overall market. Yes it has its periods where the ratio rises, like now, and when it falls. Restated, Apple is a trading vehicle that is bought and sold. Since it is no longer an innovator, the ratio will continue sideways to lower. Apple is still viable as a utility, you buy a new phone when your old phone breaks.
Apple can prove me wrong at anytime. Invent something that makes the market think it is the innovator it was when Steve Jobs ran it. I'd bet it cannot.
(https://www.biancoresearch.com/bianco/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/DashAppleSPX020217.png)
-
Below I fixed the post of my advice for Jay Bee
(https://www.biancoresearch.com/bianco/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/Barronscartoon011617.png)
-
The chart below is the ratio of Apple's stock price to the S&P 500 Index. It is a total return chart so dividends are included. Highlighted on the chart are important milestones in blue and peaks and troughs of the ratio in black.
To be clear, when the ratio is rising Apple is beating the overall market. When it is falling it is lagging the overall market.
The ratio peaked three days before the release of the iPhone5 (September 18, 2012). That was the end of Apple being a relentless out-performer (ratio always going up). Or, as I have said before, the market thinks Apple as an innovator stopped with the release of the iPhone5 as the smart phone was completely developed by that release (and LTE compatible). This was the last product Steve Jobs worked on.
If you really believe that the introduction of new sizes with the iPhone6 and its different sizes was a game changer, see the release dates on the ratio chart. The ratio went up and down after the 6 and was still below the iPhone6 release date just two weeks ago.
This means if you bought Apple's stock the day the iPhone6 was released believing the new sizes were game changers, the market has not validated this belief. In other words, the iPhone6 and new sizes has not re-established the ratio's relentless uptrend seen before 2012.
Since September 21, 2012 the ratio of Apple's stock has moved sideways meaning it is moving in-line with the overall market. Yes it has its periods where the ratio rises, like now, and when it falls. Restated, Apple is a trading vehicle that is bought and sold. Since it is no longer an innovator, the ratio will continue sideways to lower. Apple is still viable as a utility, you buy a new phone when your old phone breaks.
Apple can prove me wrong at anytime. Invent something that makes the market think it is the innovator it was when Steve Jobs ran it. I'd bet it cannot.
(https://www.biancoresearch.com/bianco/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/DashAppleSPX020217.png)
OK, Smuggles. You have altered your point so it isn't erroneous but it still isn't really confirmation of anything. You also have made a prediction that only time will tell is accurate or not.
So as of right now, nothing to see here. Except some nice profits for those who bought AAPL on the pullback.
-
OK, Smuggles. You have altered your point so it isn't erroneous but it still isn't really confirmation of anything. You also have made a prediction that only time will tell is accurate or not.
So as of right now, nothing to see here. Except some nice profits for those who bought AAPL on the pullback.
Did not alter my point. May not have articulated it well at times but never altered.
nothing to see here. Except some nice profits for those who bought AAPL on the pullback.
Exactly, it a trading vehicle, like bean futures that you trade in and out of. Or as they say on Wall Street, rent it from time to time, but don't own it.
-
Did not alter my point. May not have articulated it well at times but never altered.
nothing to see here. Except some nice profits for those who bought AAPL on the pullback.
Exactly, it a trading vehicle, like bean futures that you trade in and out of. Or as they say on Wall Street, rent it from time to time, but don't own it.
AAPL just announced it's going big-time into India, a largely untapped, cellphone-crazy market with 1 billion people. It would seem there are plenty of growth opportunities ahead.
I'll leave my 100 shares alone and enjoy the ride. You trade in and out and have fun. We can both be happy.
The main difference between us - not just concerning AAPL but most things - is that I don't make bold statements in which I declare absolute certainty about subjects.
But that's why you're Smuggles and I'm not!
-
AAPL just announced it's going big-time into India, a largely untapped, cellphone-crazy market with 1 billion people. It would seem there are plenty of growth opportunities ahead.
I'll leave my 100 shares alone and enjoy the ride. You trade in and out and have fun. We can both be happy.
The main difference between us - not just concerning AAPL but most things - is that I don't make bold statements in which I declare absolute certainty about subjects.
But that's why you're Smuggles and I'm not!
They announced they are going to manufacture phones in India, no change in their marketing efforts in the country.
-
AAPL continues to be pummeled.. down.. er.. up to $131.53 at close today. Thanks a lot, Heisy. At ~$90 you were warning at how horrible it would perform.
-
I've enjoyed buying APPL in the $90s and selling in the $130s. Done that several times.
-
I've enjoyed buying APPL in the $90s and selling in the $130s. Done that several times.
Huh??
-
I've enjoyed buying APPL in the $90s and selling in the $130s. Done that several times.
Correct!
As the ratio chart above shows, AAPL is no longer a relentless out-performer. It has it periods and then goes away.
It is no longer a long-term investment as of September 2012. It is a trading vehicle to be bought and sold.
Now that it is above $131, Wall Street really wants you to be rich. So sell it and take your profits and move on to something else.
(Again, move on to something else. All investments are competing investments. The "do nothing" option is to but the overall market via a broad-based ETF, not 0% yielding cash)
-
WSJ article this morning touting the performance of AAPL & the building excitement for its next phone.
Goldman Sachs put out a price target of $150 today
Stock is at $133.53 at the moment
Thanks a lot, Yukon
-
(http://memeguy.com/photos/images/mrw-the-subject-of-bestiality-comes-up-in-a-thread-79351.gif)
-
(http://memeguy.com/photos/images/mrw-the-subject-of-bestiality-comes-up-in-a-thread-79351.gif)
Well, unless AAPL is on a rocket ship to the stars- and it might be - it probably will come back down to earth, at least somewhat, and Smuggles can tell us how right he was again.
-
WSJ article this morning touting the performance of AAPL & the building excitement for its next phone.
Goldman Sachs put out a price target of $150 today
Stock is at $133.53 at the moment
Thanks a lot, Yukon
Don't forget that Heisy thinks you should dump Disney as well.
-
WSJ article this morning touting the performance of AAPL & the building excitement for its next phone.
Goldman Sachs put out a price target of $150 today
Stock is at $133.53 at the moment
Thanks a lot, Yukon
I've been trading for over 30 years and when the "town crier" emerges, it is one of the most dangerous things to profits,. Because the town crier is too emotionally invested in his position to see otherwise.
What is the town crier? Someone that is so emotionally invested in a position that when it moves in their favor, they cannot contain themselves so they start "crying out" every new high. This is Jay Bee crying out every time AAPL moves another dollar is his favor.
The problem is he is blinded. He will lose a substantial sum of his money. Not if, only when.
If you worked for me as one of my traders, I would force you to sell now and try something that you don't have the emotional investment in.
-
Of course, you don't work for me because their are no more human traders left. Only computers. I now have "data scientists" working for me instead of traders.
And computers, in the end are fairly stupid and overdo everything. Knowing how to play off them is the key to successful trading.
Welcome to the new fundamentals that drive investing. These same "fundamentals" almost brought down the system in 2008 (actually they did and it was bailed out, but that is another story for another day).
----------------------------------
MIT Technology Review
February 7, 2017
As Goldman Embraces Automation, Even the Masters of the Universe Are Threatened
Software that works on Wall Street is changing how business is done and who profits from it.
https://www.technologyreview.com/s/603431/as-goldman-embraces-automation-even-the-masters-of-the-universe-are-threatened/
At its height back in 2000, the U.S. cash equities trading desk at Goldman Sachs’s New York headquarters employed 600 traders, buying and selling stock on the orders of the investment bank’s large clients. Today there are just two equity traders left.
Automated trading programs have taken over the rest of the work, supported by 200 computer engineers. Marty Chavez, the company’s deputy chief financial officer and former chief information officer, explained all this to attendees at a symposium on computing’s impact on economic activity held by Harvard’s Institute for Applied Computational Science last month.
The experience of its New York traders is just one early example of a transformation of Goldman Sachs, and increasingly other Wall Street firms, that began with the rise in computerized trading, but has accelerated over the past five years, moving into more fields of finance that humans once dominated. Chavez, who will become chief financial officer in April, says areas of trading like currencies and even parts of business lines like investment banking are moving in the same automated direction that equities have already traveled.
----------
By Luc Lacroix / AFP, NEW YORK
Febraury 12, 2017
Algorithms become the most dominant players on Wall Street
Today, algorithms are the dominant force in markets, playing a role in the vast majority of securities transactions. “I would say it is 90 percent algorithmic, but there is not a great way to quantify that,” said Valerie Bogard, an equity analyst at Tabb Group, a research and consulting firm. “Even though [people] may send an order through a sales desk, it is possible it is going through an algo.” Algorithmic trades vary in complexity and can be carried out with minimal human involvement once they are set up. For example, the branding and technology company T3 has created a robotic, or “bot,” system that reads US President Donald Trump’s Twitter feed and implements stock trades if it determines based on a quickfire reading that there will likely be a negative impact on a company’s shares. Other firms, such as QuantCube Technology, use algorithms to make trades following analysis of so-called “Big Data.”
-
I've been trading for over 30 years and when the "town crier" emerges, it is one of the most dangerous things to profits,. Because the town crier is too emotionally invested in his position to see otherwise.
What is the town crier? Someone that is so emotionally invested in a position that when it moves in their favor, they cannot contain themselves so they start "crying out" every new high. This is Jay Bee crying out every time AAPL moves another dollar is his favor.
The problem is he is blinded. He will lose a substantial sum of his money. Not if, only when.
I don't know Jay Bee's investing philosophy, so I'll speak for myself.
I bought my fairly small AAPL position at about $95. When it went down below $90, I didn't lose a cent ... because I did not sell at the bottom. It's now at $133. If it goes down to, say, $110, I won't have lost a cent. Not only will I not be selling it, but even if I did sell it, I bought it at $95 in the first place.
I figure I will hold AAPL for 20 years, and I will reinvest the dividends. The price will go up and it will go down some. And it will go up more and it will go down some. And it will go up still more and it will go down some. Lather, rinse, repeat.
Now, I could try to guess the tops and sell, and then try to guess the bottoms and buy. Or I could just hold and reap the rewards long-term.
This is pretty much how I manage my entire portfolio. I am a very reluctant seller, and a very long-term owner of great companies.
I don't try to outsmart the market. I know you do, and that's cool, Smuggles. I don't begrudge you your billions, as long as you don't begrudge me my mere millions.
-
Funny. The higher the price goes, the more Heisy argues that he was right.
Amazing!
JB has to be an idiot for making these huge profits.
-
I don't know Jay Bee's investing philosophy, so I'll speak for myself.
I bought my fairly small AAPL position at about $95. When it went down below $90, I didn't lose a cent ... because I did not sell at the bottom. It's now at $133. If it goes down to, say, $110, I won't have lost a cent. Not only will I not be selling it, but even if I did sell it, I bought it at $95 in the first place.
I figure I will hold AAPL for 20 years, and I will reinvest the dividends. The price will go up and it will go down some. And it will go up more and it will go down some. And it will go up still more and it will go down some. Lather, rinse, repeat.
Now, I could try to guess the tops and sell, and then try to guess the bottoms and buy. Or I could just hold and reap the rewards long-term.
This is pretty much how I manage my entire portfolio. I am a very reluctant seller, and a very long-term owner of great companies.
I don't try to outsmart the market. I know you do, and that's cool, Smuggles. I don't begrudge you your billions, as long as you don't begrudge me my mere millions.
As the ratio chart above shows, you'd be better off with this exact philosophy with and S&P 500 ETF. And you would have made 40% more money since 2012. And Again, 2012 was not a random date, it was the end of the Jobs era and since then it goes up and down but has largely been a laggard to the broad market.
So, serious question, what have you seen since Jobs' death that makes you think this will be a better idea over the next 20 years as opposed to an S&P 500 ETF? It has not the last 4 1/2 years.
Seems like the entire company is now riding on the iPhone8 and its augmented reality (AR). If it is the next Siri or the watch (over-hyped disappointments), it's a$70 stock. If it is the second coming of smart phones,it's a $200 stock. Good luck, without Jobs at the helm, you'll need it.
I'll bet on Google.
-
As the ratio chart above shows, you'd be better off with this exact philosophy with and S&P 500 ETF. And you would have made 40% more money since 2012. And Again, 2012 was not a random date, it was the end of the Jobs era and since then it goes up and down but has largely been a laggard to the broad market.
So, serious question, what have you seen since Jobs' death that makes you think this will be a better idea over the next 20 years as opposed to an S&P 500 ETF? It has not the last 4 1/2 years.
Seems like the entire company is now riding on the iPhone8 and its augmented reality (AR). If it is the next Siri or the watch (over-hyped disappointments), it's a$70 stock. If it is the second coming of smart phones,it's a $200 stock. Good luck, without Jobs at the helm, you'll need it.
I'll bet on Google.
I don't just own AAPL. I own 40+ companies. It is one piece of my investing puzzle. And I have beaten SPY the last several years.
I am not really a big-time AAPL bull. I bought the company because I thought it was a quality brand available at an attractive price. It is one of my smaller positions. I see no reason to sell it. Since I've owned it, it has killed SPY. And since I've owned it is all that matters to me, not some cherry-picked timeframe of your choosing.
-
Warren Buffett. Just another moron who doesn't know anything about investing:
In a regulatory filing, Berkshire reported owning 57.4 million shares of Apple as of Dec. 31, which would now be worth $7.74 billion, up from just from 15.2 million shares in the iPhone maker three months earlier.
-
Warren Buffett. Just another moron who doesn't know anything about investing:
In a regulatory filing, Berkshire reported owning 57.4 million shares of Apple as of Dec. 31, which would now be worth $7.74 billion, up from just from 15.2 million shares in the iPhone maker three months earlier.
Don't get me started on America's living hypocrisy.
Have you looked at his (poor) track record over the last 10 years? Did you notice that he bought Apple with funds from his Walmart sale that he was crushed on? Have you noted his 2011 admission that the financial crisis essentially bankrupted him and the bailouts are the only reason he is still the second richest man in America.
Have you noticed that your hero was the largest stock holder in Moodys, Goldman, mortgage brokers and the single largest defender of the practices that caused the financial crisis? Have you noticed that he owns Burlington Northern railroad, the largest shipper of crude by rail (which has had a bad record of blowing up, killing people and causing severe environmental damage) yet he funds and promotes extreme environmentalist to protest the cheaper and safer alternate crude oil pipelines, a direct competitor of Burlington.
Have you read his (87 year old and probably senile) partner Charlie Munger insane rants about putting Jews back in the ovens?
The man was the greatest investor that has ever lived until about 2005. Since he has been a doubling deal walking contradiction that promoted the worst practices in the financial markets for personal gain, and has gotten more in governemnt bailouts that any single person to stay a billionaire, and his track record over in the post-crisis period has not been good. Oh, and he pays for environmentalists to fight pipelines that compete with his railroad that keeps blowing up when shipping crude.
If you want to pick someone that is "not a moron" when it comes to Apple, try Carl Icahn, he as one of its biggest supporters and largest shareholders until 2015 when he walked away from it, which turned out to be an excellent timing. And he is a billionaire that did not need a government bailout to stay that way and he has actually had a good track record post-crisis.
(http://img.timeinc.net/time/daily/2013/1312/360_cover_1216.jpg)
Other than that, I really have no opinion on this topic. :)
-
Don't get me started on America's living hypocrisy.
Have you looked at his (poor) track record over the last 10 years? Did you notice that he bought Apple with funds from his Walmart sale that he was crushed on? Have you noted his 2011 admission that the financial crisis essentially bankrupted him and the bailouts are the only reason he is still the second richest man in America.
Have you noticed that your hero was the largest stock holder in Moodys, Goldman, mortgage brokers and the single largest defender of the practices that caused the financial crisis? Have you noticed that he owns Burlington Northern railroad, the largest shipper of crude by rail (which has had a bad record of blowing up, killing people and causing severe environmental damage) yet he funds and promotes extreme environmentalist to protest the cheaper and safer alternate crude oil pipelines, a direct competitor of Burlington.
Have you read his (87 year old and probably senile) partner Charlie Munger insane rants about putting Jews back in the ovens?
The man was the greatest investor that has ever lived until about 2005. Since he has been a doubling deal walking contradiction that promoted the worst practices in the financial markets for personal gain, and has gotten more in governemnt bailouts that any single person to stay a billionaire, and his track record over in the post-crisis period has not been good. Oh, and he pays for environmentalists to fight pipelines that compete with his railroad that keeps blowing up when shipping crude.
If you want to pick someone that is "not a moron" when it comes to Apple, try Carl Icahn, he as one of its biggest supporters and largest shareholders until 2015 when he walked away from it, which turned out to be an excellent timing. And he is a billionaire that did not need a government bailout to stay that way and he has actually had a good track record post-crisis.
(http://img.timeinc.net/time/daily/2013/1312/360_cover_1216.jpg)
Other than that, I really have no opinion on this topic. :)
I did a quick Google search and could not find out exactly when Icahn sold all of his shares. It appears most were sold in Q4 2015 and he had liquidated his entire position by March 31, 2016.
Using 10/15/15 as a midway point in Q4 2015, had Icahn held on to his AAPL and reinvested all dividends, he would have made $1,245 for every $1,000 owned - a 24.5% gain in only 16 months' time. (SPY gained 18.7% over the same span.)
What we do know is the date Icahn gleefully announced he was done with AAPL. That was April 28, 2016. Instead of saying with such certainty that AAPL was a crappy investment, if Icahn had put his money back into AAPL, he would have turned every $1,000 invested into $1,453.91 - an enviable 45.4% gain in just 10 months time. (SPY is up 14.5% over the same span.)
Yep, Icahn sure did a great service to you and others who believed on 4/28/16 he was right on about AAPL. He kept you from beating SPY by 300%, saving you from any pesky taxes!
-
I did a quick Google search and could not find out exactly when Icahn sold all of his shares. It appears most were sold in Q4 2015 and he had liquidated his entire position by March 31, 2016.
Using 10/15/15 as a midway point in Q4 2015, had Icahn held on to his AAPL and reinvested all dividends, he would have made $1,245 for every $1,000 owned - a 24.5% gain in only 16 months' time. (SPY gained 18.7% over the same span.)
What we do know is the date Icahn gleefully announced he was done with AAPL. That was April 28, 2016. Instead of saying with such certainty that AAPL was a crappy investment, if Icahn had put his money back into AAPL, he would have turned every $1,000 invested into $1,453.91 - an enviable 45.4% gain in just 10 months time. (SPY is up 14.5% over the same span.)
Yep, Icahn sure did a great service to you and others who believed on 4/28/16 he was right on about AAPL. He kept you from beating SPY by 300%, saving you from any pesky taxes!
Quit using facts. That isn't fair.
-
I did a quick Google search and could not find out exactly when Icahn sold all of his shares. It appears most were sold in Q4 2015 and he had liquidated his entire position by March 31, 2016.
Using 10/15/15 as a midway point in Q4 2015, had Icahn held on to his AAPL and reinvested all dividends, he would have made $1,245 for every $1,000 owned - a 24.5% gain in only 16 months' time. (SPY gained 18.7% over the same span.)
What we do know is the date Icahn gleefully announced he was done with AAPL. That was April 28, 2016. Instead of saying with such certainty that AAPL was a crappy investment, if Icahn had put his money back into AAPL, he would have turned every $1,000 invested into $1,453.91 - an enviable 45.4% gain in just 10 months time. (SPY is up 14.5% over the same span.)
Yep, Icahn sure did a great service to you and others who believed on 4/28/16 he was right on about AAPL. He kept you from beating SPY by 300%, saving you from any pesky taxes!
So your argument is Ichan got his arse ripped selling Apple so he is not credible. But Buffett just traded out of getting his arse ripped in Walmart and into Apple and that makes him credible. So we have two billionaires sitting on donuts ... got it.
And speaking of Buffett ... his oven salesman Munger is out today saying his philosophy to investing no longer works. Read below ... is Munger saying he is full of it and no one should use their purchase as a reason to be bullish? He said he cannot beat the S&P 500 ETF and therefore no longer has a use to society.
Stock pickers beware: Charlie Munger thinks you're in big trouble
http://www.cnbc.com/2017/02/15/stock-pickers-beware-charlie-munger-thinks-youre-in-big-trouble.html
Active investment managers have been taking a beating through most of the eight-year bull market run for stocks, and Berkshire Hathaway's Charlie Munger thinks the pain isn't going to stop anytime soon.
Much has been made over the poor performance of stock pickers. Fewer than 1 in 5 beat the S&P 500 in 2016, driving half a trillion dollars of investors cash into indexes, primarily through passively managed exchange-traded funds.
During a talk Wednesday, Berkshire's vice chair had little comfort to offer.
"The index thing is absolute agony for investment professionals … who have almost no chance of beating it," Munger said. "Most people handle that with denial ... I understand — I don't want to think about my own death, either."
Munger said the rise of ETFs has driven fees lower overall, squeezing managers accustomed to generous compensation.
"It's a huge problem, and it makes your generation of money managers have way more difficulties and causes a lot of worry and fretfulness, and I think the people who are worried and fretful are absolutely right," he said. "I would hate to manage a trillion dollars in the big stocks and try to beat the indexes. I don't think I could do it."
-
So your argument is Ichan got his arse ripped selling Apple so he is not credible.
Nope, my argument is that YOU are not credible, Smuggles.
In your great rush to bash Buffett, you held up Icahn as the ideal, as "someone who is not a moron when it comes to Apple."
You said that, and you even provided a nice magazine cover to "prove" that you are the smartest guy in the room. I didn't use the Vulcan mind trick to make you do it.
All I did was present facts. Had Icahn bought AAPL on 4/28/16, when he was bragging about having sold it, he would have realized a 45.4% gain in 10 months, more than triple SPY's gain.
I know that facts sometimes bother you, Smuggles, but I'm going to try to stick with them.
-
If you want to pick someone that is "not a moron" when it comes to Apple, try Carl Icahn, he as one of its biggest supporters and largest shareholders until 2015 when he walked away from it, which turned out to be an excellent timing. And he is a billionaire that did not need a government bailout to stay that way and he has actually had a good track record post-crisis.
The same Carl Icahn who said Apple would hit $200 a couple years back? Great call.
;)
-
The same Carl Icahn who said Apple would hit $200 a couple years back? Great call.
;)
Heisy's kind of guy.
Whatever is on the mind today is etched in stone. Nothing changes and nothing else matters.
-
Nope, my argument is that YOU are not credible, Smuggles.
In your great rush to bash Buffett, you held up Icahn as the ideal, as "someone who is not a moron when it comes to Apple."
You said that, and you even provided a nice magazine cover to "prove" that you are the smartest guy in the room. I didn't use the Vulcan mind trick to make you do it.
All I did was present facts. Had Icahn bought AAPL on 4/28/16, when he was bragging about having sold it, he would have realized a 45.4% gain in 10 months, more than triple SPY's gain.
I know that facts sometimes bother you, Smuggles, but I'm going to try to stick with them.
What fact? You admit yourself that you made up numbers?
My mission is complete! You've become a mini-smuggles!!!
-
What fact? You admit yourself that you made up numbers?
My mission is complete! You've become a mini-smuggles!!!
What numbers did I make up?
Fact:
Had anybody bought AAPL on 4/28/16, the day Icahn bragged about having sold it, they would have realized a 45.4% gain from then until today.
Period.
I think you have lost your mind. Actually, I doubt that's it. You just don't like to admit you're wrong. None of us do ... but you REALLY don't.
-
What numbers did I make up?
Fact:
Had anybody bought AAPL on 4/28/16, the day Icahn bragged about having sold it, they would have realized a 45.4% gain from then until today.
Period.
I think you have lost your mind. Actually, I doubt that's it. You just don't like to admit you're wrong. None of us do ... but you REALLY don't.
That's the day is finished selling. He had a $6 billion position and started months before when the stock was still trading in the $120s. He also claims he did his Q1 2016 selling "before it started down" which means around $110.
Truth is we don't know what price he sold but he said he made "within a couple of bucks of $2 billion."
You might like this ... your favorite depends wearing hypocrite did not make the decision to buy it. Oh he picked Combs and Weschler so that makes it as good as him picking it.
https://www.fool.com/investing/2016/06/14/whos-right-about-apple-stock-carl-icahn-or-warren.aspx
When it comes to Berkshire Hathaway's recent purchase of Apple, the only thing we know for certain is that Buffett explained in an email to The Wall Street Journal that one of his investing lieutenants, either Todd Combs or Ted Weschler, made the decision. Buffett has traditionally stayed away from tech companies because he considers the sector too dynamic and unpredictable, but Apple offers many of the characteristics Buffett appreciates in a business.
-
Apple's stock is getting crushed. Down 25% in the last year to near a new two-year of $93.74. Here is the timeline that is hurting the stock.
October 5, 2011, Steve Jobs passes away. The last product he worked on was the iPhone5
September 21, 2012, the iPhone 5 was released. Stock was at $99 (Nearly $700 pre-split)
September 22, 2012, Steve Jobs influence on Apple products was over. The Tim Cook era really started.
April 29, 2016 (today), Apple stock is $93.74, below the iPhone5 release.
My issue was you started a post and whined about AAPL when it was down. $93.74, less than 10 months ago. Your went on and on about how Cook was awful and the stock had no hope - stick a fork in it.
It was stupid, and you selected a downturn in the stock to make your rant.
It was a shameful, stupid rant... and you've continued to hang onto it. Monty Python style. Amazing.
Again, I have had no position in AAPL at any time we've been speaking of. You talked me out of it. Thanks, bud. For losing me millions.
-
I bought late but made some big scratch. Dividend stock too.
-
That's the day is finished selling. He had a $6 billion position and started months before when the stock was still trading in the $120s. He also claims he did his Q1 2016 selling "before it started down" which means around $110.
Truth is we don't know what price he sold but he said he made "within a couple of bucks of $2 billion."
You might like this ... your favorite depends wearing hypocrite did not make the decision to buy it. Oh he picked Combs and Weschler so that makes it as good as him picking it.
https://www.fool.com/investing/2016/06/14/whos-right-about-apple-stock-carl-icahn-or-warren.aspx
When it comes to Berkshire Hathaway's recent purchase of Apple, the only thing we know for certain is that Buffett explained in an email to The Wall Street Journal that one of his investing lieutenants, either Todd Combs or Ted Weschler, made the decision. Buffett has traditionally stayed away from tech companies because he considers the sector too dynamic and unpredictable, but Apple offers many of the characteristics Buffett appreciates in a business.
Much of that actually is factual, Smuggles. That's a nice departure for you.
But is the following a fact or not ...
On April 28, 2016, Carl Icahn told everybody who would listen that he sold his entire Apple stake. If, instead of making that grand proclamation, he had simply bought AAPL again, he would have made a 45.4% gain from that date to now?
Is that a fact or not?
Yes, Icahn sold AAPL earlier and he had made plenty of money on it. I'm not disputing that. But he waited until 4/28/16 to tell the world, and I'm guessing that influenced his followers, guys like you. So those who follow his every breath also chose not to invest in AAPL, and they lost out on the 45.4% gain, too.
That's all I'm saying. Stop moving the goalposts.
Of course, I will say a little more now ...
Jay Bee is right! You were big-time down on AAPL $40+ per share ago! Congratulation!! The only way you could look like less of an authority on this subject would have been if you had shorted it. Please tell me you didn't do that!
Hey, it happens, Smuggles. You made a call, you put yourself out there, and you were wrong.
Go ahead, say it with me ...
"I"
You can do it ...
"was"
Come on, Smuggles, for once show a little honesty and humility ...
"wrong."
Yay!
-
Much of that actually is factual, Smuggles. That's a nice departure for you.
But is the following a fact or not ...
On April 28, 2016, Carl Icahn told everybody who would listen that he sold his entire Apple stake. If, instead of making that grand proclamation, he had simply bought AAPL again, he would have made a 45.4% gain from that date to now?
Is that a fact or not?
Yes, Icahn sold AAPL earlier and he had made plenty of money on it. I'm not disputing that. But he waited until 4/28/16 to tell the world, and I'm guessing that influenced his followers, guys like you. So those who follow his every breath also chose not to invest in AAPL, and they lost out on the 45.4% gain, too.
That's all I'm saying. Stop moving the goalposts.
Of course, I will say a little more now ...
Jay Bee is right! You were big-time down on AAPL $40+ per share ago! Congratulation!! The only way you could look like less of an authority on this subject would have been if you had shorted it. Please tell me you didn't do that!
Hey, it happens, Smuggles. You made a call, you put yourself out there, and you were wrong.
Go ahead, say it with me ...
"I"
You can do it ...
"was"
Come on, Smuggles, for once show a little honesty and humility ...
"wrong."
Yay!
He mentioned it on April 28 because he was on Fast Money on CNBC that day and Scott Wapner asked him about it. That was not his intention for going on,. Wapner asked and he answered. Again at that point he had been out of Apple for some time.
If he did not say it on April 28, it would have been public anyway when he filed his 13F on May 15.
-
My issue was you started a post and whined about AAPL when it was down. $93.74, less than 10 months ago. Your went on and on about how Cook was awful and the stock had no hope - stick a fork in it.
It was stupid, and you selected a downturn in the stock to make your rant.
It was a shameful, stupid rant... and you've continued to hang onto it. Monty Python style. Amazing.
Again, I have had no position in AAPL at any time we've been speaking of. You talked me out of it. Thanks, bud. For losing me millions.
Only one reason I talked you out of it ... the arguments made sense. They still do.
Yes it rallied 45% but I'm not a believer. I need to see a real product from Cook to reconsider, not a phone with a little more memory and a slightly faster processor.
-
He mentioned it on April 28 because he was on Fast Money on CNBC that day and Scott Wapner asked him about it. That was not his intention for going on,. Wapner asked and he answered. Again at that point he had been out of Apple for some time.
If he did not say it on April 28, it would have been public anyway when he filed his 13F on May 15.
You couldn't do it.
You couldn't admit that my math was perfect. You couldn't admit that those who bought on April 28 instead of listening to Icahn would be 45.4% richer. And, mostly, you couldn't admit that you were dead wrong when you called Apple stock broken when it was trading under $95.
I can't say I'm surprised, but, to quote your favorite person in the world, "Sad."
-
I'm not going to go back through ten pages of posts, but it sounds like your reason for not liking Apple is completely different from Icahn's. You mention their lack of innovation and their need to do something different than just rely on the iphone and the different iterations of it. Icahn's concerns are more about the competition in China and the hard time Apple has had gaining market share there, not because of their need for a new product.
While I do understand your argument, I don't agree with it. Apple doesn't have to anything different than what they're doing now. They have an extremely loyal client base and they make a product that people view as an essential part of their daily lives. Everyone I know, uses their phones to do just about everything and people are either iOS or android people and are very hesitant to switch. I personally am an android person, I have a Samsung phone and have never owned an apple product besides an Ipod. However, as a stock I think Apple is a great long-term holding because they will continue to generate tons and tons of cash, they have an amazingly solid balance sheet and will just buy their growth if they can't develop a revolutionary product on their own.
The reality is that because how the S&P 500 is constructed the performance of the index is going to be tied closely to that of Apple as it is the largest company in the index. You will have times of outperformance and times of underperformance but I do agree that over the long-term they will likely be very close, but if you're not concerned with performance relative to the index, you'll be able to sleep well at night owning Apple stock.
-
My thought on Apple, which is in the $130s today is that it will dip to $95 before it reach $180. It won't crash, but it will bob around in a range because it is a cash cow, but it won't launch upward until it finds the next big thing.
-
My thought on Apple, which is in the $130s today is that it will dip to $95 before it reach $180. It won't crash, but it will bob around in a range because it is a cash cow, but it won't launch upward until it finds the next big thing.
I'm inclined to agree with you, or at least move toward your thesis here ... unless Smuggles' boy Comrade Twitler manages to push through some kind of repatriation tax holiday. If AAPL can bring back its enormous cash stash without facing severe penalties, all bets are off. It could go to $280 before it reaches $95.
-
I'm inclined to agree with you, or at least move toward your thesis here ... unless Smuggles' boy Comrade Twitler manages to push through some kind of repatriation tax holiday. If AAPL can bring back its enormous cash stash without facing severe penalties, all bets are off. It could go to $280 before it reaches $95.
Good point. Events can overtake trends.
-
I'm inclined to agree with you, or at least move toward your thesis here ... unless Smuggles' boy Comrade Twitler manages to push through some kind of repatriation tax holiday. If AAPL can bring back its enormous cash stash without facing severe penalties, all bets are off. It could go to $280 before it reaches $95.
The last tax holiday was 2004, had no effect on stock prices.
And it should not. Why? Because their money is already in a New York Bank (account name "Apple foreign"). When the tax holiday happens, it move to another account in a New York Bank ("Apple Domestic"). Other than that nothing else changes.
And the fact that the money is "foreign" does not prevent Apple in any way in doing what they want with it. They can, and have borrowed against it to accomplish their goals. And they can borrow in Europe at negative yields.
Where the tax holiday really matters is for mid-cap to small-cap companies that do not the economies of scale that Apple has.
And no it does not go to $280 ... that is almost a trillion dollar increase in its market cap. How does bring home a $100 or $200 billion increase its value by 5x to 10x that value?
-
The last tax holiday was 2004, had no effect on stock prices.
And it should not. Why? Because their money is already in a New York Bank (account name "Apple foreign"). When the tax holiday happens, it move to another account in a New York Bank ("Apple Domestic"). Other than that nothing else changes.
And the fact that the money is "foreign" does not prevent Apple in any way in doing what they want with it. They can, and have borrowed against it to accomplish their goals. And they can borrow in Europe at negative yields.
Where the tax holiday really matters is for mid-cap to small-cap companies that do not the economies of scale that Apple has.
And no it does not go to $280 ... that is almost a trillion dollar increase in its market cap. How does bring home a $100 or $200 billion increase its value by 5x to 10x that value?
I think I'm done here. I mean, there is no way AAPL can double from here because stocks never double ... and AAPL certainly never doubles.
Hey man, you're the expert ... as you so clearly proved with your "do not buy AAPL" call when it was trading under 95. Still can't admit you were wrong, either. That's my Smuggles!
See ya in the funny papers.
-
I think I'm done here. I mean, there is no way AAPL can double from here because stocks never double ... and AAPL certainly never doubles.
Hey man, you're the expert ... as you so clearly proved with your "do not buy AAPL" call when it was trading under 95. Still can't admit you were wrong, either. That's my Smuggles!
See ya in the funny papers.
No you said the catalyst for the double was a tax holiday. I pointed out that was not possible.
But sure it can double ... the develop yet another new product that people are willing to sleep on a side walk for two days to give them hundreds of dollars to get that product. I've argued for 10 pages that guy that would make that happen died in 2011. Without that they are a utility waiting for phones to break to get a sale. The stock valuation is too high for that reality.
And by the way ... an Apple double means it would be valuable than the GDP of Canada.
And now that it passed Google (again) as the largest company by market cap, you should consider this Research Affiliates report ...
The Winners Curse: Too Big to Succeed?
Journal of Indexes, October 29, 2012
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers2.cfm?abstract_id=2088515
Robert D. Arnott
Research Affiliates, LLC
Lillian J. Wu
Research Affiliates, LLC
For investors, Top Dog status — the #1 company, by market capitalization, in each sector or market — is dismayingly unattractive. We find a statistically significant tendency for top companies in each sector to underperform both the overall sector and the stock market as a whole. In an earlier U.S.-only study, we found that 59% of these Top Dogs underperformed their own sector in the next year, and two-thirds lagged their sector over the next decade. We found a daunting magnitude of average underperformance, averaging between 300 and 400 bps per year, over the next 1 to 10 years.
In this study, we have broadened the test to examine whether the “Top Dog” phenomenon is prevalent elsewhere. We find the same phenomenon in each and every market, with no exceptions. Indeed, outside the United States, the Sector Top Dogs generally underperform their own sector even more relentlessly than in the United States!
It would appear that our Top Dogs, the most beloved and winningest companies in each sector or country, are typically punished — often severely — in subsequent market action.
-
So, your argument for how bad Apple has been is to post an article saying it is doing too well?
-
So, your argument for how bad Apple has been is to post an article saying it is doing too well?
Let's not get lost in the distractions. The goal here is to make money. And there is some valid points made on all sides.
Apple's tremendous stock appeal for years was its phenomenal growth tied to revolutionary products. It is now huge and hasn't had a revolutionary product in awhile, so the stock appeal equation is changing. Which does not mean that one can't make good money, but what it does mean is that there are other companies that may have more potential for a certain type of investor while those with a less-risky approach may find Apple a reasonable stock to own now that it pays a dividend.
Apple generates far too much cash for its stock price to tank.
The great thing about investing is that everyone has their own ideas and strategies and as long as they work for you, that is all that is important.
-
Buffett tells CNBC Berkshire bought 120 million Apple shares in 2017
February 27, 2017
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-berkshire-hatha-buffett-apple-idUSKBN1661D6
Warren Buffett, chairman and chief executive of Berkshire Hathaway Inc (BRKa.N), told CNBC on Monday that his conglomerate had purchased about 120 million shares of Apple Inc. (AAPL.O) in 2017 and that U.S. stocks were not in "bubble territory."
"Apple strikes me as having quite a sticky product," Buffett said. He said Berkshire's Apple stake, at 133 million shares, was worth about $17 billion and amounted to Berkshire's second-biggest holding.
---------------------------------------
He said he bought his 120 million shares between January 1 and Apple's earnings report (Jan 30). He said he stopped buying after the pop off the earnings report.
The average price during this period was $120. So Warren is sitting with a $15 profit on 90% of his holdings.
I would have rather sold to Warren than buy with Warren.
-
Don't get me started on America's living hypocrisy.
Have you looked at his (poor) track record over the last 10 years? Did you notice that he bought Apple with funds from his Walmart sale that he was crushed on? Have you noted his 2011 admission that the financial crisis essentially bankrupted him and the bailouts are the only reason he is still the second richest man in America.
Have you noticed that your hero was the largest stock holder in Moodys, Goldman, mortgage brokers and the single largest defender of the practices that caused the financial crisis? Have you noticed that he owns Burlington Northern railroad, the largest shipper of crude by rail (which has had a bad record of blowing up, killing people and causing severe environmental damage) yet he funds and promotes extreme environmentalist to protest the cheaper and safer alternate crude oil pipelines, a direct competitor of Burlington.
Have you read his (87 year old and probably senile) partner Charlie Munger insane rants about putting Jews back in the ovens?
The man was the greatest investor that has ever lived until about 2005. Since he has been a doubling deal walking contradiction that promoted the worst practices in the financial markets for personal gain, and has gotten more in governemnt bailouts that any single person to stay a billionaire, and his track record over in the post-crisis period has not been good. Oh, and he pays for environmentalists to fight pipelines that compete with his railroad that keeps blowing up when shipping crude.
Uncle Warren and Munger (the oven salesman) can get away with these kind of statements. But let ANYONE else say this (especially Comrade Twitler) ....
Hey as long as Warren made it through the entire interview without soiling his depends, we should consider it a success.
(BTW, these days Warren and the oven salesman can rarely make it through an interview without saying things that get others in trouble.)
Warren Buffett made an inappropriate remark to describe the logic behind a $140 billion takeover bid
February 27, 2017
http://www.businessinsider.com/warren-buffett-on-negotiating-women-and-sex-2017-2
-
Uncle Warren and Munger (the oven salesman) can get away with these kind of statements. But let ANYONE else say this (especially Comrade Twitler) ....
Hey as long as Warren made it through the entire interview without soiling his depends, we should consider it a success.
(BTW, these days Warren and the oven salesman can rarely make it through an interview without saying things that get others in trouble.)
Warren Buffett made an inappropriate remark to describe the logic behind a $140 billion takeover bid
February 27, 2017
http://www.businessinsider.com/warren-buffett-on-negotiating-women-and-sex-2017-2
Give it a rest already. You hate Buffet because of his politics. You hate Apple because of Cook's politics. You hate eSPN because of Disney's politics.
Everyone here knows that. Yet you continue to make a fool of yourself. To people like you, it is clever to say that Buffet will soil his Depends. To everyone else, it makes you sound like a fool.
-
Uncle Warren and Munger (the oven salesman) can get away with these kind of statements. But let ANYONE else say this (especially Comrade Twitler) ....
Hey as long as Warren made it through the entire interview without soiling his depends, we should consider it a success.
(BTW, these days Warren and the oven salesman can rarely make it through an interview without saying things that get others in trouble.)
Warren Buffett made an inappropriate remark to describe the logic behind a $140 billion takeover bid
February 27, 2017
http://www.businessinsider.com/warren-buffett-on-negotiating-women-and-sex-2017-2
You're fun, Smuggles. Still ...
Another new identity and yet you didn't choose Smuggles? So disappointed.
Oh, and Munger is no god to me ... unlike those who have anointed Twitler.
Double Oh ... and Munger is not the effen leader of the effen free world.
Or do you not believe the president of the United States should be held to a higher standard?
-
You're fun, Smuggles. Still ...
Another new identity and yet you didn't choose Smuggles? So disappointed.
Oh, and Munger is no god to me ... unlike those who have anointed Twitler.
Double Oh ... and Munger is not the effen leader of the effen free world.
Or do you not believe the president of the United States should be held to a higher standard?
I hold the second richest man to a standard to not expect him to make demeaning comments about women. I expect his partner to not call Jews in Vienna in 1939 trying to escape the Nazis uncivilized.
-
I hold the second richest man to a standard to not expect him to make demeaning comments about women. I expect his partner to not call Jews in Vienna in 1939 trying to escape the Nazis uncivilized.
We are in agreement about Munger.
But you seem to want to excuse everything that your comrade, Twitler, does. Including consort with the Russians (or at least continually employ people who do).
-
We are in agreement about Munger.
But you seem to want to excuse everything that your comrade, Twitler, does. Including consort with the Russians (or at least continually employ people who do).
This is a post about Apple and themes related to apple ... not taking the bait to turn this political.
-
This is a post about Apple and themes related to apple ... not taking the bait to turn this political.
Yessir. But for the record, it was you who brought up things about Munger that had nothing to do with investing - and YOU who brought up your boy, Comrade Twitler!
But yes, back to AAPL ...
Another all-time high.
Thank goodness we didn't listen to Smuggles! Wish we had doubled our stake like Buffett did.
-
Bingo!
Warren is allowed to make unconscionable statements and questionable investments and yet we do back-flips and contortions to explain why he is right and brilliant.
He is the "king smuggles!"
Why do we let Warren Buffett get away with sexism?
The Sage of Omaha tells old and unfunny jokes without recrimination
MARCH 5, 2017 by: Lucy Kellaway
https://www.ft.com/content/46aaa352-ff72-11e6-96f8-3700c5664d30
But I suspect the true reason we forgive Mr Buffett is the most inexcusable of all. It is simply because he is Warren Buffett. I can think of no business leader who has been so worshipped for quite so long, ever, anywhere, with the possible exception of Joseph Rowntree and George Cadbury, both of whom went on being adored into their 80s.
People feel they need Mr Buffett, now more than ever. We are all so invested in his cuddly, homespun persona, and so revere his judgment that when he starts making hideous sexist jokes, there is only one thing for it. To pretend we have not heard.
-
We should never, ever allow people to joke.
-
Bingo!
Warren is allowed to make unconscionable statements and questionable investments and yet we do back-flips and contortions to explain why he is right and brilliant.
He is the "king smuggles!"
Why do we let Warren Buffett get away with sexism?
The Sage of Omaha tells old and unfunny jokes without recrimination
MARCH 5, 2017 by: Lucy Kellaway
https://www.ft.com/content/46aaa352-ff72-11e6-96f8-3700c5664d30
But I suspect the true reason we forgive Mr Buffett is the most inexcusable of all. It is simply because he is Warren Buffett. I can think of no business leader who has been so worshipped for quite so long, ever, anywhere, with the possible exception of Joseph Rowntree and George Cadbury, both of whom went on being adored into their 80s.
People feel they need Mr Buffett, now more than ever. We are all so invested in his cuddly, homespun persona, and so revere his judgment that when he starts making hideous sexist jokes, there is only one thing for it. To pretend we have not heard.
What does this have to do with you saying AAPL wasn't worth owning when it was in the low-90s?
-
We should never, ever allow people to joke.
If you read the article ...
Five years ago Sebastián Piñera, then president of Chile, made the same unfunny joke — only then all hell broke loose. The story was picked up by the BBC. Politicians queued up to denounce him, calling the joke “sexist and prehistoric”. One of them said Mr Piñera had brought shame on the nation and put back the cause of women by two decades.
-
If you read the article ...
Five years ago Sebastián Piñera, then president of Chile, made the same unfunny joke — only then all hell broke loose. The story was picked up by the BBC. Politicians queued up to denounce him, calling the joke “sexist and prehistoric”. One of them said Mr Piñera had brought shame on the nation and put back the cause of women by two decades.
And again ...
Goalposts shifted. Now in an entirely different stadium.
-
https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/david-tepper-apple-warren-buffett-152956930.html
-
Oh look ... another record high!
-
What's Wrong With Apple (stock)?
Heisy's sh1tty advice.
-
What's Wrong With Apple (stock)?
Heisy's sh1tty advice.
That's Smuggles to you, pal!
-
Self charging I-phone dubbed the I-phone 10.
If that rumor is true, the stock might be currently undervalued.
-
Self charging I-phone dubbed the I-phone 10.
If that rumor is true, the stock might be currently undervalued.
Undervalued? That's impossible, Sir.
I mean, Smuggles said AAPL was must-avoid in the low-$90s!
-
Another all-time high for AAPL today: $141 and change.
Two analysts today raised price target well over $150.
Early looks at the much-anticipated iPhone 8 have been extremely positive.
Good thing Smuggles was saying "stay away" in the low-$90s. His peeps would have hated that 50% gain in 11 months' time.
-
Whattayaknow ... ANOTHER all-time high!
-
Serious question, how much money do you have to lose before you re-think your position?
^^^^ Heisy on April 30, 2016, when AAPL was at $93.74
Today, AAPL sits at $148.96, up 59% from April 30, 2016.
Thanks, Heisy. What other stocks do you hate?
-
^^^^ Heisy on April 30, 2016, when AAPL was at $93.74
Today, AAPL sits at $148.96, up 59% from April 30, 2016.
Thanks, Heisy. What other stocks do you hate?
Smuggles is very sensitive about this and probably will respond by naming a couple of his good calls. Poor baby.
-
And I'd point out that it's at yet ANOTHER all-time high today, but that would be piling on.
-
And I'd point out that it's at yet ANOTHER all-time high today, but that would be piling on.
Fake news.
-
Fake news.
And yes ... more of the same news today!
Can you imagine how AAPL's price will soar if the so-called president actually is able to push through the repatriation policy he wants to?
-
On the move again!
https://seekingalpha.com/news/3267013-apple-plus-1_4-percent-merrill-goldman-boost-price-targets
-
My son was watching Manchester City vs Leicester city this morning. LC had a penalty kick and the shooter's plant foot slipped and he actually kicked the ball off of his plant foot and into the goal. It got waved off due to the soccer rule that does not allow for double touches on penalty kicks. My son yells "Worst mistake ever." I replied, "No, selling Apple at $90 was the worst mistake ever." He had no idea.
-
My son was watching Manchester City vs Leicester city this morning. LC had a penalty kick and the shooter's plant foot slipped and he actually kicked the ball off of his plant foot and into the goal. It got waved off due to the soccer rule that does not allow for double touches on penalty kicks. My son yells "Worst mistake ever." I replied, "No, selling Apple at $90 was the worst mistake ever." He had no idea.
Great story. Made me chuckle out loud!
-
Crap. AAPL somehow up to $157.
-
Crap. AAPL somehow up to $157.
Yep. ANOTHER totally kick-arse earnings report ... and ANOTHER all-time high.
The only thing "wrong with Apple stock" is that I don't own more of it!
It might only be one more positive earnings report away from doubling since Smuggles said not to touch it at 90!
-
Self charging I-phone dubbed the I-phone 10.
If that rumor is true, the stock might be currently undervalued.
Are you talking about inductive charging? If so I've had that on my Galaxy S7 for over a year. Not sure how that changes the game for the iPhone.
-
Are you talking about inductive charging? If so I've had that on my Galaxy S7 for over a year. Not sure how that changes the game for the iPhone.
Not exactly the same, but similar. The technology that is rumored to be afoot would not require you to ever place you phone on anything or anywhere. It would simply charge itself almost anywhere you can go.
It has two layers of technology. 1. Recoup lost battery by using wifi and other local signal to charge itself. 2. Long-range inductive charging so that devices in a building could inductively charge any phone over large distances, room-building scale distances.
I'm not sure I would call it a game changer though, as most phone providers will be moving to such technology in the next 5-years.
-
What am I gonna do with all this dead money???
-
What am I gonna do with all this dead money???
Well, you could invest it in DIS, which Smuggles also said was doomed back when it was trading around 90. (Full disclosure: I also have concerns about DIS, and I didn't buy it at 90, either.)
-
Yawn!
ANOTHER all-time high!
But if any of us were really smart back when Smuggles told us not to buy AAPL at 90, we would have instead invested in LMT, NOC, GD, RTN, BA - any and all companies that make bombs and the means to use them. We loves our bombs more than ever!
-
Yawn!
ANOTHER all-time high!
But if any of us were really smart back when Smuggles told us not to buy AAPL at 90, we would have instead invested in LMT, NOC, GD, RTN, BA - any and all companies that make bombs and the means to use them. We loves our bombs more than ever!
For what its worth, not that it makes him any less incorrect, but AAPL is being used to artificially prop up the market for the last month or so. Negative growth in AAPL, earnings and revenue are down over the last 24ish months. But yet its being used with the VIX to grind the market higher, both SPY and QQQ. Meanwhile, many stocks are below their moving averages and are actually down on the year despite the market continuing to push higher. Indicies moving higher but rising tide isn't raising all boats. Something is rotten in the state of Denmark.
Again, its just noise for those in here who love to crow about buying and holding indefinitely, but I personally don't think its a great time to load any portfolios.
-
For what its worth, not that it makes him any less incorrect, but AAPL is being used to artificially prop up the market for the last month or so. Negative growth in AAPL, earnings and revenue are down over the last 24ish months. But yet its being used with the VIX to grind the market higher, both SPY and QQQ. Meanwhile, many stocks are below their moving averages and are actually down on the year despite the market continuing to push higher. Indicies moving higher but rising tide isn't raising all boats. Something is rotten in the state of Denmark.
Again, its just noise for those in here who love to crow about buying and holding indefinitely, but I personally don't think its a great time to load any portfolios.
I don't know who specifically is "using" AAPL or any other company to prop up the market. There is no Mr. Vix.
But I would agree that now is not the optimal time to buy most stocks, here in Year 9 of the bull. Of course, folks were saying the same a year ago, 2 years ago and 3 years ago. Heck, I remember back in 2012 reading many accounts of the 3-year-old bull run nearing its end! Glad I didn't bail then. (And in fact was doing the opposite: buying.)
The gentle needling of Smuggles is because, well, the man is never wrong about anything. Except the many things he is wrong about. Including AAPL's price prospects back when he started this thread.
Finally, I am mostly a buy-and-hold guy. I have neither the stomach for trading in and out of the market nor the aptitude for it. Those who bought AAPL 20 years ago and held it through its many valleys are pretty darn happy today, and the same can be said of hundreds upon hundreds upon hundreds of high-quality companies. I tip my hat to those who really can time the market accurately, but that's not me.
-
I noticed SBUX is hovering around its 52 week low. Anyone have thoughts on it?
-
I noticed SBUX is hovering around its 52 week low. Anyone have thoughts on it?
I own some, and if it pulls back some more, I'll probably buy more. I like owning iconic brands, a practice that has served me well as an investor.
Disclosures: I am just another investor, a buy-and-holdish kind of guy. I am not an investment pro. Unlike a certain smug gentleman who frequents this site, I do not pretend to have all the answers. Also, I do not reimburse others' losses ... but I happily share in others' gains!
-
Considering ARLP. Any Scoop thoughts? Opened today at $19.00. Huge div yield.
-
Considering ARLP. Any Scoop thoughts? Opened today at $19.00. Huge div yield.
I don't do MLPs. I try to keep it simple, and there is nothing simple about MLPs, which are very complex energy companies. I also don't like to reach for yield.
If you buy, go in with your eyes wide open. The yield is high for a reason - the risk is high, too! There also are special tax forms that must be filed.
Here's a recent article on the company that might give you pause: https://seekingalpha.com/article/4102806-11-percent-yielder-may-trouble
I wish you good fortune, whatever you decide.
-
Considering ARLP. Any Scoop thoughts? Opened today at $19.00. Huge div yield.
Coal??...Yikes, not sure that is a commodity I would be investing in.
As MU82 mentioned, MLPs are pretty complex and can screw up your tax returns. You usually have to wait a while until the companies generate the K-1 tax form. It will probably come right around tax day, sometimes even after and you may need to have your return amended.
The advantages are of course, the high yield and that the distributions are generally not taxed, they are seen as a return of capital, so your basis in the MLP gets reduced but you will pay the tax when the MLP is sold.
-
Coal??...Yikes, not sure that is a commodity I would be investing in.
As MU82 mentioned, MLPs are pretty complex and can screw up your tax returns. You usually have to wait a while until the companies generate the K-1 tax form. It will probably come right around tax day, sometimes even after and you may need to have your return amended.
The advantages are of course, the high yield and that the distributions are generally not taxed, they are seen as a return of capital, so your basis in the MLP gets reduced but you will pay the tax when the MLP is sold.
You are right about both the late-arriving K-1 tax forms and the tax benefits of MLPs. Because of the tax benefits, and some other issues having to do with UBTI, MLPs are best held in taxable accounts.
However, even the tax benefits might prove illusory.
Many MLPs have "general partners" that operate as regular C-Corps. Sometimes, those general partners end up merging with their own MLPs and turning the entire operation into a C-Corp. When that happens, investors who held the MLP in their taxable accounts are responsible for the taxes immediately (or at least the following April).
That most famously happened in 2014 with the Kinder group. KMP was the MLP and KMI was the general partner. There was a major corporate action, and KMP shares were converted to KMI shares for investors. But everybody who held KMP had to pay taxes because it was termed a "sale."
So imagine that you were a KMP investor with a large stake in the company, living happily thanks to all the tax advantages, planning to use profits when you retire or even to eventually turn it to your heirs ... and then - BOOM! - totally without notice, you have to sell it and incur a five-figure tax bill!
Many, many, many KMI shareholders are still bitter about what happened. They became even more bitter after CEO Richard Kinder, who had promised 10% dividend raises through 2020, instead cut the dividend 75%. It even resulted in a new term: "kindered." As in, "Damn it! I got kindered by that effen company!" (Disclosure: I never owned KMP, thank goodness, but I did own some KMI.)
In other words ... please tread carefully with MLPs. I have friends who are very happy MLP investors, and also some friends who have been burned by them. My advice to any potential MLP investor is to know EXACTLY what you're getting yourself into. If you can't explain it in 3 sentences to your spouse or kid or dog, don't even think about buying it.
-
Wouldn't you know it ... that pesky AAPL just hit ANOTHER all-time high!!!
Thank goodness I followed Smuggles' expert advice and avoided it at 90! I would have hated to have experienced that 86% gain!!
Eh ... no biggie. I probably woulda only used half the profits on hookers and blow (and wasted the rest).
-
Wouldn't you know it ... that pesky AAPL just hit ANOTHER all-time high!!!
Thank goodness I followed Smuggles' expert advice and avoided it at 90! I would have hated to have experienced that 86% gain!!
Eh ... no biggie. I probably woulda only used half the profits on hookers and blow (and wasted the rest).
Oh yeah. But Carl Icahn...oh wait, nm.
-
Wouldn't you know it ... that pesky AAPL just hit ANOTHER all-time high!!!
Thank goodness I followed Smuggles' expert advice and avoided it at 90! I would have hated to have experienced that 86% gain!!
Eh ... no biggie. I probably woulda only used half the profits on hookers and blow (and wasted the rest).
Fun times at Smuggles expense aside (and we should always have fun at his expense), don't you think the Apple Stock is overinflated? I think the market generally is overinflated and would assume a correction in the next 6 months, but I feel like Apple is running out ahead of even the overall market? Thoughts?
I'm starting to get that dot com bust vibe, lot of companies out there with high valuations that aren't really translating it into monitization let alone profit.
-
Fun times at Smuggles expense aside (and we should always have fun at his expense), don't you think the Apple Stock is overinflated? I think the market generally is overinflated and would assume a correction in the next 6 months, but I feel like Apple is running out ahead of even the overall market? Thoughts?
Agreed it's ahead of itself now. Now isn't the time to buy. The time to buy was when Heisy emphatically told us not to.
-
Fun times at Smuggles expense aside (and we should always have fun at his expense), don't you think the Apple Stock is overinflated? I think the market generally is overinflated and would assume a correction in the next 6 months, but I feel like Apple is running out ahead of even the overall market? Thoughts?
I'm starting to get that dot com bust vibe, lot of companies out there with high valuations that aren't really translating it into monitization let alone profit.
I'm not buying any more right now because it's a little higher than I'd like (I have a $145 limit order in place), but AAPL is not insanely overvalued. Its forward PE is 15, not very much more that its 5-year average PE has been. If iPhone X is a big success, the stock price will probably move higher. The tricky thing with any growth company is that it can have what looks like a kick-arse quarter ... but if it didn't kick arse quite enough, price can get hit.
Here's an interesting take on AAPL's valuation on an investing site I frequent, Seeking Alpha: https://seekingalpha.com/article/4109306-realistically-make-invested-apple-today
As for the overall market ... it's hard to argue that it isn't way overvalued. However, I have been hearing that at least as far back as 2013, when we were in Year 4 of the bull market and a crash was "imminent." It will happen eventually, it always does. And there will be people who have been predicting it monthly for 3-4 years saying, "I told you so!"
I am being VERY selective with my buying and have been building up a larger cash position than normal for me. But I am still mostly invested. Disclosure: I am a very long-term investor, not a trader.
-
If you you all invested in STZ and MCD as I told you gamicks back in September, your best friend would be your Capital Gains Advisor.
Any you guys cutting me a check? MCD up to 166 from 114 in September 2016. STZ up to 213 from 167.
-
I'm not buying any more right now because it's a little higher than I'd like (I have a $145 limit order in place), but AAPL is not insanely overvalued. Its forward PE is 15, not very much more that its 5-year average PE has been. If iPhone X is a big success, the stock price will probably move higher. The tricky thing with any growth company is that it can have what looks like a kick-arse quarter ... but if it didn't kick arse quite enough, price can get hit.
Here's an interesting take on AAPL's valuation on an investing site I frequent, Seeking Alpha: https://seekingalpha.com/article/4109306-realistically-make-invested-apple-today
As for the overall market ... it's hard to argue that it isn't way overvalued. However, I have been hearing that at least as far back as 2013, when we were in Year 4 of the bull market and a crash was "imminent." It will happen eventually, it always does. And there will be people who have been predicting it monthly for 3-4 years saying, "I told you so!"
I am being VERY selective with my buying and have been building up a larger cash position than normal for me. But I am still mostly invested. Disclosure: I am a very long-term investor, not a trader.
I think it's right where it should be. P/E is showing that it's a fair value right now. The problem is that if the overall market tanks, AAPL will move down with it. I bought it many years ago and continue to hold it now. I don't plan on selling even if it dips.
-
Any you guys cutting me a check? MCD up to 166 from 114 in September 2016. STZ up to 213 from 167.
Good call on MCD. Looks like about a 45% gain. As for STZ, don't look now but you are trailing the DOW by about about 2% since September 2016. STZ up 27.5% versus DJI up 29.5%. Just goes to show that many stocks are up big since September 2016.
-
Any you guys cutting me a check? MCD up to 166 from 114 in September 2016. STZ up to 213 from 167.
Nice call, Doc.
MCD is one of my largest holdings. When others were selling, I was buying. The "health food trend" is borderline laughable. All the McDonald's in my area have lines 10 cars long at the drivethrus, especially at breakfast time. Who knew that fat Americans (present company included) were merely long for more opportunities to buy Egg McMuffins?!?!?!
-
I think it's right where it should be. P/E is showing that it's a fair value right now. The problem is that if the overall market tanks, AAPL will move down with it. I bought it many years ago and continue to hold it now. I don't plan on selling even if it dips.
FWIW (probably not much, but ... ), here was Jim Cramer's take on AAPL last Friday:
There are 3 positives - Market expects a bad quarter which lowers the risk; People are confused whether to buy iPhone 8 or iPhone X; Cramer has been amazed with the features of the new smartphone. "I'm reiterating that you should buy Apple and own Apple, not trade Apple. The stock is cheap," said Cramer.
Yes, Cramer is a trader, and he has made some legendary horrific calls, including an infamous BUY BUY BUY on Bear Stearns about 20 seconds before the financial meltdown. So take this with a grain of salt. We're talking about Apple and I saw this today, so I figured I'd provide it.
BTW, AAPL reports earnings after close Thursday.
-
Wouldn't you know it ... that pesky AAPL just hit ANOTHER all-time high!!!
Thank goodness I followed Smuggles' expert advice and avoided it at 90! I would have hated to have experienced that 86% gain!!
Eh ... no biggie. I probably woulda only used half the profits on hookers and blow (and wasted the rest).
My basis in AAPL is 1.41 a share. Hoping for some tax reform soon.
-
My basis in AAPL is 1.41 a share. Hoping for some tax reform soon.
Tax reform or reshuffling chairs on the Titanic?
In all seriousness, if we are going to reform and rationalize the tax code I think that makes a lot of sense. However, I don't think we can get there in the current environment. As an example, I'm all for simplification of the tax code, but as soon as they started talking about changing pre-tax/post-tax exceptions for 401(k) contributions I freaked out and was all "hey don't touch my tax break". Eventually I thought it through and I'm "ok" with the change assuming its part of a true rationalization. However, there is no way politically that you can build a rationalization plan that steers a clear path where they don't except and amend the crap out of it, and as a consequence all tax payers are going to be all worked up about "their tax breaks".
Thought it was a 70-30 proposition 6 months ago, think that's flipped now.
-
AAPL totally kicked arse in its earnings report, which was released after market closed today. Up near 174 AH. Looks like another all-time high is imminent. A few percent more and it will be double what it was when Smuggles told us all to avoid it like the plague!
-
I am looking for dividend growth stocks. Does anyone have any particular favorites? I am looking to redeploy cash from some holdings in my portfolio that were acquired. I like to hold for long term , many of my holding are 15-20 years old.
-
Tax reform or reshuffling chairs on the Titanic?
In all seriousness, if we are going to reform and rationalize the tax code I think that makes a lot of sense. However, I don't think we can get there in the current environment. As an example, I'm all for simplification of the tax code, but as soon as they started talking about changing pre-tax/post-tax exceptions for 401(k) contributions I freaked out and was all "hey don't touch my tax break". Eventually I thought it through and I'm "ok" with the change assuming its part of a true rationalization. However, there is no way politically that you can build a rationalization plan that steers a clear path where they don't except and amend the crap out of it, and as a consequence all tax payers are going to be all worked up about "their tax breaks".
Thought it was a 70-30 proposition 6 months ago, think that's flipped now.
Tax reform!! Especially the corporate rate, is going to be big. We have to bring that money offshore back to the US to put it to work here. I agree it is reshuffling for individual users, though the irony that high tax states will get hit higher because you can't deduct state taxes anymore (so sorry California, Illinois, New York), but the corporate rate means $$$$ come back here, where they should be.
-
Tax reform!! Especially the corporate rate, is going to be big. We have to bring that money offshore back to the US to put it to work here. I agree it is reshuffling for individual users, though the irony that high tax states will get hit higher because you can't deduct state taxes anymore (so sorry California, Illinois, New York), but the corporate rate means $$$$ come back here, where they should be.
Sigh..
It's been shown time and time again that bringing money back, by cutting corporate tax rates, does not do much of anything. It doesn't lead to worker wage increases. It does not lead to increase in employment. It does not have any trickle down effect. Why are we still purporting this crap?
Go look at Kansas for a good example of what happens when the current GOP tax plan gets put into place
-
Sigh..
It's been shown time and time again that bringing money back, by cutting corporate tax rates, does not do much of anything. It doesn't lead to worker wage increases. It does not lead to increase in employment. It does not have any trickle down effect. Why are we still purporting this crap?
Go look at Kansas for a good example of what happens when the current GOP tax plan gets put into place
Don't bother with factual facts, jesmu. The Alternative Facts Crowd doesn't care for them.
-
I am looking for dividend growth stocks. Does anyone have any particular favorites? I am looking to redeploy cash from some holdings in my portfolio that were acquired. I like to hold for long term , many of my holding are 15-20 years old.
PMed you.
-
Don't bother with factual facts, jesmu. The Alternative Facts Crowd doesn't care for them.
He must be right. He read it on the internet you know.
-
PMed you.
I'm no stock picking guru, but if you are looking for divs, take a look at BP. I bought in when it was yielding 7+ percent, but you can still get nearly 6 percent. It's a bit of a risk since it is still on a rebound, but to me seems like a good risk.
-
Sigh..
It's been shown time and time again that bringing money back, by cutting corporate tax rates, does not do much of anything. It doesn't lead to worker wage increases. It does not lead to increase in employment. It does not have any trickle down effect. Why are we still purporting this crap?
Go look at Kansas for a good example of what happens when the current GOP tax plan gets put into place
It has? Economists are split, but based on your ideology you think it's been shown to not have an effect. Economists also differ on minimum wages and many other things. Sorry, but economics is not black and white, neither is the law. There are differing views. A number of Nobel prize winning economists think we should lower corporate tax rates to bring in trillions held offshore back to the USA. A number of Nobel prize winning economists disagree. That doesn't make your opinion a fact, as you stated.
-
It has? Economists are split, but based on your ideology you think it's been shown to not have an effect. Economists also differ on minimum wages and many other things. Sorry, but economics is not black and white, neither is the law. There are differing views. A number of Nobel prize winning economists think we should lower corporate tax rates to bring in trillions held offshore back to the USA. A number of Nobel prize winning economists disagree. That doesn't make your opinion a fact, as you stated.
Okay. I'll agree that economists are split. But when we've lowered corporate rates or given holidays in the past, has it increased bottom 50% wages? Or decreased unemployment? Or trickled down? Economic theory and real life results can be different
Also, Kansas.
-
Okay. I'll agree that economists are split. But when we've lowered corporate rates or given holidays in the past, has it increased bottom 50% wages? Or decreased unemployment? Or trickled down? Economic theory and real life results can be different
Also, Kansas.
Kansas has nothing to do with corporate tax rates on the global side, why do you continue to use that example? Economics is difficult, many moving parts, which is why so many economists disagree with one another. Much like the law, you can have half the Supreme Court say it means X and the other half say it means Y. But thank you for admitting that what you said was an opinion, and not factual.
-
It has? Economists are split, but based on your ideology you think it's been shown to not have an effect. Economists also differ on minimum wages and many other things. Sorry, but economics is not black and white, neither is the law. There are differing views. A number of Nobel prize winning economists think we should lower corporate tax rates to bring in trillions held offshore back to the USA. A number of Nobel prize winning economists disagree. That doesn't make your opinion a fact, as you stated.
Nice to know that you agree with everything Obama - a Nobel prize winner - ever said or did. I wouldn't have expected that from somebody like you!
-
Ron Wayne was 1 of the 3 Apple founders with Jobs and Wozniak. In 1976 he sold his 10% share in Apple for $800. As of November 26 Apple has a market capitalization of $898 billion. Wayne’s 10% stake would be worth $90 billion.
Be like Ron Wayne. Get out while there’s still value to your stock.
-
Wayne also sold the original Apple company agreement that was signed in 1976 by Jobs, Wozniak, and himself for $500. In 2011 that was auctioned off at $1.6 million. Oops?
-
I know what you're implying here, wades, but the optimist would say that Mr. Wayne got out with a cool $1,300.
I just plugged that into an inflation calculator, and it says $1,300 in 1976 would be worth $5,655.16 today.
Not quite a bazillion bucks, but enough for a 2010 Hyundai Santa Fe with 75,000 miles! I'm sure Smuggles would have endorsed that.
-
I know what you're implying here, wades, but the optimist would say that Mr. Wayne got out with a cool $1,300.
I just plugged that into an inflation calculator, and it says $1,300 in 1976 would be worth $5,655.16 today.
Not quite a bazillion bucks, but enough for a 2010 Hyundai Santa Fe with 75,000 miles! I'm sure Smuggles would have endorsed that.
There are optimists who think the glass is half full
There are pessimists who think the glass is half full
There are realists who think there is just the right amount for alcohol....think how much good whiskey could be bought for the $1300 in 1976!
-
Wades
Sound advice. What do you think of bitcoin?
-
AAPL ends 2017 at $169.23.
Thanks, Heisy.
-
Well, whattaya know?
AAPL at yet ANOTHER all-time high!
-
Well, whattaya know?
AAPL at yet ANOTHER all-time high!
C'mon give Heisy credit. Didn't he recommend bitcoin?
-
Well, well, well ...
Look what's back near ANOTHER all-time high after yet another great earnings report and 16% dividend hike!
-
Well, well, well ...
Look what's back near ANOTHER all-time high after yet another great earnings report and 16% dividend hike!
You can thank a tax bill that takes from the non-rich and gives to the rich and corporations. Stock buybacks! Yay! That'll help!
-
You can thank a tax bill that takes from the non-rich and gives to the rich and corporations. Stock buybacks! Yay! That'll help!
Well, those certainly didn't hurt. But AAPL has been rallying almost since the day Smuggles said to stay away, long before the Tax Cuts 4 Billionaires policy became a law.
-
When it comes to AAPL, no complaints from me. 8-) 8-) 8-)
-
AAPL hits all time high today.
Maybe that Buffet guy knows a thing or two about investing.
-
AAPL hits all time high today.
Maybe that Buffet guy knows a thing or two about investing.
Smuggles thinks Buffett is over the hill.
-
Smuggles thinks Buffett is over the hill.
But Carl Icahn sold his AAPL stock. Oops.
-
But Carl Icahn sold his AAPL stock. Oops.
And he was smart enough to sell steel stocks right before tariffs were imposed.
As I go next to post on the consequences of underage drinking, it's good to know what kind of people are held accountable and what kind aren't. ;D
-
And he was smart enough to sell steel stocks right before tariffs were imposed.
As I go next to post on the consequences of underage drinking, it's good to know what kind of people are held accountable and what kind aren't. ;D
^^^ ban dis guy
-
But Carl Icahn sold his AAPL stock. Oops.
Carl Icahn is, was, and always will be an ass.
-
Warren Buffet just bought 75 million shares.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2018/05/04/buffett-buys-75-m-more-shares-apple-stock/579974002/
-
You can thank a tax bill that takes from the non-rich and gives to the rich and corporations. Stock buybacks! Yay! That'll help!
Sure feels like this is a political post. :-\
-
^^^ ban dis guy
OK, Princess Snowflake.
-
And he was smart enough to sell steel stocks right before tariffs were imposed.
As I go next to post on the consequences of underage drinking, it's good to know what kind of people are held accountable and what kind aren't. ;D
Tariffs on hold. China caved in the last 24 hours on the trade war.
-
Tariffs on hold. China caved in the last 24 hours on the trade war.
False.
http://www.tampabay.com/florida-politics/buzz/2018/05/20/marco-rubio-slams-trump-hold-on-china-tariffs/
-
After China quit buying soybeans from U.S. farmers, it was time to cave.
-
Tariffs on hold. China caved in the last 24 hours on the trade war.
China backed a trump project in Indonesia.
-
#banhammah
-
False.
http://www.tampabay.com/florida-politics/buzz/2018/05/20/marco-rubio-slams-trump-hold-on-china-tariffs/
How is it false? Both sides are claiming no tariffs for now because China is willing to spend more on US goods then they have in the past? Things could change, but for now, no tariffs.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/us-china-agree-abandon-trade-war-beijing-043915337.html
-
Anyone thinking about jumping in on CPB today?
-
How is it false? Both sides are claiming no tariffs for now because China is willing to spend more on US goods then they have in the past? Things could change, but for now, no tariffs.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/us-china-agree-abandon-trade-war-beijing-043915337.html
Not gonna get into a political debate with you here on Scoop, chicos. Later.
-
Anyone thinking about jumping in on CPB today?
Like most of the rest of the prepared foods/consumer staples industry, CPB is having all kinds of troubles the last year or so. GIS, PG, CL, CLX, MO, K, PEP, KO, etc, etc, etc. Treasury rates have a lot to do with it, as does the fact that most were overvalued and now are coming back to earth.
I own several of the above and am not looking to add more, so I haven't looked deeply into CPB to see why it in particular is struggling. Don't know whether it's just falling with the rest of them or it has its own issues.
If one believes in the industry, there are lots of potential value plays here. If one is down on the industry, not so much.
-
Anyone thinking about jumping in on CPB today?
May 21 close - $33.58
Current: $40.90
Up 21.8%. Get at me!
-
May 21 close - $33.58
Current: $40.90
Up 21.8%. Get at me!
Nothing like a tasty takeover rumor to make a call look even better.
-
Nothing like a tasty takeover rumor to make a call look even better.
I’m tempted to hop out already. Just bought another (different) dog today. That one I’m hoping brings me greatness in a year (plus should yield a div of 4%+)
Lotsa cash still on the sidelines. Scared, but have to play some
-
AAPL still limping along... over $200
-
AAPL still limping along... over $200
Is that a good or bad thing?
https://www.theatlantic.com/amp/article/566387
-
Man bites dog.
-
Is that a good or bad thing?
https://www.theatlantic.com/amp/article/566387
Did anyone really think this wouldn't happen with the tax cut? This was the purpose of the bill.
Very few people are buying that it was for the middle class.
-
Is that a good or bad thing?
https://www.theatlantic.com/amp/article/566387
Stock buy backs are just a way to pump up a stock price in the short term instead of actually investing into something for the long term. They are great for short term holders, but terrible at creating value.
-
Stock buy backs are just a way to pump up a stock price in the short term instead of actually investing into something for the long term. They are great for short term holders, but terrible at creating value.
Thats been AAPL's MO for awhile. This quarter had very little actual growth. They are touting the growth of services revenue, but its potential growth is a small piece of what market cap would add from the stock continuing to rise by projected "growth". Iphone sales are flat, Mac sales are down. Sure iPhone prices are continuing to rise, but it seems like unit sales growth has stagnated, which you dont want to see.
I'm not saying sell AAPL, i'm not saying its going to crash and burn $50-$75 to the downside, but its just very hard for a company of that size to grow in the ways that people keep expecting it to do. And adding $10-$15B in services revenue for a company doing $250B in revenue doesnt scream MASSIVE GROWTH. But they can keep buying back shares and central backs, like the Swiss, can keep buying the stocks in massive volume.
Just my thoughts and opinion.
-
Did anyone really think this wouldn't happen with the tax cut? This was the purpose of the bill.
Very few people are buying that it was for the middle class.
Good evening ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to tonight’s episode of “Shameless Political Detours.”
Seriously, Brand.... even when Chicos starts to settle down, you just have to keep the flames stoked, aiyana?
-
Stock buy backs are just a way to pump up a stock price in the short term instead of actually investing into something for the long term. They are great for short term holders, but terrible at creating value.
Buybacks are especially good for the major shareholders - i.e. the CEO, the BoD and other company bigwigs. I much prefer dividends to buybacks.
But yeah, AAPL with yet another record high. Now much better than a two-bagger since Smuggles warned everybody to stay away.
-
I've thought about the buyback issue for a while now. I do think unfettered ability to buyback stock can be detrimental but I think there are legitimate business reasons to do it (such as if you are cash rich with a lot of relatively low priced stock out there you might buyback as a defense against a take over). So the question is, what does a reasonable regulation look like that is enforceable and doesn't swing the pendulum too far the other way ("outlawing" buybacks)?
-
Good evening ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to tonight’s episode of “Shameless Political Detours.”
Seriously, Brand.... even when Chicos starts to settle down, you just have to keep the flames stoked, aiyana?
No politics. Since the tax cut, US public companies announced a whopping $436.6 billion worth of stock buybacks. It is the most ever, almost doubling the previous record.
Explain to me where I was wrong - even if it is tougher than attacking me personally.
-
No politics. Since the tax cut, US public companies announced a whopping $436.6 billion worth of stock buybacks. It is the most ever, almost doubling the previous record.
Explain to me where I was wrong - even if it is tougher than attacking me personally.
(https://media.giphy.com/media/PLPNr02y6J9ni/giphy.gif)
-
Thats been AAPL's MO for awhile. This quarter had very little actual growth. They are touting the growth of services revenue, but its potential growth is a small piece of what market cap would add from the stock continuing to rise by projected "growth". Iphone sales are flat, Mac sales are down. Sure iPhone prices are continuing to rise, but it seems like unit sales growth has stagnated, which you dont want to see.
I'm not saying sell AAPL, i'm not saying its going to crash and burn $50-$75 to the downside, but its just very hard for a company of that size to grow in the ways that people keep expecting it to do. And adding $10-$15B in services revenue for a company doing $250B in revenue doesnt scream MASSIVE GROWTH. But they can keep buying back shares and central backs, like the Swiss, can keep buying the stocks in massive volume.
Just my thoughts and opinion.
Yeah I agree with this.
And I may be not understanding something completely here, but aren't stock buy backs similar to a dividend? So instead of distributing your excess cash to the shareholders on a regular basis, they are pumping up the stock price. Both create value for the shareholder, but the latter has better "optics" in the investment markets.
-
Yeah I agree with this.
And I may be not understanding something completely here, but aren't stock buy backs similar to a dividend? So instead of distributing your excess cash to the shareholders on a regular basis, they are pumping up the stock price. Both create value for the shareholder, but the latter has better "optics" in the investment markets.
Both are mechanisms for putting cash in investor pockets but dividends have a shorter term impact because A) you have to own the stock at a given point to receive the dividend(so you can't buy a stock to get the dividend) B) dividends do nothing to change the scarcity of a stock so supply and demand doesn't factor in like buybacks do. Dividends can drive up a stock price long term if a company is paying them out on the regular whereas buybacks pump the price up because there are fewer stocks and/or people want to cash out of a certain investment at a premium. Regular dividends would indicate continuing strength in a company but that's also why companies have come to rely more on buybacks than dividends...if you cut a dividend just once for some reason it can tank the stock long term whereas not doing a buy back isn't signaled as anything.
-
Both are mechanisms for putting cash in investor pockets but dividends have a shorter term impact because A) you have to own the stock at a given point to receive the dividend(so you can't buy a stock to get the dividend) B) dividends do nothing to change the scarcity of a stock so supply and demand doesn't factor in like buybacks do. Dividends can drive up a stock price long term if a company is paying them out on the regular whereas buybacks pump the price up because there are fewer stocks and/or people want to cash out of a certain investment at a premium. Regular dividends would indicate continuing strength in a company but that's also why companies have come to rely more on buybacks than dividends...if you cut a dividend just once for some reason it can tank the stock long term whereas not doing a buy back isn't signaled as anything.
Gotcha. Thank you.
-
Got in on SONO today. $17.xx. Let’s hope for the best. Love the product. May hop in & out quick. Over & over too. Twss
I AM THE STOCK MARKET
Edit: out at $19.36. Made some g’s in 64 minutes. Back in later if it falls.
-
Got in on SONO today. $17.xx. Let’s hope for the best. Love the product. May hop in & out quick. Over & over too. Twss
I AM THE STOCK MARKET
Edit: out at $19.36. Made some g’s in 64 minutes. Back in later if it falls.
Facebook call options. Dirt cheap $185 FB 9/21 C's are going to make me forget about all that GE lead in my portfolio.
-
$1,000,000,000,000
-
$1,000,000,000,000
Smuggles retreats further into his bunker.
-
I've thought about the buyback issue for a while now. I do think unfettered ability to buyback stock can be detrimental but I think there are legitimate business reasons to do it (such as if you are cash rich with a lot of relatively low priced stock out there you might buyback as a defense against a take over). So the question is, what does a reasonable regulation look like that is enforceable and doesn't swing the pendulum too far the other way ("outlawing" buybacks)?
I don't see how there can be any legislation against buybacks. It is up to investors to try to hold any BoD accountable for its actions ... which of course is easier said than done.
I am not morally or even fiscally opposed to the idea of buybacks. I also think there can be legit buybacks. My problem is that many companies execute buybacks at the exact wrong time - such as when the P/E ratio of their stock is at historic highs.
Despite the run-up, AAPL is not yet extremely overvalued; I don't mind the buyback but I would prefer a bigger dividend.
As for a dividend having a shorter-term impact ... it depends. If a company has a history of committing to raising its dividend, it can have quite a long-term impact for investors. I drip just about every stock I own - I like all of 'em, so I always want more of 'em - so I am constantly putting my divvies "to work."
-
SONO up 15% this morning
-
Did anyone really think this wouldn't happen with the tax cut? This was the purpose of the bill.
Very few people are buying that it was for the middle class.
One of the purposes, not the purpose. If a company feels their stock is valued low, they should have every right to buy it back and take shares off the market. Employees are part of corporations and they benefit, too. Most people get a tax break, that means most will get more money out of the deal in the short term. Wages are up (highest since 2009) and with unemployment so low they will go up higher as labor markets are tight and employers have to pay more for talent, economy is roaring right now, but everything is cyclical and will come down again. The question is whether a bust comes on the heels of all of this.
The other purpose was to move money offshore to the US. Get it out of Ireland and other low tax situations. Apple is moving vast sums of money ($285 Billion) from foreign countries to the US, as an Apple shareholder I applaud this. https://www.cnbc.com/2018/04/30/apples-plan-to-repatriate-285-billion-could-be-a-boost-for-investors.html Good move. Rather have the money here, working for the citizenry here. https://www.theverge.com/2018/1/17/16901936/apple-tax-bill-foreign-money-united-states
-
One of the purposes, not the purpose. If a company feels their stock is valued low, they should have every right to buy it back and take shares off the market. Employees are part of corporations and they benefit, too. Most people get a tax break, that means most will get more money out of the deal in the short term. Wages are up (highest since 2009) and with unemployment so low they will go up higher as labor markets are tight and employers have to pay more for talent, economy is roaring right now, but everything is cyclical and will come down again. The question is whether a bust comes on the heels of all of this.
The other purpose was to move money offshore to the US. Get it out of Ireland and other low tax situations. Apple is moving vast sums of money ($285 Billion) from foreign countries to the US, as an Apple shareholder I applaud this. https://www.cnbc.com/2018/04/30/apples-plan-to-repatriate-285-billion-could-be-a-boost-for-investors.html Good move. Rather have the money here, working for the citizenry here. https://www.theverge.com/2018/1/17/16901936/apple-tax-bill-foreign-money-united-states
Theoretically you are right, with low unemployment rates wage growth should be going up. And yes, wages have been increasing, but so has inflation. Despite the unemployment levels, YoY real wage growth (measuring your actual purchasing power) has been in decline since June of last year. The preliminary numbers for June '18 actually show YoY real wage growth at 0.0% despite unemployment rates going from 4.3% to 4.0% and "true" unemployment numbers dropping from 8.5% to 7.8% in that time frame. With this pay data, we know companies are not using the extra bump in cash to pay their employees any more than what inflation dictates (at least not yet, we will see where we end up). Data comes from the BLS website just to show average real wage growth by year with the annual unemployment rates next to them.
Ave YoY Real Wage Growth Annual Unemployment
2008 (last 1/2) -0.76% 7.20%(December)
2009 2.08% 9.30%
2010 1.16% 9.60%
2011 -0.88% 8.90%
2012 -0.33% 8.10%
2013 0.61% 7.40%
2014 0.88% 6.20%
2015 2.48% 5.30%
2016 1.20% 4.90%
2017 0.36% 4.40%
2018 (first half) 0.37% 4.00% (June)
In terms of the 2nd purpose to bring more money back onshore to the U.S., that will take some time to determine how much of an effect it will have, but early returns are that, yes indeed some of the larger companies are doing that. Apple for example has already brought their cash balance down $18B, mainly through buybacks. Given the amount of buybacks we are seeing, I can only assume that a lot of companies are using that as a strategy. And it has been discussed here who the buybacks ultimately have the biggest impact for.
Overall, I think the tax plan is doing exactly what it was designed to do.
-
https://twitter.com/greenhousenyt/status/1025359629583364096?s=19
-
Overall, I think the tax plan is doing exactly what it was designed to do.
Give the wealthy and powerful more wealth and power?
-
One of the purposes, not the purpose. If a company feels their stock is valued low, they should have every right to buy it back and take shares off the market. Employees are part of corporations and they benefit, too. Most people get a tax break, that means most will get more money out of the deal in the short term. Wages are up (highest since 2009) and with unemployment so low they will go up higher as labor markets are tight and employers have to pay more for talent, economy is roaring right now, but everything is cyclical and will come down again. The question is whether a bust comes on the heels of all of this.
The other purpose was to move money offshore to the US. Get it out of Ireland and other low tax situations. Apple is moving vast sums of money ($285 Billion) from foreign countries to the US, as an Apple shareholder I applaud this. https://www.cnbc.com/2018/04/30/apples-plan-to-repatriate-285-billion-could-be-a-boost-for-investors.html Good move. Rather have the money here, working for the citizenry here. https://www.theverge.com/2018/1/17/16901936/apple-tax-bill-foreign-money-united-states
Yea. Joe six-pack is seeing a significant boost to his personal financial situation as a result of the tax plan/buybacks
-
Give the wealthy and powerful more wealth and power?
Like I said, it is doing what it was intended to do :(
-
Few have any illusions about the purpose and actual impact of the tax bill--its approval rating is somehow lower than the President's. Sad!
-
$1,000,000,000,000
https://www.theonion.com/apple-becomes-first-american-company-that-should-have-p-1828067066?utm_source=TheOnion_Daily_RSS&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=&utm_term=
-
Both are mechanisms for putting cash in investor pockets but dividends have a shorter term impact because A) you have to own the stock at a given point to receive the dividend(so you can't buy a stock to get the dividend) B) dividends do nothing to change the scarcity of a stock so supply and demand doesn't factor in like buybacks do. Dividends can drive up a stock price long term if a company is paying them out on the regular whereas buybacks pump the price up because there are fewer stocks and/or people want to cash out of a certain investment at a premium. Regular dividends would indicate continuing strength in a company but that's also why companies have come to rely more on buybacks than dividends...if you cut a dividend just once for some reason it can tank the stock long term whereas not doing a buy back isn't signaled as anything.
Buybacks also increase the EPS (earnings per share) for a unit of stock, as there are less stocks outstanding in the market for the same amount of company earnings. So you are essentially comparing between receiving a larger dividend or owning a larger share of future earnings (stock buyback)....there is not a large difference between the two and the negative connotation on buybacks has never made much sense to me.
-
Buybacks also increase the EPS (earnings per share) for a unit of stock, as there are less stocks outstanding in the market for the same amount of company earnings. So you are essentially comparing between receiving a larger dividend or owning a larger share of future earnings (stock buyback)....there is not a large difference between the two and the negative connotation on buybacks has never made much sense to me.
Socialism makes no sense.
-
Socialism makes no sense.
Apropos of nothing.
Do you need to use your own #bandisguy hashtag?
-
Give the wealthy and powerful more wealth and power?
And yet, no support here for compulsory voting?!? Hypocrites.
-
And yet, no support here for compulsory voting?!?
Don't worry, Benny, I support compulsory voting ... as long as folks promise to vote for the correct candidates!
-
And yet, no support here for compulsory voting?!? Hypocrites.
I reiterate my support
-
And yet, no support here for compulsory voting?!? Hypocrites.
When voting is mandatory, it is no longer an act of freedom.
-
Don't worry, Benny, I support compulsory voting ... as long as folks promise to vote for the correct candidates!
Ditto.
None of the Above meets the criteria for not voting.
-
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/04/business/shrinking-stock-market.html
-
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/04/business/shrinking-stock-market.html
Thank you for linking this. There have been a few of these articles on this topic going back the last few years, but with different viewpoints on where it is good or bad.
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/05/07/the-stock-market-is-shrinking-and-thats-a-good-thing-private-equity-honchos-say.html
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/this-incredible-shrinking-stock-market-is-bad-news-for-this-type-of-investor-2017-06-09
https://money.cnn.com/2015/07/09/investing/stock-market-shrinking/index.html
https://www.wsj.com/articles/fewer-listed-companies-is-that-good-or-bad-for-stock-markets-1515100040
-
Thank you for linking this. There have been a few of these articles on this topic going back the last few years, but with different viewpoints on where it is good or bad.
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/05/07/the-stock-market-is-shrinking-and-thats-a-good-thing-private-equity-honchos-say.html
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/this-incredible-shrinking-stock-market-is-bad-news-for-this-type-of-investor-2017-06-09
https://money.cnn.com/2015/07/09/investing/stock-market-shrinking/index.html
https://www.wsj.com/articles/fewer-listed-companies-is-that-good-or-bad-for-stock-markets-1515100040
What often is not mentioned is that amount of international companies available to invest in has doubled. While the US stock market has shrunk, it ends up being a wash with the combined US and ex-US stocks available. Micro Cap US stocks have undoubtedly shrunk, however.
-
Buybacks also increase the EPS (earnings per share) for a unit of stock, as there are less stocks outstanding in the market for the same amount of company earnings. So you are essentially comparing between receiving a larger dividend or owning a larger share of future earnings (stock buyback)....there is not a large difference between the two and the negative connotation on buybacks has never made much sense to me.
I would guess that buybacks have a more negative connotation because they are seen as more sporadic events that dramatically reduce cash balances - and therefore are seen as a zero sum game with reinvestment - as opposed to dividends which are seen as more gradual reductions of cash balances and indicative of long term success/allowing for simultaneous reinvestment?
-
What often is not mentioned is that amount of international companies available to invest in has doubled. While the US stock market has shrunk, it ends up being a wash with the combined US and ex-US stocks available. Micro Cap US stocks have undoubtedly shrunk, however.
Yes the US market is getting smaller and primarily for two reasons, one you mention that overseas markets are becoming as prominent but also because how companies are capitalizing is changing as well. Start-ups and small/medium companies don't have to issue an IPO to properly capitalize their businesses anymore. The number of mechanism by which these types of companies can access capital has exploded over the last 20 years, from VCs, to Angel Investors, to large corporations investing not to buy the company but to simply have access to their capability/technology.
I know of one start-up that is capitalized by every major competitor in the market space so they all have access to the technology. This start-up doesn't have to worry about IPOs/shareholders/business media/etc. They can focus on development and growing, everyone is wildly compensated and maybe when they get big enough they cash out by having one of their investors buy them.
One side note, I've always struggled with the idea that the stock market isn't "democratic" enough that the common person doesn't have access to it. Even if you raised a minimum wage to $20/hr are folks at that wage level going to invest in the market? Is that a good thing to aspire to? I'm not saying this from an elite "stay out of my country club" standpoint, but pragmatically speaking isn't there a certain income level where market investment makes sense because the risk/reward tolerances are different? The focus on the market as the source of income inequality is really focusing on the symptom more than the cause (IMO it's monetary/tax policy at fault not the markets).
-
Circling back to the wage discussion that was going on previously, I think there are three factors that are driving the stagnation in wage growth, two major and one minor. Obviously the concentration of wealth in the market via buybacks, generational wealth transfer, hedge funds, etc is a major driver in wage inequality...simply because corporations are taking cash on hand and pushing it back into the market or into technology(more on that in a minute) that reduces the cash in pocket which then doesn't go into employee pockets.
However, one major driver that people forget is productivity in the form of technology, and I think the reason they forget it is the way technology is making us more productive is different than in years past. In previous years technology/productivity has been about getting more out of a worker in their job for their company (email let me talk to more people more quickly, order management systems let me process/take more orders, etc) but now it is transforming how companies do business and making the "X as a Service" completely viable. Companies are giving up jobs and functions that aren't core competencies to 3rd party vendors who do only that thing for a whole bunch of customers. Traditionally, you think of this as something like janitorial services....in the 60/70s companies had their own janitor service, then in the 80/90s they went to 3rd party companies that all they did was janitorial services. Technology has advanced to the point that you can now do that with all job functions (IT, OT, manufacturing, customer service, engineering design, logistics, sourcing, etc) and that specialization has allowed those vendors to be more efficient and get more utilization out of the resources they have. A small/medium company might have previously needed a staff of 20 IT personnel in-house but now they get the same capabilities with a staff of 4 in-house and 16 FTE from a vendor and the vendor doesn't have 16 people dedicated to that customer....they are rotating those resources amongst multiple customers, which means the salaries stay largely the same because there isn't more work we've just got better at doing the work with fewer people thanks to technology.
Bottom line, IMHO, the XaaS revolution will be holding salaries down for at least the next 5 years as creative destruction transformers how we do business. Once XaaS becomes a commodity/ante to the market, the providers will have to start competing for human capital again because quality will again become a competitive factor as opposed to just pricing.
-
Apple - along with Facebook, YouTube and Spotify - finally kicked the d-bag conspiracy theorist Alex Jones off their sites.
For those who might not know, Jones is now being sued for repeatedly claiming that Sandy Hook didn't really happen, the government is running a conspiracy to make us think it happened, and 20 little kids actually faked their deaths.
Jones is claiming this is a First Amendment issue. Of course it isn't. Apple can take any podcast it wants off iTunes, and Jones still can spew his demented world view any time he wants.
If there are 10 bigger d-bags in the world than Alex Jones, I can't name 'em.
-
Apple - along with Facebook, YouTube and Spotify - finally kicked the d-bag conspiracy theorist Alex Jones off their sites.
For those who might not know, Jones is now being sued for repeatedly claiming that Sandy Hook didn't really happen, the government is running a conspiracy to make us think it happened, and 20 little kids actually faked their deaths.
Jones is claiming this is a First Amendment issue. Of course it isn't. Apple can take any podcast it wants off iTunes, and Jones still can spew his demented world view any time he wants.
If there are 10 bigger d-bags in the world than Alex Jones, I can't name 'em.
I can only think of one.
-
One side note, I've always struggled with the idea that the stock market isn't "democratic" enough that the common person doesn't have access to it. Even if you raised a minimum wage to $20/hr are folks at that wage level going to invest in the market? Is that a good thing to aspire to? I'm not saying this from an elite "stay out of my country club" standpoint, but pragmatically speaking isn't there a certain income level where market investment makes sense because the risk/reward tolerances are different? The focus on the market as the source of income inequality is really focusing on the symptom more than the cause (IMO it's monetary/tax policy at fault not the markets).
I agree entirely with this. My nit to pick is more with the way the markets are portrayed as indicative of economic health/growth for the entire country. The folks with money in the markets are a desired advertising audience and consume economics-oriented media, leading to a positive feedback loop tracking the daily movement of the markets. But this has resulted in a sort of media creep whereby its now "common knowledge" that the market is an accurate depiction of US economic health as a whole (because people with money in the markets care a lot about their daily movements). This has lead to a lot of those bad monetary/tax policies - "if the markets go up, it must be good for the US economy" type stuff. But that's just not accurate - a lot of policy can be N2O in the market's tank, but have a neutral or even negative economic impact on the majority of US workers. Its kind of an insidious side effect of "checking the markets" on the local 5 and 6 o clock news everyday.
-
I agree entirely with this. My nit to pick is more with the way the markets are portrayed as indicative of economic health/growth for the entire country. The folks with money in the markets are a desired advertising audience and consume economics-oriented media, leading to a positive feedback loop tracking the daily movement of the markets. But this has resulted in a sort of media creep whereby its now "common knowledge" that the market is an accurate depiction of US economic health as a whole (because people with money in the markets care a lot about their daily movements). This has lead to a lot of those bad monetary/tax policies - "if the markets go up, it must be good for the US economy" type stuff. But that's just not accurate - a lot of policy can be N2O in the market's tank, but have a neutral or even negative economic impact on the majority of US workers. Its kind of an insidious side effect of "checking the markets" on the local 5 and 6 o clock news everyday.
I completely agree. I also think this is an artifact of a lack of fundamental economic understanding within the population who generally speaking isn't conversant in economic understanding with the exception of politically driven economic ideology.
-
I can only think of one.
The one who in 2015 told Jones: "Your reputation is amazing. I will not let you down”?
If so, I never talk about that one, so forget I mentioned him or her.
-
The one who in 2015 told Jones: "Your reputation is amazing. I will not let you down”?
If so, I never talk about that one, so forget I mentioned him or her.
He's kind of like Voldemort, "He who should not be named."
Unfortunately he's in our face all the time.
-
Apple - along with Facebook, YouTube and Spotify - finally kicked the d-bag conspiracy theorist Alex Jones off their sites.
For those who might not know, Jones is now being sued for repeatedly claiming that Sandy Hook didn't really happen, the government is running a conspiracy to make us think it happened, and 20 little kids actually faked their deaths.
Jones is claiming this is a First Amendment issue. Of course it isn't. Apple can take any podcast it wants off iTunes, and Jones still can spew his demented world view any time he wants.
If there are 10 bigger d-bags in the world than Alex Jones, I can't name 'em.
Never even heard of the guy until last two days. Nutcase. However, I think those tech companies made a mistake. They are making him into a martyr, for one. Secondly, with them all acting at the same time, they will be accused of colluding. Finally, I may disagree with someone but will defend their right to the death for them to say what they want. This becomes more than a slippery slope, but a straight down cliff. So much division in this country already with camps going to different media, this will result in people going to their havens for social media, too.
Then I read about the latest member of the NY Times editorial board. Wow. These are crazy times.
-
Never even heard of the guy until last two days. Nutcase. However, I think those tech companies made a mistake. They are making him into a martyr, for one. Secondly, with them all acting at the same time, they will be accused of colluding. Finally, I may disagree with someone but will defend their right to the death for them to say what they want. This becomes more than a slippery slope, but a straight down cliff. So much division in this country already with camps going to different media, this will result in people going to their havens for social media, too.
Then I read about the latest member of the NY Times editorial board. Wow. These are crazy times.
The difference between Alex Jones and Sarah Jeong is comparing black holes to apples, thats whataboutism in the most classic sense. And BTW it's not universal, twitter is getting hammered for not banning him.
The tech companies are walking a difficult path because they are basically having to police speech because the consumers of speech are unwilling to do it for themselves. Alex Jones is a despicable human being and his lies hurt people, but shouldn't that be on the people who may or may not hear his speech to just not listen? I'm hard pressed to believe there is speech so dangerous it should be suppressed in any form but I admit I could be wrong or overly libertarian.
To bring it back to the point of the thread though....does this type of expectation of moderation need to get priced into the risk for some tech companies like Facebook, Spotify, Apple, etc who are platforms for speech but now they are suddenly burdened with cost and PR considerations around policing speech?
-
Never even heard of the guy until last two days. Nutcase. However, I think those tech companies made a mistake. They are making him into a martyr, for one. Secondly, with them all acting at the same time, they will be accused of colluding. Finally, I may disagree with someone but will defend their right to the death for them to say what they want. This becomes more than a slippery slope, but a straight down cliff. So much division in this country already with camps going to different media, this will result in people going to their havens for social media, too.
Then I read about the latest member of the NY Times editorial board. Wow. These are crazy times.
I couldn't write a "Chicos trying so hard not to sound like Chicos" post if I tried.
-
Never even heard of the guy until last two days. Nutcase. However, I think those tech companies made a mistake. They are making him into a martyr, for one. Secondly, with them all acting at the same time, they will be accused of colluding. Finally, I may disagree with someone but will defend their right to the death for them to say what they want. This becomes more than a slippery slope, but a straight down cliff. So much division in this country already with camps going to different media, this will result in people going to their havens for social media, too.
Then I read about the latest member of the NY Times editorial board. Wow. These are crazy times.
The tech companies are not stopping him from saying what he wants to. He can still say what he wants, but he cannot say it on their private corporation platforms. Nowhere in the 1st amendment does it say private corporations need to provide a platform for people to say what they want to say. This can be a slippery slope, agreed, but as long as they are not discriminating based on gender, race, religion, sexual orientation, etc I have no problem with private companies determining who can and cannot speak on their platforms.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
-
Those corporations refusing to provide a platform for 'that guy' is no different than moderators here cleaning up threads, giving people time outs, or banning them. It is their playground and therefore their rules. When moderators here decide someone is being a bully, or racist, or a demagogue, they get banned. It is their playground and therefore their rules.
The big platforms have decided that an individual is more trouble than he is worth and does not reflect their corporate values.
-
I couldn't write a "Chicos trying so hard not to sound like Chicos" post if I tried.
Trying not to sound like himself while making his same arguments. Never heard of the guy until two days ago? Laughable. Arguing that Jones should be given a platform to spew hate while not understanding that this isn't a 1st amendment case? Classic Chicos.
-
Trying not to sound like himself while making his same arguments. Never heard of the guy until two days ago? Laughable. Arguing that Jones should be given a platform to spew hate while not understanding that this isn't a 1st amendment case? Classic Chicos.
My favorite is the false equivalence to the NYT writer that has only Tucker Carlson, and cheesedicks like him, pretending to be outraged. No one else. And yet Chicos walked into that like a bear into a trap.
-
Finally, I may disagree with someone but will defend their right to the death for them to say what they want.
Here, Chicos, maybe this will help.
(https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/images/a/ae/free_speech.png)
This is what happened to you, at least six times on this very site.
-
My favorite is the false equivalence to the NYT writer that has only Tucker Carlson, and cheesedicks like him, pretending to be outraged. No one else. And yet Chicos walked into that like a bear into a trap.
Jones can still say whatever he wants. And the gov't can't prevent him from doing it.
Sadly, chicos doesn't understand the difference between gov't and a private business.
-
My favorite is the false equivalence to the NYT writer that has only Tucker Carlson, and cheesedicks like him, pretending to be outraged. No one else. And yet Chicos walked into that like a bear into a trap.
Welcome to 2018 where you can't say
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ifaoKZfQpdA
about one or more people without trying to use it to prop up someone else terrible from the other side of the fence.
-
The difference between Alex Jones and Sarah Jeong is comparing black holes to apples, thats whataboutism in the most classic sense. And BTW it's not universal, twitter is getting hammered for not banning him.
The tech companies are walking a difficult path because they are basically having to police speech because the consumers of speech are unwilling to do it for themselves. Alex Jones is a despicable human being and his lies hurt people, but shouldn't that be on the people who may or may not hear his speech to just not listen? I'm hard pressed to believe there is speech so dangerous it should be suppressed in any form but I admit I could be wrong or overly libertarian.
To bring it back to the point of the thread though....does this type of expectation of moderation need to get priced into the risk for some tech companies like Facebook, Spotify, Apple, etc who are platforms for speech but now they are suddenly burdened with cost and PR considerations around policing speech?
It matters because it is another unforced error. 1/2 the country already calls the news fake and hypocritical, actions like this for right or wrong cement that further. Slate had a good article on this. https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/08/sarah-jeong-shouldnt-be-fired-for-her-tweets-that-doesnt-mean-liberals-have-to-defend-them.html
I am also a reader of the Atlantic, and her attacks on one of their journalists was uncalled for. https://www.intellectualtakeout.org/article/sarah-jeong-proposed-banning-atlantic-editor-who-exposed-hunting-ground
More of the pull toward the extremes in my opinion, which is unfortunate. These are crazy times. This is an action that the Times would not have taken in the past and I question their motives now as an avid reader for at least 30 years.
Twitter doesn't have much of a leg to stand on when one considers whom they allow to tweet. If you ban someone on these sites as they collectively did, you better be ready to defend why someone else isn't banned. You can call it Whataboutism, but it is perception and bad optics. Benefits only the extremes and makes it appear these entities are picking sides. With that, people will leave those platforms and that is bad for business. That doesn't mean anything goes, but it can't be two sets of rules either.
Michael Jordan famously said Republicans buy sneakers, too. He was no dummy. If these sites alienate one side or the other, they will lose followers and that means advertising revenue. Unneeded. I say this as an owner of FANG, got out of some of the Facebook a few months ago, but still own some. Do not own Twitter, think it is the easiest to copy with GAB or something else someone dreams up.
-
The tech companies are not stopping him from saying what he wants to. He can still say what he wants, but he cannot say it on their private corporation platforms. Nowhere in the 1st amendment does it say private corporations need to provide a platform for people to say what they want to say. This can be a slippery slope, agreed, but as long as they are not discriminating based on gender, race, religion, sexual orientation, etc I have no problem with private companies determining who can and cannot speak on their platforms.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Define private company. They are publicly traded and in some cases receive government assistance, are they truly private? Regardless, I'm not advocating a 1st amendment issue at all. Not sure why you are claiming I have. I'm well aware of the difference.
It comes down to whether these entities are an exchange of free thinking ideas or only those that they support. In my view, even if I disagree with those views, that is a mistake and further pulls both sides apart.
-
I agree that Apple, etc, might make Jones a martyr. Otherwise, I don't agree with much of what chicos2 says.
Those platforms refusing to air Jones' crapola is no different than CBS refusing to air hard-core pornography, Fox News refusing to have a left-wing host, MSNBC refusing to have a right-wing host, etc.
Nobody is stopping Alex Jones from spewing his hate, racism and conspiracy theories. He just has to find outlets that will accept them. Maybe Hannity needs a co-host.
Oh, and most of the same people who are outraged that Jones is being "denied his freedom of speech" believe the NFL not only has the right to blackball Kaepernick but has a duty to do so.
-
Martyr in the making. Sad, but predictable.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2018/08/07/censoring-alex-jones-only-make-him-stronger-talker/922333002/
Edited
NY Daily News with similar views. Unforced Error, making him a martyr. http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/ny-nadine-strossen-20180808-story.html
Slate http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/ny-nadine-strossen-20180808-story.html
Tribune http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/commentary/ct-perspec-alex-jones-apple-facebook-censorship-0808-story.html
-
I agree that Apple, etc, might make Jones a martyr. Otherwise, I don't agree with much of what chicos2 says.
Those platforms refusing to air Jones' crapola is no different than CBS refusing to air hard-core pornography, Fox News refusing to have a left-wing host, MSNBC refusing to have a right-wing host, etc.
Nobody is stopping Alex Jones from spewing his hate, racism and conspiracy theories. He just has to find outlets that will accept them. Maybe Hannity needs a co-host.
Oh, and most of the same people who are outraged that Jones is being "denied his freedom of speech" believe the NFL not only has the right to blackball Kaepernick but has a duty to do so.
MSNBC does have hosts from the right. Joe Scarborough, Nicole Wallace, Steve Schmidt, Michael Steele, and that nuttier-than-a-fruitcake Hugh Hewitt. MSNBC is left opinionated for sure, but they don't repeatadly make crap up or pitch utter BS and conspiracy theories like it's normal news.
-
MSNBC does have hosts from the right. Joe Scarborough
Yeah, dude left the Republican Party
-
Dude argues the republican party left him.
-
MSNBC does have hosts from the right. Joe Scarborough, Nicole Wallace, Steve Schmidt, Michael Steele, and that nuttier-than-a-fruitcake Hugh Hewitt. MSNBC is left opinionated for sure, but they don't repeatadly make crap up or pitch utter BS and conspiracy theories like it's normal news.
I agree with this. Fox has hosts from the left, too. Chris Wallace, is a Democrat. Alan Colmes (RIP) was there for years,a Democrats. According to one list I found, at least 20 contributors. Sally Kohn wrote a piece in Time about her work there. http://time.com/5233477/sally-kohn-the-opposite-of-hate/
I believe it was only 24 hours ago that MU82 accused others of making a statement(s) without a shred of evidence to back it up, but then he comes out with that statement. :P
-
MSNBC does have hosts from the right. Joe Scarborough, Nicole Wallace, Steve Schmidt, Michael Steele, and that nuttier-than-a-fruitcake Hugh Hewitt. MSNBC is left opinionated for sure, but they don't repeatadly make crap up or pitch utter BS and conspiracy theories like it's normal news.
This is true, fair enough, but I did say "right-wing," and I'm usually talking about extreme when I use that term.
Schmidt is now a Democrat, I believe.
I agree with this. Fox has hosts from the left, too. Chris Wallace, is a Democrat. Alan Colmes (RIP) was there for years,a Democrats. According to one list I found, at least 20 contributors. Sally Kohn wrote a piece in Time about her work there. http://time.com/5233477/sally-kohn-the-opposite-of-hate/
I believe it was only 24 hours ago that MU82 accused others of making a statement(s) without a shred of evidence to back it up, but then he comes out with that statement. :P
Again, I said "left-wing," and I was talking about the extreme. I should have said "extreme," chicos2, I admit that. I think you'd agree with me that when one thinks of "left-wingers," one doesn't think of Chris Wallace.
Unlike some (you might want to look in the mirror), I don't just fabricate stuff. But nice try.
Anyway, this was about Alex Jones. One does not have to devolve into politics at all to discuss his brand of hate and his tin-foil BS.
-
This is true, fair enough, but I did say "right-wing," and I'm usually talking about extreme when I use that term.
Schmidt is now a Democrat, I believe.
Schmidt became an independent. It's going to take the dude who helped foist Sarah Palin on us a long time to atone for his misdeeds.
-
(Another) new all-time high for AAPL today.
Smuggles sure owes a lot of Scoopers money!
-
SONO back under $17. I hopped back in. #pray
-
SONO back under $17. I hopped back in. #pray
Smart. There's a lot more room to go up than down at only $1.50 above offering. Everyone's scared of the bad comps (fitbit) and stiff competition (Alexa) but they'll keep their niche long enough to get out with a little profit.
-
Smart. There's a lot more room to go up than down at only $1.50 above offering. Everyone's scared of the bad comps (fitbit) and stiff competition (Alexa) but they'll keep their niche long enough to get out with a little profit.
Hoping so. Looking to get to $24-25 then bail (again), most likely.
-
Define private company. They are publicly traded and in some cases receive government assistance, are they truly private? Regardless, I'm not advocating a 1st amendment issue at all. Not sure why you are claiming I have. I'm well aware of the difference.
It comes down to whether these entities are an exchange of free thinking ideas or only those that they support. In my view, even if I disagree with those views, that is a mistake and further pulls both sides apart.
Not a government entity, in the private sector. I should have said a private sector company.
So if your argument is going to be that that companies who are publicly traded might not truly be private, then you have no issues with the government putting more restrictions on therm, such as more environmental protection laws, more banking regulations to prevent economic devastation if they f-up and become too greedy again? Right?
-
Dude argues the republican party left him.
Dude also was a significant reason we got the president we got
-
Yeah, dude left the Republican Party
He was a conservative before the creep and he is a conservative now.
But you are facing a dilemma. You are always the first to whine to the Mods about politics. Yet, if you do that here, you are complaining about yourself since I am only replying to your political post.
-
Not a government entity, in the private sector. I should have said a private sector company.
So if your argument is going to be that that companies who are publicly traded might not truly be private, then you have no issues with the government putting more restrictions on therm, such as more environmental protection laws, more banking regulations to prevent economic devastation if they f-up and become too greedy again? Right?
No problem from my end.
-
... no issues with the government putting more restrictions on therm, such as more environmental protection laws, more banking regulations to prevent economic devastation if they f-up and become too greedy again? Right?
Curious as to the point you’re trying to make here, because, a) gov’t does have those rights and b) I don’t think any F500 - or Russell 2000 company for that matter - has ever advocated for libertarian oversight of publicly traded companies.
-
Again, I said "left-wing," and I was talking about the extreme. I should have said "extreme," chicos2, I admit that. I think you'd agree with me that when one thinks of "left-wingers," one doesn't think of Chris Wallace.
Unlike some (you might want to look in the mirror), I don't just fabricate stuff. But nice try.
Anyway, this was about Alex Jones. One does not have to devolve into politics at all to discuss his brand of hate and his tin-foil BS.
Left wing as in left of center, far left, moderate left? You didn't define. If you meant extreme then I understand, but you didn't articulate that so it was not obvious. Though doesn't Fox have Dennis Kucinich? He would with that label in my view. Others.
On Alex Jones, you might or might not enjoy reading this New York Times OpEd about the slippery slope this is going to create.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/09/opinion/if-we-silence-hate-speech-will-we-silence-resistance.html
-
Hoping so. Looking to get to $24-25 then bail (again), most likely.
I bought a bunch of shares yesterday sub $17. Agree that the floor seems mid teens and hovering around $20 seems realistic. It’s cheap enough to bang out a decent profit.
-
Left wing as in left of center, far left, moderate left? You didn't define. If you meant extreme then I understand, but you didn't articulate that so it was not obvious. Though doesn't Fox have Dennis Kucinich? He would with that label in my view. Others.
On Alex Jones, you might or might not enjoy reading this New York Times OpEd about the slippery slope this is going to create.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/09/opinion/if-we-silence-hate-speech-will-we-silence-resistance.html
It's amusing that Chico's ideas of liberals are Alan Colmes and Dennis Kucinich, who now peddles Deep State conspiracy theories.
Never change, Cheeks.
-
I bought a bunch of shares yesterday sub $17. Agree that the floor seems mid teens and hovering around $20 seems realistic. It’s cheap enough to bang out a decent profit.
Up 5% today to mid-17's. We may be the #AntiHeisy.
-
Dish and JayBee (and anyone else that cares to answer) - what platform do ya'll use for this stuff? I haven't jumped in yet, but for as much as I follow it, its beginning to be like playing fantasy sports for no money - I might as well get in the game. Thinking I'd want the platform with the lowest transaction costs and most intuitive for trades and tax reporting?
-
Dish and JayBee (and anyone else that cares to answer) - what platform do ya'll use for this stuff? I haven't jumped in yet, but for as much as I follow it, its beginning to be like playing fantasy sports for no money - I might as well get in the game. Thinking I'd want the platform with the lowest transaction costs and most intuitive for trades and tax reporting?
I don't have a strong allegiance to any platform and think they're all somewhat comparable - you may personally prefer one or another. I mostly use e*Trade. I think it's at $6.95 per trade. They have eff'd up tax reporting in the past, but it's easy to use.
-
Dish and JayBee (and anyone else that cares to answer) - what platform do ya'll use for this stuff? I haven't jumped in yet, but for as much as I follow it, its beginning to be like playing fantasy sports for no money - I might as well get in the game. Thinking I'd want the platform with the lowest transaction costs and most intuitive for trades and tax reporting?
I use E Trade. I agree that their tax reporting needs work, but trading is easy and relatively cheap. Full disclosure, my brother also works at E Trade.
I jumped in on DBX at mid $31 today.
-
Dish and JayBee (and anyone else that cares to answer) - what platform do ya'll use for this stuff? I haven't jumped in yet, but for as much as I follow it, its beginning to be like playing fantasy sports for no money - I might as well get in the game. Thinking I'd want the platform with the lowest transaction costs and most intuitive for trades and tax reporting?
I use Fidelity, Schwab and Vanguard. All are good, with good customer service.
Unless you're going to have a large account (which favors Vanguard), best costs for transactions are Fidelity and Schwab at $4.95 per trade. Both also have excellent research tools; I favor Fidelity's slightly, but Schwab offers Morningstar, which is nice.
All of them (and every other brokerage) is required by law to calculate cost basis and other data that has to do with taxes.
My only advice is to know yourself (risk tolerance, goals, etc) and to not invest in a way that makes you uncomfortable.
I wish you good fortune!
-
Left wing as in left of center, far left, moderate left? You didn't define. If you meant extreme then I understand, but you didn't articulate that so it was not obvious. Though doesn't Fox have Dennis Kucinich? He would with that label in my view. Others.
On Alex Jones, you might or might not enjoy reading this New York Times OpEd about the slippery slope this is going to create.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/09/opinion/if-we-silence-hate-speech-will-we-silence-resistance.html
That was a good read. Thanks for posting. Lots of food for thought in there.
I don't blame the social media sites for kicking off Alex Jones, especially given the way the sites themselves have been demonized for not monitoring the stuff they publish better.
But sure, there could be unintended consequences from this kind of stuff. There often are. Such as Jones becoming a martyr.
Of course, the White House regularly has banned certain reporters from official media events, even a pool reporter just a couple weeks back.
And, as I said, many of the same people moaning about the ban of Alex Jones celebrate the blackballing of Kaepernick and Eric Reid.
So who knows? It's an interesting discussion.
It gets less interesting when you start interpreting left-wing and right-wing as something other than far from the center. Nobody who calls Palin right-wing or Bernie Sanders left-wing is saying they are slightly right or left of center. But I guess that was on me for not providing context.
-
I can only think of one.
Agree with you on Crean, hey?
-
Agree with you on Crean, hey?
um... yeaaah.
-
Agree with you on Crean, hey?
I can see the campaign slogan now:
Crean 2020: Couldn't Be Any Worse!
-
I agree with this. Fox has hosts from the left, too. Chris Wallace, is a Democrat. Alan Colmes (RIP) was there for years,a Democrats. According to one list I found, at least 20 contributors. Sally Kohn wrote a piece in Time about her work there. http://time.com/5233477/sally-kohn-the-opposite-of-hate/
I believe it was only 24 hours ago that MU82 accused others of making a statement(s) without a shred of evidence to back it up, but then he comes out with that statement. :P
Chris Wallace is no Democrat and is a huge continual disappointment. I can tell there it's an excellent journalist under that skin somewhere, but he chooses to rarely show it and instead prefers slurping for Fox.
-
Chris Wallace is no Democrat and is a huge continual disappointment. I can tell there it's an excellent journalist under that skin somewhere, but he chooses to rarely show it and instead prefers slurping for Fox.
He is a registered Democrat, for more than three decades. Votes for both parties
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/10/AR2006101001509.html
-
It's amusing that Chico's ideas of liberals are Alan Colmes and Dennis Kucinich, who now peddles Deep State conspiracy theories.
Never change, Cheeks.
Keep going with that I guess. Those two were mentioned because they worked for Fox News. Colmes, I enjoyed his commentary immensely, and he self identified with that label. https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/alan-colmes-co-host-of-hannity-and-colmes-and-liberal-in-lions-den-of-fox-news-dies-at-66/2017/02/23/e95ddfae-f9d9-11e6-be05-1a3817ac21a5_story.html?utm_term=.b9ca94bc1a4d
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/23/business/media/obituary-alan-colmes-fox-news.html
Kucinich, did also. That doesn't mean those are the only definitions of left wing or liberal, not in my view anyway.
-
Chris Wallace is no Democrat and is a huge continual disappointment. I can tell there it's an excellent journalist under that skin somewhere, but he chooses to rarely show it and instead prefers slurping for Fox.
I rarely watch Fox News but I do have a couple of friends who occasionally send me links. From that limited sample, I have thought Wallace did some good work. From a similarly limited sample, I prefer Shep Smith.
BTW, I rarely watch MSNBC and CNN, either. I am closing in on my 1-year anniversary of having dumped DirecTV, and since then have relied mostly on OTT antenna, Netflix and Hulu.
-
Curious as to the point you’re trying to make here, because, a) gov’t does have those rights and b) I don’t think any F500 - or Russell 2000 company for that matter - has ever advocated for libertarian oversight of publicly traded companies.
I was asking chicos 2.0 the question because of the below statement he made. I agree with you 100%. It was just a very odd question to ask.
"They are publicly traded and in some cases receive government assistance, are they truly private? "
-
Keep going with that I guess. Those two were mentioned because they worked for Fox News. Colmes, I enjoyed his commentary immensely, and he self identified with that label.
That's exactly the point. FoxNews hired self-identified "liberals" who were total tools in order to prop up the purported reasonableness of the crazy crap coming out of everyone else's mouths. Sure, Colmes seemed nice, but he was a complete stooge. A human straw man.
Thank god you've at least dropped the "not Chicos" thing. That was pretty weird. Step in the right direction, I guess.
-
That's exactly the point. FoxNews hired self-identified "liberals" who were total tools in order to prop up the purported reasonableness of the crazy crap coming out of everyone else's mouths. Sure, Colmes seemed nice, but he was a complete stooge. A human straw man.
Thank god you've at least dropped the "not Chicos" thing. That was pretty weird. Step in the right direction, I guess.
In fairness, but everyone hires tools to advance their own agenda. Doesn’t make Fox or CNN or anyone else any better or more objective than the other.
People mostly listen to what they want to listen to. Cable news is a big$$$ business, and they cater to the crowds that make them the most money. All of them do. If all the rednecks decided to start watching the Daily Show instead of their bi-hourly NASCAR/UFC update at 11:00p, Trevor Noah would turn into one of the brothers Tom faster than you could say Keenan Ivory Wayans.
-
In fairness, but everyone hires tools to advance their own agenda. Doesn’t make Fox or CNN or anyone else any better or more objective than the other.
People mostly listen to what they want to listen to. Cable news is a big$$$ business, and they cater to the crowds that make them the most money. All of them do. If all the rednecks decided to start watching the Daily Show instead of their bi-hourly NASCAR/UFC update at 11:00p, Trevor Noah would turn into one of the brothers Tom faster than you could say Keenan Ivory Wayans.
Same with the "financial" networks. CNBC and the rest are just as culpable. They aren't there to make you money, they are there to make themselves money with viewers. Reasonable sage investment advice and market talk doesn't bring in viewers, but hysteria around perceived bull and bear markets does. MARKETS IN TURMOIL
-
In fairness, but everyone hires tools to advance their own agenda. Doesn’t make Fox or CNN or anyone else any better or more objective than the other.
You and I have a long, rich history of trolling each other and your comments oft give me pause to think deeper on certain issues .... but in all seriousness, do you actually believe what you wrote?
-
Same with the "financial" networks. CNBC and the rest are just as culpable. They aren't there to make you money, they are there to make themselves money with viewers. Reasonable sage investment advice and market talk doesn't bring in viewers, but hysteria around perceived bull and bear markets does. MARKETS IN TURMOIL
Wait. I thought that was Heisy's schtick.
-
You and I have a long, rich history of trolling each other and your comments oft give me pause to think deeper on certain issues .... but in all seriousness, do you actually believe what you wrote?
Ok grammar police, if you want to get technical, you’re either objective or you’re not. “More” objective isn’t proper... consider it a figure of speech.
-
That's exactly the point. FoxNews hired self-identified "liberals" who were total tools in order to prop up the purported reasonableness of the crazy crap coming out of everyone else's mouths. Sure, Colmes seemed nice, but he was a complete stooge. A human straw man.
Thank god you've at least dropped the "not Chicos" thing. That was pretty weird. Step in the right direction, I guess.
Colmes was a stooge? Not in my opinion. My guess is you are a young guy, under the age of 30. Your definition of liberal, of the party is different than mine. The party has changed, as I have pointed out. So has the other party. The middle is gone now. Take a look at who made up the parties in the 1970's when I joined, vs now. Incredible differences. That doesn't make Mr. Colmes a tool or a stooge. He was a well respected man with strong convictions he just wasn't an ahole. That is missed. You don't fight fire with fire, you fight fire with water. People could learn a thing or two from that. https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/goodbye-mr-colmes-im-really-really-going-to-miss_us_58b38820e4b0e5fdf6197450
I caught Dershowitz on there the other day and I don't watch that network very often. Dershowitz was always one of the premier legal minds of this country, and absolutely a liberal by any definition. All these networks have agendas and they all hire token reps to push their points. Sometimes, one or two of them get someone that is genuine and makes you think about the other side. CNN had Robert Novak, who occasionally made me think twice. All too rare these days as they program to the fringes.
-
Ok grammar police, if you want to get technical, you’re either objective or you’re not. “More” objective isn’t proper... consider it a figure of speech.
I was referring to your assertion - not your grammar.
-
Colmes was a stooge? Not in my opinion. My guess is you are a young guy, under the age of 30. Your definition of liberal, of the party is different than mine. The party has changed, as I have pointed out. So has the other party. The middle is gone now. Take a look at who made up the parties in the 1970's when I joined, vs now. Incredible differences. That doesn't make Mr. Colmes a tool or a stooge. He was a well respected man with strong convictions he just wasn't an ahole. That is missed. You don't fight fire with fire, you fight fire with water. People could learn a thing or two from that. https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/goodbye-mr-colmes-im-really-really-going-to-miss_us_58b38820e4b0e5fdf6197450
I caught Dershowitz on there the other day and I don't watch that network very often. Dershowitz was always one of the premier legal minds of this country, and absolutely a liberal by any definition. All these networks have agendas and they all hire token reps to push their points. Sometimes, one or two of them get someone that is genuine and makes you think about the other side. CNN had Robert Novak, who occasionally made me think twice. All too rare these days as they program to the fringes.
So Chicos.
-
I was referring to your assertion - not your grammar.
Gotcha.
-
Colmes was a stooge? Not in my opinion. My guess is you are a young guy, under the age of 30. Your definition of liberal, of the party is different than mine. The party has changed, as I have pointed out. So has the other party. The middle is gone now. Take a look at who made up the parties in the 1970's when I joined, vs now. Incredible differences. That doesn't make Mr. Colmes a tool or a stooge. He was a well respected man with strong convictions he just wasn't an ahole. That is missed. You don't fight fire with fire, you fight fire with water. People could learn a thing or two from that. https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/goodbye-mr-colmes-im-really-really-going-to-miss_us_58b38820e4b0e5fdf6197450
I caught Dershowitz on there the other day and I don't watch that network very often. Dershowitz was always one of the premier legal minds of this country, and absolutely a liberal by any definition. All these networks have agendas and they all hire token reps to push their points. Sometimes, one or two of them get someone that is genuine and makes you think about the other side. CNN had Robert Novak, who occasionally made me think twice. All too rare these days as they program to the fringes.
Lol.
-
AAPL hits another all time high today and nobody even mentions it?
Well, alright, then.
-
AAPL hits another all time high today and nobody even mentions it?
Well, alright, then.
I was playing golf today and wasn't watching the market. Besides ...
Yawn. What else is new?
-
MU82, that's probably the smartest thing you can do regarding the market - ignore it. A while back I read an article that provided the results of a study about best/worst performing portfolios. The upshot: The best performing brokerage accounts were those that traded the least. In fact, the top performers were those who forgot they had the account, or accounts for individuals who had died!!!
-
MU82, that's probably the smartest thing you can do regarding the market - ignore it. A while back I read an article that provided the results of a study about best/worst performing portfolios. The upshot: The best performing brokerage accounts were those that traded the least. In fact, the top performers were those who forgot they had the account, or accounts for individuals who had died!!!
Agreed, SoCal. I have seen similar studies.
I am largely a buy-and-hold guy.
Most of the biggest mistakes I have made as an investor have come on the selling side -- I sold a company thinking it was overvalued, or I could do better with a different company, etc, only to see it move up smartly in price over the ensuing years.
As a result, now that I am more experienced and thorough, I am a very reluctant seller.
-
"I could improve your ultimate financial welfare by giving you a ticket with only twenty slots in it so that you had twenty punches – representing all the investments that you could make in a lifetime. And once you’d punched through the card, you couldn’t make any more investments at all. Under those rules, you’d really think carefully about what you did and you’d be forced to load up on what you’d really thought about."
Warren Buffet - Apple Investor.
-
I agree that Apple, etc, might make Jones a martyr. Otherwise, I don't agree with much of what chicos2 says.
Those platforms refusing to air Jones' crapola is no different than CBS refusing to air hard-core pornography, Fox News refusing to have a left-wing host, MSNBC refusing to have a right-wing host, etc.
Nobody is stopping Alex Jones from spewing his hate, racism and conspiracy theories. He just has to find outlets that will accept them. Maybe Hannity needs a co-host.
Oh, and most of the same people who are outraged that Jones is being "denied his freedom of speech" believe the NFL not only has the right to blackball Kaepernick but has a duty to do so.
Alex Jones is controlled opposition. Time Warner (and Bilderberger Ted Turner) signs his checks. The comedian Bill Hicks faked his death in the late 90s, and was reborn as "Alex Jones." The guy is a caricature of a caricature. It is all part of the "divide and conquer" m.o. (Info WARS?!) created by elites. We are all being played daily. As any good Free Mason knows............the world is but a stage.
The tipping point has been reached, so the plug is being pulled on the controlled opposition.
Call me jaded, but Fox News is CNN is BBC is Info Wars.
-
Alex Jones is controlled opposition. Time Warner (and Bilderberger Ted Turner) signs his checks.
I didn't believe this, so I googled it. All I could find were several shady, unsubstantiated claims that Time Warner has anything to do with Alex Jones or his whack-a-doodle site. I also found a 2017 tweet in which Jones rails about Time Warner owning CNN, Huff Post and all the other companies that criticize him -- in other words, the exact opposite of the Time Warner/Infowars linkage.
At the very best, Alex Jones is a con man who preys on the insecurities of easily manipulated sheep; his site mainly exists not to peddle conspiracy theories but to peddle Apocalypse-related products to help "real Americans" survive the conspiracies.
At the very worst, he is a cancer -- and, by extension, because one of his bigliest fans has promised loyalty to him, our democratic republic.
-
SONO up to 20.80 this morning. Last week I said I’d dump it (again) at $24... it makes me nervous and I hope it gets there quickly... been fun so far
-
AAPL just soared past 225 this week. Most impressive part is that P/E is still only 20. Much different than other high flyers it is often compared to. This one just keeps giving goodness to its shareholders.
-
AAPL just soared past 225 this week. Most impressive part is that P/E is still only 20. Much different than other high flyers it is often compared to. This one just keeps giving goodness to its shareholders.
You're right, SCE. One could argue that AAPL is still fairly reasonably valued.
I'm not buying more now, but I'm in no hurry to sell what I have.
-
With Musk stepping down as Tesla chairman, I wonder (A) how long Tesla can survive bleeding money and/or (B) how long until Apple buys them? Yes, he is staying around, but there is going to have to be fallout from the fine. Musk is a visionary, but mass production is tougher than he thought. Apple is sitting on a ridiculous pile of cash and has basically stopped their car development. Leverage the synergy and all of that bullsh!t.
-
Rough week for Mr. Market.
-
Rough week for Mr. Market.
Market crash and October go together. Profit taking ahead of tax season. A slow climb back once the bleeding stops.
-
Market crash and October go together. Profit taking ahead of tax season. A slow climb back once the bleeding stops.
Looks like bleeding will stop today.
Seriously, nobody knows. Part of the fun!
-
Is the idea of some ST t-bills really that crazy even if you’re not an elderly retired person?
-
Is the idea of some ST t-bills really that crazy even if you’re not an elderly retired person?
Yes. Unless you’re going for maximum diversification. In which case, your portfolio should be allocated in t-bills at about the same clip as your allocation in Norwegian salmon fisheries.
-
An analyst yesterday predicted Apple to go up another 40% by this time next year. Also, Disney to go up 25%.
-
An analyst yesterday predicted Apple to go up another 40% by this time next year. Also, Disney to go up 25%.
AT&T down 14% YTD. DTV sinking this dog?
-
AT&T down 14% YTD. DTV sinking this dog?
What does an energy company (DTV) have to do with AT&T? Did they form an alliance or JV?
-
What does an energy company (DTV) have to do with AT&T? Did they form an alliance or JV?
DirecTV ::)
-
What does an energy company (DTV) have to do with AT&T? Did they form an alliance or JV?
Get the F$$k outta here.
-
Get the F$$k outta here.
Why would I know this? Why should I know this? I own no AT&T stock, at least not directly as I'm sure it is part of index funds we have. Old company, old technology, buying Warner Brothers to be relevant? Pass. No thank you. Other than the dividend, what's to like with them? Nothing that I can see.
https://www.marketwatch.com/investing/stock/DTV
-
What does an energy company (DTV) have to do with AT&T? Did they form an alliance or JV?
Go Cubs!
-
Go Cubs!
Retool a few areas, slot Machado at short, avoid the injury bug and we are right there.
-
Retool a few areas, slot Machado at short, avoid the injury bug and we are right there.
A. Why is this not in the baseball thread?
2. Why would you want to pay hundreds of millions of dollars to a person who intentionally and maliciously tries to injure fellow competitors?
-
A. Why is this not in the baseball thread?
2. Why would you want to pay hundreds of millions of dollars to a person who intentionally and maliciously tries to injure fellow competitors?
Ask the doctor, and it is in the baseball thread.
I wouldn't want to pay him that much and don't care for his antics, but it is sports and we all know someone will.
-
AAPL just soared past 225 this week. Most impressive part is that P/E is still only 20. Much different than other high flyers it is often compared to. This one just keeps giving goodness to its shareholders.
You're right, SCE. One could argue that AAPL is still fairly reasonably valued.
I'm not buying more now, but I'm in no hurry to sell what I have.
Apple has lost 33% of its value since the statement above. One-third of its value has gone "poof!"
So by not selling, or even considering it, and assuming you dollar cost averaged in. You have probably made no money in the last 18 to 24 months. Or, whatever you thought about the stock in September will could very well take a couple of years to realize that value again.
So .. how about now? Do you feel the same way now that you lost the last 18 to 24 months of value?
-
Apple has lost 33% of its value since the statement above. One-third of its value has gone "poof!"
So by not selling, or even considering it, and assuming you dollar cost averaged in. You have probably made no money in the last 18 to 24 months. Or, whatever you thought about the stock in September will could very well take a couple of years to realize that value again.
So .. how about now? Do you feel the same way now that you lost the last 18 to 24 months of value?
I have lost nothing.
Next question.
-
I have lost nothing.
Next question.
Actually you lost a third of your investment.
So the next question is how did a guy that supposedly is so good at investments get so bad at math?
-
Actually you lost a third of your investment.
So the next question is how did a guy that supposedly is so good at investments get so bad at math?
Why are you so worried about your stance being wrong?
-
Actually you lost a third of your investment.
So the next question is how did a guy that supposedly is so good at investments get so bad at math?
I bought AAPL at 95, 105 and 115. I have lost nothing.
You said only morons would buy AAPL at 90. You lost a ton of gains.
-
I bought AAPL at 95, 105 and 115. I have lost nothing.
You said only morons would buy AAPL at 90. You lost a ton of gains.
you are STILL basing your investments off cost and not the alternative.
-
you are STILL basing your investments off cost and not the alternative.
You are a master at shifting goalposts. I mean under this new theory, everyone could be claimed to be a loser unless they invest in the ONE thing that outperforms EVERYTHING else.
It certainly is a great way to be considered right all of the time.
-
You are a master at shifting goalposts. I mean under this new theory, everyone could be claimed to be a loser unless they invest in the ONE thing that outperforms EVERYTHING else.
It certainly is a great way to be considered right all of the time.
And not the best, but the average. You can buy a broad index ETF like the S&P 500 (See SPY). You can now own the index of all 500 stocks. This is your true alternative, not your cost. Every investment has to measured against the alternative of just buying the market.
Knowing your cost is actually dangerous, see 82 and Chicos. Their principle rationalization is their cost. It should be how their stocks suck against the alternative of just owning the overall market.
This is why you should not buy stocks. Too hard. Just own the market.
-
I bought AAPL at 95, 105 and 115. I have lost nothing.
You said only morons would buy AAPL at 90. You lost a ton of gains.
Wait, what are gains? If you can't lose gains, you can't have gains.
Heisy's post was type-lunatic, but it's true that you lost a bunch of your gains aina?
-
And not the best, but the average. You can buy a broad index ETF like the S&P 500 (See SPY). You can now own the index of all 500 stocks. This is your true alternative, not your cost. Every investment has to measured against the alternative of just buying the market.
Knowing your cost is actually dangerous, see 82 and Chicos. Their principle rationalization is their cost. It should be how their stocks suck against the alternative of just owning the overall market.
This is why you should not buy stocks. Too hard. Just own the market.
Are you suggesting that investing in the S&P when you started this thread would have been better than investing in Apple?
In which case, that's provably idiotic.
If you're suggesting anything else, it's far from clear.
But I must say, I'm thoroughly impressed at the lengths you're willing to go to avoid admitting what's obvious to everyone else ... your take on AAPL was terrible, horrible, no good and very bad.
-
Are you suggesting that investing in the S&P when you started this thread would have been better than investing in Apple?
In which case, that's provably idiotic.
If you're suggesting anything else, it's far from clear.
But I must say, I'm thoroughly impressed at the lengths you're willing to go to avoid admitting what's obvious to everyone else ... your take on AAPL was terrible, horrible, no good and very bad.
Nope. I was wrong and admitted to it 18 months ago (June 2016). Now 82 is wrong and after bragging about his genius for 10 pages. he insists he lost nothing on a $60 dive in the stock.
-
Wait, what are gains? If you can't lose gains, you can't have gains.
Heisy's post was type-lunatic, but it's true that you lost a bunch of your gains aina?
I have no idea what this means. Sounds like another rationalization that leads to high cholesterol and divorcing your wife.
BTW how's the ride from $90 to $60 been?
Yep, sitting at a div yield of 4%+, that's a primary reason I'm still in. Only hopped in TGT several months back.. I believe at $52.38.. it's now at $58.66 (+12%). Sometimes crappy stocks get beaten down so much I can't resist.
Closed the first trading day of the year near $68. Up 29% since my purchased, ignoring the handsome dividend.
I am the anti-Heisy
-
But now that it is $160 those scoopers are no longer rich.
STZ stock over $232. I made a lot of Scoopers rich.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TGwZVGKG30s
http://www.youtube.com/v/TGwZVGKG30s
-
Knowing your cost is actually dangerous, see 82 and Chicos. Their principle rationalization is their cost. It should be how their stocks suck against the alternative of just owning the overall market.
This is why you should not buy stocks. Too hard. Just own the market.
Smuggles, you know nothing about how I invest.
For example, the tech stocks I have bought over the last 3 years are MSFT, V, MA, AAPL and AVGO. Combined, they have FAR outperformed SPY; I mean, it isn't even close. Each has had some pullbacks since I bought them, but each also has had major surges.
Most of my investing goals are dividend-related, and I own many more companies than those I just named, including a majority in defensive sectors such as utilities, health care and consumer staples. They are some of the highest-quality, blue-chip, dividend-growing companies in the world. And even though most of my holdings were bought with the idea of building a reliable, growing income stream -- something SPY cannot provide -- my portfolio has STILL outperformed SPY on total return.
So, the fact that one company you're obsessed with (AAPL) has far outperformed SPY but has has given back some of those gains means little in the grand scheme.
Of course, JB is right about me not really having "gains," just as I don't really have "losses," because I haven't sold any of them. They're all paper gains and paper losses.
Look, Smuggles ... you said don't buy AAPL at 90. You were wrong. Now that AAPL is finally giving back some of the huge advances it made, you are desperately trying to prove ... what? That you were only "merely wrong" rather than "super-wrong"? Hilarious.
-
Smuggles, you know nothing about how I invest.
For example, the tech stocks I have bought over the last 3 years are MSFT, V, MA, AAPL and AVGO. Combined, they have FAR outperformed SPY; I mean, it isn't even close. Each has had some pullbacks since I bought them, but each also has had major surges.
Most of my investing goals are dividend-related, and I own many more companies than those I just named, including a majority in defensive sectors such as utilities, health care and consumer staples. They are some of the highest-quality, blue-chip, dividend-growing companies in the world. And even though most of my holdings were bought with the idea of building a reliable, growing income stream -- something SPY cannot provide -- my portfolio has STILL outperformed SPY on total return.
So, the fact that one company you're obsessed with (AAPL) has far outperformed SPY but has has given back some of those gains means little in the grand scheme.
Of course, JB is right about me not really having "gains," just as I don't really have "losses," because I haven't sold any of them. They're all paper gains and paper losses.
Look, Smuggles ... you said don't buy AAPL at 90. You were wrong. Now that AAPL is finally giving back some of the huge advances it made, you are desperately trying to prove ... what? That you were only "merely wrong" rather than "super-wrong"? Hilarious.
Just delicious.
The guy that single-handily kept this thread alive for 10 pages bragging over and over and over about every new Apple's high in 2018, and reminding everyone I was wrong, like you have some form of "size" issues.
With this thread you took the mantle of "smuggles" from me and I will have to try very hard to get it back from you.
And what we learned about you in those 10 pages is it is more important you beat on your chest and scream "I was right" than actually make money.
Face it, you want to avoid that Apple is now $60 up your arse, meaning that every brag from about page 12 forward is sitting at an outright loss (and way below the overall market)
You are convinced it will rally back. So hide under your bed and wait it out until you can brag for 10 more pages how smart you are.
You are the embodiment of every retail investment mistake all rolled up into one confused person, starting with ego is more important than making money.
Congratulations on the history lesson some of your selected winners. The question is how much anal tearing are you will to put up with before you realize you about the repeat Cheeks DIS disaster?
-
Just delicious.
The guy that single-handily kept this thread alive for 10 pages bragging over and over and over about every new Apple's high in 2018, and reminding everyone I was wrong, like you have some form of "size" issues.
With this thread you took the mantle of "smuggles" from me and I will have to try very hard to get it back from you.
And what we learned about you in those 10 pages is it is more important you beat on your chest and scream "I was right" than actually make money.
Face it, you want to avoid that Apple is now $60 up your arse, meaning that every brag from about page 12 forward is sitting at an outright loss (and way below the overall market)
You are convinced it will rally back. So hide under your bed and wait it out until you can brag for 10 more pages how smart you are.
You are the embodiment of every retail investment mistake all rolled up into one confused person, starting with ego is more important than making money.
Congratulations on the history lesson some of your selected winners. The question is how much anal tearing are you will to put up with before you realize you about the repeat Cheeks DIS disaster?
Attaboy, Smuggles, you stay you. Never, ever, ever admit a mistake!
AAPL hit about 50 new highs since you said not to buy it at $90, but you stay you.
-
MU82, do you think this stock picking genius has any new suggestions for us?
My advice, see what he says and do the opposite.
Go AAPL
-
MU82, do you think this stock picking genius has any new suggestions for us?
My advice, see what he says and do the opposite.
Go AAPL
I never trust people who are 100% positive what other investors should do with their own money unless they can prove that they have done well with their own money.
That doesn't just apply to Smuggles. I read numerous investing sites, and I like different theories and arguments for why something might or might not be a good investment. However, I do not listen to "experts" who say what I "should" do or "must" do or "have to" do unless they have some kind of track record of being correct. And, of course, unless they use their real names.
I would never tell anybody here to invest in AAPL, DIS or any other stock -- or to not invest in those stocks or any others. Even if I did, why should you listen to me? I might say what I have done and others can make their own judgments based on their own due diligence.
Smuggles knows everything about everything, so he boldly stated that only a dope would invest in AAPL at 90. And now he's desperately trying to prove he wasn't wrong, wrong, wrong.
-
I never trust people who are 100% positive what other investors should do with their own money unless they can prove that they have done well with their own money.
That doesn't just apply to Smuggles. I read numerous investing sites, and I like different theories and arguments for why something might or might not be a good investment. However, I do not listen to "experts" who say what I "should" do or "must" do or "have to" do unless they have some kind of track record of being correct. And, of course, unless they use their real names.
I would never tell anybody here to invest in AAPL, DIS or any other stock -- or to not invest in those stocks or any others. Even if I did, why should you listen to me? I might say what I have done and others can make their own judgments based on their own due diligence.
Smuggles knows everything about everything, so he boldly stated that only a dope would invest in AAPL at 90. And now he's desperately trying to prove he wasn't wrong, wrong, wrong.
Buy good companies you like at a good/fair price (or cheap if you can get it!) and hold until something fundamental changes. And be patient. It's fairly simple!
Sounds like you've got all of that down
-
82, is this what Apple's stock has been doing to you the last three months?
Ohio Man Claims iPhone XS Max Caught Fire In His Pants
https://www.valuewalk.com/2018/12/iphone-xs-max-caught-fire-pants/
It seems 2018 can’t end soon enough for Apple. It’s been a bad year for the company, and now if this latest claim turns out to be true, things could get even worse for the iPhone maker. A man in Ohio recently claimed that his three-week-old iPhone XS Max caught fire in his pants. The victim complained about it to Apple but received a lackluster response. He is now considering taking legal action against the company.
Look, a copy of your December statement!
(https://www.valuewalk.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/FireShot-Screen-Capture-181-Exclusive_-Ohio-Man-Asserts-iPhone-XS-M_-www_idropnews_com_news_iphone_exclusive-ohio-man-asserts-iphone-xs-max-exp.png)
-
Buy good companies you like at a good/fair price (or cheap if you can get it!) and hold until something fundamental changes. And be patient. It's fairly simple!
Sounds like you've got all of that down
This happened months ago.
-
Buy good companies you like at a good/fair price (or cheap if you can get it!) and hold until something fundamental changes. And be patient. It's fairly simple!
Sounds like you've got all of that down
Totally agree, EFR. Congrats on having a sound financial plan.
I do not speculate. I do not try to time the market. I am a long-term investor who owns only high-quality companies. Most of my positions I've held for years and years, through good times and bad, collecting and reinvesting dividends along the way. Most of my companies have performed very well (for example, my Apple position is WELL up, easily outperforming SPY during the time I've owned it) ... but like most anybody I have a few clunkers such as XOM, KHC and GILD.
No investor (other than Smuggles, of course) is perfect. The beautiful thing is, we don't have to be to have success.
-
Totally agree, EFR. Congrats on having a sound financial plan.
I do not speculate. I do not try to time the market. I am a long-term investor who owns only high-quality companies. Most of my positions I've held for years and years, through good times and bad, collecting and reinvesting dividends along the way. Most of my companies have performed very well (for example, my Apple position is WELL up, easily outperforming SPY during the time I've owned it) ... but like most anybody I have a few clunkers such as XOM, KHC and GILD.
No investor (other than Smuggles, of course) is perfect. The beautiful thing is, we don't have to be to have success.
Serious question … what makes you believe you can outperform SPY? Why not just own SPY?
-
Serious question … what makes you believe you can outperform SPY? Why not just own SPY?
Three points:
1. As I've already said, my portfolio is designed primarily around the concept of building a reliable, growing income stream. A big part of my goal is to generate enough dividend income so that my wife can live on that, Social Security and our pensions during retirement and never have to sell stock if we don't want to. That strategy, called Dividend Growth Investing, is different from "modern portfolio theory" -- build as much stock-based wealth as possible and then sell 4-5% of your stocks every year throughout retirement for living expenses. MPT works OK during a good market; it works less OK when the market declines 50% in 2-3 years and you are forced to sell stocks at a loss just to live on. Unlike capital gains, dividends are quite predictable. They are not guaranteed -- nothing in investing is -- but they are far more predictable. I don't know if JNJ will have a higher share price 5 years than now, but I'm am quite certain JNJ's dividend will have grown every year between now and then. Plus, historically, Dividend Aristocrats have outperformed SPY in total return.
2. Even though it's not my goal, I actually have beaten SPY many years, especially (but not exclusively) in down years. For example, my more defensive-minded portfolio beat SPY quite handily in 2018.
3. I like the challenge. It makes me do research and know what I am buying. I don't want to own most of the 400 worst-performing stocks in the S&P 500 Index.
I don't care if you agree with me or not. It's my money. My wife and I will have financial freedom until the day the last of us dies, and will leave a financial legacy for our kids. I sincerely hope the same is true for you.
Funny that you are advocating for SPY but crapping on DIS, which crushed SPY this year as well as over the last 5, 10, 15 and 20 years; and AAPL, which has thoroughly demolished SPY over the last 5, 10, 15 and 20 years.
I only wish that when I was investing in SPY in my 401k for all those years I had been buying DIS and AAPL instead. I'd be so rich, I'd buy a jet to fly to every Marquette game.
Do you invest solely in SPY?
-
Three points:
1. As I've already said, my portfolio is designed primarily around the concept of building a reliable, growing income stream. A big part of my goal is to generate enough dividend income so that my wife can live on that, Social Security and our pensions during retirement and never have to sell stock if we don't want to. That strategy, called Dividend Growth Investing, is different from "modern portfolio theory" -- build as much stock-based wealth as possible and then sell 4-5% of your stocks every year throughout retirement for living expenses. MPT works OK during a good market; it works less OK when the market declines 50% in 2-3 years and you are forced to sell stocks at a loss just to live on. Unlike capital gains, dividends are quite predictable. They are not guaranteed -- nothing in investing is -- but they are far more predictable. I don't know if JNJ will have a higher share price 5 years than now, but I'm am quite certain JNJ's dividend will have grown every year between now and then. Plus, historically, Dividend Aristocrats have outperformed SPY in total return.
I wish you well with this. I've spoken to a few financial folks on this topic with mixed results. Read some of your stuff on Seeking Alpha, you seem to have a good handle on things.
Having worked for Disney and AT&T in my career, two large dividend yield companies, I understand the attractiveness of the dividend to investors, though the taxation isn't something that makes me excited vs growth stocks that are held. As an employee, the challenge I have is distributing those dividends means the money is not going back into the business, and that's very difficult to hear when you are competing daily with the likes of Amazon, Google, etc that are pouring their profits back into the business.
I truly wish you well on this, it is something I have strongly considered. You buying individual dividend companies, or buying into dividend funds?
-
I wish you well with this. I've spoken to a few financial folks on this topic with mixed results. Read some of your stuff on Seeking Alpha, you seem to have a good handle on things.
Having worked for Disney and AT&T in my career, two large dividend yield companies, I understand the attractiveness of the dividend to investors, though the taxation isn't something that makes me excited vs growth stocks that are held. As an employee, the challenge I have is distributing those dividends means the money is not going back into the business, and that's very difficult to hear when you are competing daily with the likes of Amazon, Google, etc that are pouring their profits back into the business.
I truly wish you well on this, it is something I have strongly considered. You buying individual dividend companies, or buying into dividend funds?
I primarily own individual companies. I am not a "high yield" guy. My overall portfolio yield is about 3.6%. Several companies I own have quite low yields (MSFT, DIS, COST, V, MA, etc) but grow their dividends aggressively. At least 90% of the companies I own are brands that pretty much anybody would recognize; I have no "secret winners."
The last couple of years I have been pretty impressed with VDIGX, Vanguard's main dividend fund. I'll continue to monitor it and see if it's something I want more of. I'm not stubborn; if I decide the VDIGX (or any other fund or ETF) meets my goals and performs better than I can owning individual stocks, I'll switch.
Most successful companies have so much money they can continue to invest in the company and pay healthy dividends, but I understand what you are saying.
Taxes are not an issue with me, as most of what I own are in tax-advantaged accounts.
I am not trying to talk you, Smuggles or anybody else into this. I write about what I do, and I trust that the reader is intelligent enough to do his/her own due diligence and come up with an investing style that fits his/her goals, personality, risk tolerance, comfort level, etc. One difference between me and, say, Smuggles is that I never say an investor "should" do something or "must" do something. I don't pretend to know everything about everything.
Even though Smuggles and I have gone back and forth a bit, I generally agree with him (and guys like Bogle and Buffett) that the vast majority of investors would be better off with index funds because most investors will not do the work necessary to know the stocks they are buying. Heck, even many who will do the work have trouble beating SPY.
But again, my goal is not to beat SPY.
-
Thank you for the response.
-
I primarily own individual companies. I am not a "high yield" guy. My overall portfolio yield is about 3.6%. Several companies I own have quite low yields (MSFT, DIS, COST, V, MA, etc) but grow their dividends aggressively. At least 90% of the companies I own are brands that pretty much anybody would recognize; I have no "secret winners."
The last couple of years I have been pretty impressed with VDIGX, Vanguard's main dividend fund. I'll continue to monitor it and see if it's something I want more of. I'm not stubborn; if I decide the VDIGX (or any other fund or ETF) meets my goals and performs better than I can owning individual stocks, I'll switch.
Most successful companies have so much money they can continue to invest in the company and pay healthy dividends, but I understand what you are saying.
Taxes are not an issue with me, as most of what I own are in tax-advantaged accounts.
I am not trying to talk you, Smuggles or anybody else into this. I write about what I do, and I trust that the reader is intelligent enough to do his/her own due diligence and come up with an investing style that fits his/her goals, personality, risk tolerance, comfort level, etc. One difference between me and, say, Smuggles is that I never say an investor "should" do something or "must" do something. I don't pretend to know everything about everything.
Even though Smuggles and I have gone back and forth a bit, I generally agree with him (and guys like Bogle and Buffett) that the vast majority of investors would be better off with index funds because most investors will not do the work necessary to know the stocks they are buying. Heck, even many who will do the work have trouble beating SPY.
But again, my goal is not to beat SPY.
Very nice explanation 82.
I've been slowly transitioning my portfolio from pure growth and value to more and more dividend payers as I build out the annuity-like dividend stream. Still a very long way to go, and I'll always have a notable portion of it in non-payers like Berkshire and pure growth plays like Google and Alibaba, but the intent is to eventually have at least 50% of current income be able to be replaced by dividends by they time I'm done working.
-
Very nice explanation 82.
I've been slowly transitioning my portfolio from pure growth and value to more and more dividend payers as I build out the annuity-like dividend stream. Still a very long way to go, and I'll always have a notable portion of it in non-payers like Berkshire and pure growth plays like Google and Alibaba, but the intent is to eventually have at least 50% of current income be able to be replaced by dividends by they time I'm done working.
Makes sense, TS34. I wish you good fortune.
-
Serious question … what makes you believe you can outperform SPY? Why not just own SPY?
Not directed at me, but market efficiency has made beating SPY almost literally a 50-50 proposition over the last few generations, at least with diversified index funds. But that was when the efficiency of the marketplace relied on actual human intelligence (or lack thereof), not artificial intelligence - or at least their cave-dwelling cousins, the algo's, that are a material effect on market efficiency today.
In other words, historical results being no indication of future performance is not just true in asset selection, it's also true for evaluating trends. Accordingly, it's easier than ever to beat SPY because true AI doesn't exist (yet), and computers, as a result, are more predictable than human beings.
You don't have to be smarter than a computer, you just have to outsmart it.
-
Not directed at me, but market efficiency has made beating SPY almost literally a 50-50 proposition over the last few generations, at least with diversified index funds. But that was when the efficiency of the marketplace relied on actual human intelligence (or lack thereof), not artificial intelligence - or at least their cave-dwelling cousins, the algo's, that are a material effect on market efficiency today.
In other words, historical results being no indication of future performance is not just true in asset selection, it's also true for evaluating trends. Accordingly, it's easier than ever to beat SPY because true AI doesn't exist (yet), and computers, as a result, are more predictable than human beings.
You don't have to be smarter than a computer, you just have to outsmart it.
Point of order, true AI in the context you are referring to is referred to as general AI in the industry....basically what most people think of as AI from the movies. Narrow AI is what is currently in the market place, the term covers all the fun buzz words like algorithms, machine learning (which covers supervised, unsupervised, and reinforcement learning).
Narrow AI is used everywhere (frankly mis-used) and general AI is no where near in existence. I'd guess general AI won't exist for another 20 years at least.
Great entry level book into the space (not saying you need entry level Benny, but some folks on here definitely do):
https://www.amazon.com/Artificial-Unintelligence-Computers-Misunderstand-World-ebook/dp/B07CMSQLLH (https://www.amazon.com/Artificial-Unintelligence-Computers-Misunderstand-World-ebook/dp/B07CMSQLLH)
-
Apple trades suspended today, lower revenue outlook.
-
Apple (NASDAQ:AAPL) cuts its Q1 revenue guidance to $84B (was: $89B to $93B) and expects 38% gross margin and $8.7B in operating expenses.
In a letter to investors, Tim Cook attributes all of the revenue shortfall to lower than anticipated iPhone revenue, particularly in China. Cook blames the macro backdrop and weaker than expected iPhone upgrades.
Apple shares were halted ahead of the news.
Update: Apple shares resume trading at 4:50 PM and down nearly 7.5% after hours.
Well, that's disappointing. The good news is that Apple has had many challenges like this throughout its history and has always come out the other side looking not just OK but great.
A recent example was less than 3 years ago, when some said AAPL was dead money at $90.
-
Apple (NASDAQ:AAPL) cuts its Q1 revenue guidance to $84B (was: $89B to $93B) and expects 38% gross margin and $8.7B in operating expenses.
In a letter to investors, Tim Cook attributes all of the revenue shortfall to lower than anticipated iPhone revenue, particularly in China. Cook blames the macro backdrop and weaker than expected iPhone upgrades.
Apple shares were halted ahead of the news.
Update: Apple shares resume trading at 4:50 PM and down nearly 7.5% after hours.
Well, that's disappointing. The good news is that Apple has had many challenges like this throughout its history and has always come out the other side looking not just OK but great.
A recent example was less than 3 years ago, when some said AAPL was dead money at $90.
This is Apple's first guidance of a revenue shortfall in two decades!
The problem is the iPhone is not selling. No one wants a $1200 XS Max, or a $1000 XS. Not in China, or in the US.
Yes, everything else at Apple is doing well, but collectively this might not matter. The driver of this stock is the iPhone, and has always been the iPhone. And the iPhone is not doing well.
Stock is trading at $145 in the overnight session and this announcement is crushing the overall market, Dow Jones Futures down 375 points (1.5%), S&P futures off 37, 1.45%, as an indication that this is bad news for the entire economy.
Again, 82, you bragged and bragged for 8 pages on the way up. So you set the standard in this post.
How much more anal tearing on the way down are you willing to take? Do I need to send you a donut to sit on?
-
Three points:
I'd buy a jet to fly to every Marquette game.
Do you invest solely in SPY?
I do not invest solely in SPY. But I do not buy stocks either.
I buy ETFs, trade futures and cash bonds.
The reason I do not buy stocks, especially large cap stocks, is the strategy you are suggesting is not possible.
When it comes to large cap stocks, the vast majority will underperform the average over time. So you strategy starts with an idea that 60% to 80% of your stocks should be losers (to the average, not cost basis). To have the track record you claim in the large cap space is to defy most understanding of how stocks work in this space. To turn it around, if your Seeking Alpha strategy is as good as you advertise, you should be turning down $10 million a year salaries to manager money as that is the going rate for those that can pull off what you suggest in the large cap space. Hence, don't try, buy SPY.
Where it might work, and I believe does work, it in the small cap space that run up huge (10x to 30x) that lead the index higher. But the way this works is 80% of the stocks you buy go to zero, 19% are average to slight outperformers, and 1% (or one) goes up 30x and you are rich. So you fail 80% of the time with this strategy and become rich. But, this is not what you said you do.
See this
https://awealthofcommonsense.com/2016/05/the-sp-500-is-the-worlds-largest-momentum-strategy/
Active investing may be a zero-sum game, but picking individual stocks is not. It doesn’t work out that half of all stocks outperform and half of all stocks underperform. There are huge tails when you look at the extreme over- and under-performers in the market.
This is exactly what Eric Crittenden at Longboard Funds did in a recent blog post. This visualization of the winners and losers in the stock market since 1989 is fascinating:
(https://awealthofcommonsense.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/Screen-Shot-2016-05-18-at-12.40.35-PM.png)
Here are the stats behind this excellent chart:
We analyzed 14,455 active stocks between 1989 and 2015, identifying the best performing stocks on both an annualized return and total return basis.
Looking at total returns of individual stocks, 1,120 stocks (7.7% of all active stocks) outperformed the S&P 500 Index by at least 500% during their lifetimes. Likewise, 976 stocks (6.8% of all active stocks) lagged the S&P 500 by at least 500%. The remaining 12,404 stocks performed above, at or below the same level as the S&P 500.
I think this data may come as a surprise to many. Over 40% of all stocks during this period ended up with a negative return. And the winners in the stock market are a much smaller group that account for the entire gain over this period:
(https://awealthofcommonsense.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/Screen-Shot-2016-05-18-at-12.40.43-PM.png)
This is why 82s strategy cannot work
These numbers are staggering — 20% of all stocks have accounted for the entire gain over this time frame, meaning the remaining 80% have collectively given investors no return. From 1989-2015 the S&P 500 was up almost 1200% in total. The majority of that gain came from a small number of stocks while the rest were more or less worthless.
For 82 to argue he has a strategy in large cap space that works as he says, given that 80% of the stocks in this space lose, is akin to someone saying they have a system to pick and win with lottery tickets. They don't have a strategy that works and if they are making money, it is blind luck and not skill.
-
When it comes to large cap stocks, the vast majority will underperform the average over time. So you strategy starts with an idea that 60% to 80% of your stocks should be losers (to the average, not cost basis). To have the track record you claim in the large cap space is to defy most understanding of how stocks work in this space. To turn it around, if your Seeking Alpha strategy is as good as you advertise, you should be turning down $10 million a year salaries to manager money as that is the going rate for those that can pull off what you suggest in the large cap space. Hence, don't try, buy SPY.
Heisy, when MU82 says, "Again, my goal is not to beat the SPY", which part of that is confusing to you?
Instead of reading what he wrote, you go on a rant try to prove that something he didn't say is statistically unlikely.
Edited typo
-
Heisy, when MU82 says, "Again, my goal is not to beat the SPY", which part of that is confusing to you?
Instead of reading what he wrote, he go on a rant try to prove that something he didn't say is statistically unlikely.
Then he is doubly wasting his time. Just buy SPY and go play with your kids.
-
I do not invest solely in SPY. But I do not buy stocks either.
I buy ETFs, trade futures and cash bonds.
The reason I do not buy stocks, especially large cap stocks, is the strategy you are suggesting is not possible.
When it comes to large cap stocks, the vast majority will underperform the average over time. So you strategy starts with an idea that 60% to 80% of your stocks should be losers (to the average, not cost basis). To have the track record you claim in the large cap space is to defy most understanding of how stocks work in this space. To turn it around, if your Seeking Alpha strategy is as good as you advertise, you should be turning down $10 million a year salaries to manager money as that is the going rate for those that can pull off what you suggest in the large cap space. Hence, don't try, buy SPY.
Where it might work, and I believe does work, it in the small cap space that run up huge (10x to 30x) that lead the index higher. But the way this works is 80% of the stocks you buy go to zero, 19% are average to slight outperformers, and 1% (or one) goes up 30x and you are rich. So you fail 80% of the time with this strategy and become rich. But, this is not what you said you do.
See this
https://awealthofcommonsense.com/2016/05/the-sp-500-is-the-worlds-largest-momentum-strategy/
Active investing may be a zero-sum game, but picking individual stocks is not. It doesn’t work out that half of all stocks outperform and half of all stocks underperform. There are huge tails when you look at the extreme over- and under-performers in the market.
This is exactly what Eric Crittenden at Longboard Funds did in a recent blog post. This visualization of the winners and losers in the stock market since 1989 is fascinating:
(https://awealthofcommonsense.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/Screen-Shot-2016-05-18-at-12.40.35-PM.png)
Here are the stats behind this excellent chart:
We analyzed 14,455 active stocks between 1989 and 2015, identifying the best performing stocks on both an annualized return and total return basis.
Looking at total returns of individual stocks, 1,120 stocks (7.7% of all active stocks) outperformed the S&P 500 Index by at least 500% during their lifetimes. Likewise, 976 stocks (6.8% of all active stocks) lagged the S&P 500 by at least 500%. The remaining 12,404 stocks performed above, at or below the same level as the S&P 500.
I think this data may come as a surprise to many. Over 40% of all stocks during this period ended up with a negative return. And the winners in the stock market are a much smaller group that account for the entire gain over this period:
(https://awealthofcommonsense.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/Screen-Shot-2016-05-18-at-12.40.43-PM.png)
This is why 82s strategy cannot work
These numbers are staggering — 20% of all stocks have accounted for the entire gain over this time frame, meaning the remaining 80% have collectively given investors no return. From 1989-2015 the S&P 500 was up almost 1200% in total. The majority of that gain came from a small number of stocks while the rest were more or less worthless.
For 82 to argue he has a strategy in large cap space that works as he says, given that 80% of the stocks in this space lose, is akin to someone saying they have a system to pick and win with lottery tickets. They don't have a strategy that works and if they are making money, it is blind luck and not skill.
As usual, Smuggles, you know everything ...
Except that AAPL and DIS have outperformed SPY by a freakin' mile over every long-term span imaginable.
I wish you good fortune, even though your strategy cannot work.
-
I might dump VZ just because of their stupid effin ads.
-
As usual, Smuggles, you know everything ...
Except that AAPL and DIS have outperformed SPY by a freakin' mile over every long-term span imaginable.
I wish you good fortune, even though your strategy cannot work.
\
Keep hiding under your bed, someday Apple will rally again and you can brag on and on for eight more pages. Until then enjoy the round trip. Remember, you are not losing money!
-
\
Keep hiding under your bed, someday Apple will rally again and you can brag on and on for eight more pages. Until then enjoy the round trip. Remember, you are not losing money!
Well, you'd know about losing.
You're not worth explaining things to.
-
Well, you'd know about losing.
You're not worth explaining things to.
You were awful chatty when Apple was making new highs.
What address should I send the donut too?
-
You were awful chatty when Apple was making new highs.
What address should I send the donut too?
to
-
Oh no!
Berkshire Shares Suffer Second Biggest Plunge In 7 Years
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-01-03/berkshire-shares-suffer-second-biggest-plunge-7-years
-
You were awful chatty when Apple was making new highs.
What address should I send the donut too?
You realize that nearly every stock, especially tech, is tanking right? SQ has been halved in the last two months.
-
You realize that nearly every stock, especially tech, is tanking right? SQ has been halved in the last two months.
And maybe the great and Powerful 82, with all his wise sage musing about investing, really just bought the massive FAANG bubble. The largest bubble in the stock market since 2000.
Then he bragged on and on that he would never buy a bubble or invest based on emotion (go read those bragging posts a few pages back). Yet that is exactly what he did.
And, the best part …. he picked Apple … ground zero of the bubble.
So if 82 wants to write a book about mistakes investors make, he needs to go no further than his own brokerage statement in researching this topic.
-
And maybe the great and Powerful 82, with all his wise sage musing about investing, really just bought the massive FAANG bubble. The largest bubble in the stock market since 2000.
Then he bragged on and on that he would never buy a bubble or invest based on emotion (go read those bragging posts a few pages back). Yet that is exactly what he did.
And, the best part …. he picked Apple … ground zero of the bubble.
So if 82 wants to write a book about mistakes investors make, he needs to go no further than his own brokerage statement in researching this topic.
I'm not exactly sure what you're gloating about. You made your initial call about AAPL on 4/29/16.
Since that date, AAPL is up 53% vs the SPY 22%. Beating the index by over 30% since your call and that is just since that date, if we go back further 5yrs, or 10yrs, the performance of AAPL stock is even more impressive compared to the S&P.
If you had made this call 3 months ago, then maybe people would take you seriously on this topic(AAPL). Not doubting that you're smart or that you are good at investing, but with regards to AAPL, you are spiking the football at the 5 yard line. Maybe time will prove you right, but it's going to be a while until you can brag about being right about this.
As I stated previously, I don't own and have never owned Apple directly and neither do any of my clients.
-
I'm not exactly sure what you're gloating about. You made your initial call about AAPL on 4/29/16.
Since that date, AAPL is up 53% vs the SPY 22%. Beating the index by over 30% since your call and that is just since that date, if we go back further 5yrs, or 10yrs, the performance of AAPL stock is even more impressive compared to the S&P.
If you had made this call 3 months ago, then maybe people would take you seriously on this topic(AAPL). Not doubting that you're smart or that you are good at investing, but with regards to AAPL, you are spiking the football at the 5 yard line. Maybe time will prove you right, but it's going to be a while until you can brag about being right about this.
As I stated previously, I don't own and have never owned Apple directly and neither do any of my clients.
You seem to be arguing that 82's anus is still intact. The stock is down 38% since Oct 4. All that matters now is what it does going forward and its down $90 in three months.
What would you do with it now?
-
I'm not exactly sure what you're gloating about. You made your initial call about AAPL on 4/29/16.
Since that date, AAPL is up 53% vs the SPY 22%. Beating the index by over 30% since your call and that is just since that date, if we go back further 5yrs, or 10yrs, the performance of AAPL stock is even more impressive compared to the S&P.
That's called "a Heisy". Claiming victory when losing by more than 2 to 1. LOL.
-
And maybe the great and Powerful 82, with all his wise sage musing about investing, really just bought the massive FAANG bubble.
I never claimed to be a sage. You did. And you were wrong.
I own shares of 2 FAANG stocks, AAPL and GOOGL. The total value of those two positions, combined, is about a fifth of my position in D, about an eighth of my position in JNJ and about a fourth of my position in MCD.
So what's your point?
When you have to start resorting to lies, misstatements and wild guesses, it's a sign of desperation, Smuggles. What are you desperate about?
-
All that matters now is what it does going forward.
What would you do with it now?
This is what is important, you can't change the past, what to do going forward. When investing in individual stocks it is important to focus on the business you are investing in. You can't let your previous history with the stock dictate your behavior. Are you still a believer in their product or the services they provide? Do you think it is trading at a fair price or at a discount to it's intrinsic value? What percentage of your portfolio do you want that stock to make up? There are many different factors to consider.
If the business is still in good shape and the stock is cheap and you are under your target weighting for that particular holding, buy more.
It is important to stay disciplined and if the stock is outperforming and it drifts past a certain target weighting, take some profits when you rebalance your portfolio to your target weightings. This should be done on an annual basis at a minimum.
-
Bought some shares of APPL today. 82, was I too early?
-
Bought some shares of APPL today. 82, was I too early?
I have no earthly idea. How's that for honesty?
Seriously, if you think AAPL is a high-quality, well-managed company with a good future and you plan to own it long-term, I certainly wouldn't say now is a bad time to buy it. If, like Smuggles, you think AAPL is doomed, stay away.
And if you're a trader who likes to buy and sell rapid-fire-like, I really have no earthly idea what the price will be tomorrow. And neither does anybody else (except Smuggles).
-
Based on history, it's rare for a stock that gaps down big on news, especially earnings miss news, especially the first earnings miss announcement in nearly 20 years, to bottom that same day. The ultimate bottom is days or weeks (or even months) away.
That said, the low might be a few dollars lower, or $50 lower, but the low is still in front of it, not yesterday.
I assume you bought the open, as you posted before the market opened. So you bought $144.50 and it is trading (as I write) at $147.40.
Take you $2 profit and walk away. Revisit later.
ADDED
The company told us yesterday, for the first time in 20 years, it has a problem. That is a big F'ing deal!
This type of shocking announcement does not means the stock sells off one day and they resumes an interrupted rally.
The company, in the form of Tim Cook personally, told you they have a problem. Listen carefully.
Buying the stock is you saying that Tim Cook is wrong. Is that a bet you really want to make?
-
Based on history, it's rare for a stock that gaps down big on news, especially earnings miss news, especially the first earnings miss announcement in nearly 20 years, to bottom that same day. The ultimate bottom is days or weeks (or even months) away.
That said, the low might be a few dollars lower, or $50 lower, but the low is still in front of it, not yesterday.
I assume you bought the open, as you posted before the market opened. So you bought $144.50 and it is trading (as I write) at $147.40.
Take you $2 profit and walk away. Revisit later.
ADDED
The company told us yesterday, for the first time in 20 years, it has a problem. That is a big F'ing deal!
This type of shocking announcement does not means the stock sells off one day and they resumes an interrupted rally.
The company, in the form of Tim Cook personally, told you they have a problem. Listen carefully.
Buying the stock is you saying that Tim Cook is wrong. Is that a bet you really want to make?
You definitely listen to Heisy. His advice only underperformed the S&P 500 by 31% over the last 2 and half years.
-
Again, MUpilot, I won't tell you what to do because unlike Smuggles I am not an expert.
But I do agree that it is important for investors to listen when companies try to tell them something.
A few years back, a company named Seadrill was all the rage. It built and sold oil rigs used in the deepest, most dangerous, most difficult waters -- like up near the Arctic Circle. Investors liked it because it was said to have the best and newest rigs, the kind the major oil companies wanted for their fleets. It also paid a huge dividend. But in aggressively growing its business, SDRL took on a ton of debt.
In 2014, as the oil glut began to weaken the market, SDRL and other deep-water rig companies began experiencing cash-flow problems. At an industry conference, its CFO said: "Current market softness is going to be a challenge for a couple of years. The market is going to be bad this year, it is going to be worse next year, then it will be stabilizing."
To me, that was a sign to not just walk but to run away. I never owned SDRL, but I had friends who did. And those who stuck around saw their entire position crash to zero within a couple years.
Now, back to AAPL. Obviously, AAPL is not SDRL. It isn't borrowing tons of money; its coffers are overflowing with cash. And despite all the gloom and doom about its cellphone business, it is still raking in money on cellphones, its watch is the best-selling watch in the world, its tablets are the industry standard, its computers have achieved cult status, and its services business is growing in leaps and bounds.
Nevertheless, Cook's comments WERE foreboding.
I won't tell you or anybody else what to do. It's not how I operate. What I will say is that, for better or worse, I am not selling my shares. As I said earlier, AAPL is not an especially large position for me, and I am not overly concerned about it.
On April 29, 2016, in the very first post of this thread, AAPL was trading at $93.74, and Smuggles confidently and authoritatively said it was a $50 to $75 stock.
Since then, AAPL is up 59%.
A few days ago, in another post bragging about how smart he was, he said it was always important to compare to what one could have made if one had simply invested in the market (SPY). Well, if one had invested in SPY on April 29, 2016, one would be up 25%.
Now, just because Smuggles couldn't have been more wrong back then, it doesn't mean he's wrong again. Even a squirrel finds a few nuts now and then. I actually think he's right about listening to Cook (FWIW), and maybe he's also right that you and I and everybody else should sell.
Then again, he hasn't shown us his books. We don't know what kind of investor he's been. Indeed, the only thing we know about him as an investing sage is that he was stupendously, staggeringly, spectacularly wrong about AAPL on April 29, 2016.
In other words, maybe some interwebs stranger who has changed his screen name a half-dozen times so he can keep giving investment (and other) advice between bannings is right ... or maybe he's wrong.
Just like everybody else.
Ultimately, my advice is the same re AAPL as it is re any other potential investment: Do your best due diligence, decide if you like the future of the company's business model and its management, decide if it fits your goals and risk tolerance, and use all of that information to decide if you want to own it or not.
I know that's a lot more boring than, "SELL! SELL! SELL! I'm Scoop's resident expert, and I say SELL!" but it's the best I've got.
-
Thanks 82, appreciate the advice.
Any blue chips that one would suggest for the long term?
-
Point of order, true AI in the context you are referring to is referred to as general AI in the industry....basically what most people think of as AI from the movies. Narrow AI is what is currently in the market place, the term covers all the fun buzz words like algorithms, machine learning (which covers supervised, unsupervised, and reinforcement learning).
Narrow AI is used everywhere (frankly mis-used) and general AI is no where near in existence. I'd guess general AI won't exist for another 20 years at least.
Great entry level book into the space (not saying you need entry level Benny, but some folks on here definitely do):
https://www.amazon.com/Artificial-Unintelligence-Computers-Misunderstand-World-ebook/dp/B07CMSQLLH (https://www.amazon.com/Artificial-Unintelligence-Computers-Misunderstand-World-ebook/dp/B07CMSQLLH)
Agreed. I simply was using the layman's term of "cave-dwelling cousin" in lieu of the technical terminology.
And as much as I would love to have my own bending robot, hopefully, general AI is still more than 20 years off.
-
I don’t own apple stock, but my parents gifted me 3 shares of Amazon stock for xmas. My dad’s wealth advisor told him it would be a good long term stock for me to hold.
-
Thanks 82, appreciate the advice.
Any blue chips that one would suggest for the long term?
I wouldn't hazard to answer this question without knowing your personality, your goals, your risk tolerance, your time-frame, the amount you have to invest, etc. Plus, my personal strategy might be quite different from one you'd prefer, and I wouldn't want to unduly influence you. I wish you good fortune.
-
Wonderful jobs report. Hispanic Unemployment all time low, stocks on rebound today.
FED gives flexible address today they may back off on rate increases.
Can’t we be happy and hope all of us do well? Our economy succeeds, provides opportunity? That would be nice.
-
I am one of the happiest people anywhere, and I hope all of us do well.
-
I am one of the happiest people anywhere, and I hope all of us do well.
That’s the spirit. My comments weren’t directed at you by the way. I’m Trying to understand why some people take glee in a stock going down that might hurt that person’s financial situation....why is that the case Another84?
-
Agreed. I simply was using the layman's term of "cave-dwelling cousin" in lieu of the technical terminology.
And as much as I would love to have my own bending robot, hopefully, general AI is still more than 20 years off.
I'm not in the Musk camp that general AI is evil and will destroy us all. It very well be more than 20 years off but it's not some 100 years from now thing. Keeping in the general theme of the thread, I wouldn't buy stock in general AI companies right now but 5 years from now I would certainly think about it. The application of quantum computing to general AI will leap us ahead and I think we're about 5 years away from a fully utilizable quantum computer. Just hope Ray Kruzweil has it wrong.
-
That’s the spirit. My comments weren’t directed at you by the way. I’m Trying to understand why some people take glee in a stock going down that might hurt that person’s financial situation....why is that the case Another84?
I'm not Another84 but if you're a trader you take long, short or neutral positions based on your analysis. Do you think traders who take short positions in the market or in individual equities are bad people?
-
Let's just be clear here. The stock market can be volatile for many reasons. However, I doubt if we have we have ever had a time when one crazy, old fool can be this destructive.
According to the Chairman of the White House’s Council of Economic Advisers:
“There are a heck of a lot of U.S. companies that have a lot of sales in China that are basically going to be watching their earnings be downgraded. “It’s not going to be just Apple.”
-
Thanks 82, appreciate the advice.
Any blue chips that one would suggest for the long term?
Blue Horseshoe loves Anacott Steel.
-
I'm not Another84 but if you're a trader you take long, short or neutral positions based on your analysis. Do you think traders who take short positions in the market or in individual equities are bad people?
Bad people, no. What I'm commenting on is what seems to be people happy others might be taking on some water. Of course the reality is that there are multiple ways to play the stock game, someone shorting that comes out on top means someone else is on the wrong side of the equation...totally get it.
Not sure what the % of people are that play the short strategy, but my hunch is less than 15%....maybe even lower. Have no idea, but feels like the exception rather than the rule.
-
Let's just be clear here. The stock market can be volatile for many reasons. However, I doubt if we have we have ever had a time when one crazy, old fool can be this destructive.
According to the Chairman of the White House’s Council of Economic Advisers:
“There are a heck of a lot of U.S. companies that have a lot of sales in China that are basically going to be watching their earnings be downgraded. “It’s not going to be just Apple.”
Ironically, some of those same executives have said he's not wrong about China's actions the last 30 years, but no one has had the guts to stand up China. We'll see how it plays out. Are tariffs the right answer? Most would say no. If not, what is the appropriate answer or do you continue to let them abuse the system as they have? Who blinks first?
-
I don’t own apple stock, but my parents gifted me 3 shares of Amazon stock for xmas. My dad’s wealth advisor told him it would be a good long term stock for me to hold.
No offense, but when it comes time for you to invest your own money, for God’s sake, don’t use your dad’s wealth advisor.
It was a nice gesture by your parents, but gifting someone a single stock comes with the expectation that the recipient will hold on to it.... which puts it on par with gifting someone a savings bond.
Why not just gift someone the cash and let them decide where to invest it?
-
Bad people, no. What I'm commenting on is what seems to be people happy others might be taking on some water. Of course the reality is that there are multiple ways to play the stock game, someone shorting that comes out on top means someone else is on the wrong side of the equation...totally get it.
Not sure what the % of people are that play the short strategy, but my hunch is less than 15%....maybe even lower. Have no idea, but feels like the exception rather than the rule.
Definitely the exception - traders, not often investors. For traders, someone - him/her or those with the counter position - is always taking on water. Understandably they prefer it to be the other guy.
-
Apple announces that App Store spending topped $1.22B between Christmas Eve and New Year's Eve, a new holiday spending record.
Customers spent over $322M on New Year's Day alone.
The announcement follows yesterday's Q1 warning on iPhone weakness in China, which has the Street seeing red. But notable analysts including Morgan Stanley's Katy Huberty have remained bullish on Apple's Services potential even as weak iPhone data poured in.
-
Apple announces that App Store spending topped $1.22B between Christmas Eve and New Year's Eve, a new holiday spending record.
Customers spent over $322M on New Year's Day alone.
The announcement follows yesterday's Q1 warning on iPhone weakness in China, which has the Street seeing red. But notable analysts including Morgan Stanley's Katy Huberty have remained bullish on Apple's Services potential even as weak iPhone data poured in.
Conclusion, Tim Cook is either liar or stupid for making the iPhone revenue shortfall announcement.
Should he be fired?
Or maybe Cook understands what matters and it is not the thread above.
(chart is through 2016. If updated it would show the latest plot, Q4 2018, is 59%)
(https://amp.businessinsider.com/images/5873d01af10a9a260b8b4963-960-720.png)
-
No offense, but when it comes time for you to invest your own money, for God’s sake, don’t use your dad’s wealth advisor.
It was a nice gesture by your parents, but gifting someone a single stock comes with the expectation that the recipient will hold on to it.... which puts it on par with gifting someone a savings bond.
Why not just gift someone the cash and let them decide where to invest it?
Yes, a modern day version of gifting a savings bond. My dad made it clear he expects me to hold on to the Amazon stock until I retire. :) I am not interested in buying stocks and bonds, but I’ll take a gift of 3 shares of Amazon stock as a gift. Have you seen the price?!
-
Conclusion, Tim Cook is either liar or stupid for making the iPhone revenue shortfall announcement.
Should he be fired?
Or maybe Cook understands what matters and it is not the thread above.
(chart is through 2016. If updated it would show the latest plot, Q4 2018, is 59%)
(https://amp.businessinsider.com/images/5873d01af10a9a260b8b4963-960-720.png)
Reminds me of the "Disney is doomed" narrative.
That's a lie, too.
-
Netflix announced yesterday they are no longer going to pay the "apple tax", that's the fee Apple charges for allowing people to add Netflix through an Apple device through iTunes. All of us in the industry feel held hostage by Apple on this. 15% to 30%. Will cost Apple about $260M this year alone. Netflix has the heft to do this, but more will follow.
-
Reminds me of the "Disney is doomed" narrative.
That's a lie, too.
Yup, no answer.
Keep hiding under that Bed of yours, some day the price will rise again and you can go back to being overbearing self with confidence.
-
82 …
You do realize quoting imagine in your footer is the same as writing "look at me, I'm an as*hole."
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jun/26/head-to-head-imagine-john-lennon-soppy-meditation-hope
https://nypost.com/2016/10/28/is-john-lennons-imagine-the-worst-song-of-all-time/
https://sojo.net/articles/why-john-lennons-imagine-actually-not-great-song
https://theimaginativeconservative.org/2017/01/imagine-nightmare-john-lennon-ronald-stelzer.html
You forward to your twisted and disturbing reasoning for this footer.
-
82 …
You do realize quoting imagine in your footer is the same as writing "look at me, I'm an as*hole."
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jun/26/head-to-head-imagine-john-lennon-soppy-meditation-hope
https://nypost.com/2016/10/28/is-john-lennons-imagine-the-worst-song-of-all-time/
https://sojo.net/articles/why-john-lennons-imagine-actually-not-great-song
https://theimaginativeconservative.org/2017/01/imagine-nightmare-john-lennon-ronald-stelzer.html
You forward to your twisted and disturbing reasoning for this footer.
I like the song.
Effen twisted and freakin' disturbing, I know.
Looking forward to your reasoning for why you keep coming back to Scoop only to get banned again for being a planet-sized d-bag.
-
With a market cap of about $233 billion, Verizon is the world's 19th largest company.
Apple has $237 billion cash in its coffers.
In other words, Apple's cash position alone would have it ranked as one of the 20 largest companies in the world.
Doomed.
-
Not a big Cook fan, but they aren’t doomed.
-
Netflix announced yesterday they are no longer going to pay the "apple tax", that's the fee Apple charges for allowing people to add Netflix through an Apple device through iTunes. All of us in the industry feel held hostage by Apple on this. 15% to 30%. Will cost Apple about $260M this year alone. Netflix has the heft to do this, but more will follow.
Epic Games did the same thing with fortnight on android. Bypassed the play store and download the app directly from their website.
-
Wall Street Journal published an article about Tim Cook’s Apple earlier this month.
https://www.wsj.com/amp/articles/tim-cook-apple-steve-jobs-trump-china-iphone-ipad-apps-smartphone-11596833902 (https://www.wsj.com/amp/articles/tim-cook-apple-steve-jobs-trump-china-iphone-ipad-apps-smartphone-11596833902)
-
Remember the good ol' days, when Smuggles was saying only dopes would buy AAPL at 90 ... rather than these crappy days, when AAPL has become the world's first $2 trillion company, with a share price of $460+?
https://seekingalpha.com/news/3605238-apple-tops-2-trillion-in-market-cap
-
Won't that lead to the destruction of cities? Or something like that?
-
Remember the good ol' days, when Smuggles was saying only dopes would buy AAPL at 90 ... rather than these crappy days, when AAPL has become the world's first $2 trillion company, with a share price of $460+?
https://seekingalpha.com/news/3605238-apple-tops-2-trillion-in-market-cap
Maybe he meant Goodyear. :-\
-
Remember the good ol' days, when Smuggles was saying only dopes would buy AAPL at 90 ... rather than these crappy days, when AAPL has become the world's first $2 trillion company, with a share price of $460+?
https://seekingalpha.com/news/3605238-apple-tops-2-trillion-in-market-cap
'
Heisey is the George Costanza of Scoop. Just do the opposite of what he predicts and you'll be good.
-
'
Heisey is the George Costanza of Scoop. Just do the opposite of what he predicts and you'll be good.
Ya know, I normally would give something like that a pass. Anybody who ever has said anything about the stock market is wrong on occasion. For example, I sold my Target shares because I didn't think they could come back from being horribly mismanaged and I thought they couldn't gain market share from Amazon, Walmart and Costco. But the stock has more than doubled in price since I sold it, and TGT had another good earnings report today.
However ...
Smuggles was so damn smug, so cock-sure that only a moron would buy AAPL down there, he deserves to get teased every time the stock hits a new milestone.
Frankly, although I would never try to talk anybody out of buying AAPL now, I probably wouldn't buy it here myself; seems quite overvalued. But I haven't sold a single share of the AAPL I already own; it has been a 4- and 5-bagger for me, and I like to let my winners keep running unless they break their legs!
-
Ya know, I normally would give something like that a pass. Anybody who ever has said anything about the stock market is wrong on occasion. For example, I sold my Target shares because I didn't think they could come back from being horribly mismanaged and I thought they couldn't gain market share from Amazon, Walmart and Costco. But the stock has more than doubled in price since I sold it, and TGT had another good earnings report today.
However ...
Smuggles was so damn smug, so cock-sure that only a moron would buy AAPL down there, he deserves to get teased every time the stock hits a new milestone.
Frankly, although I would never try to talk anybody out of buying AAPL now, I probably wouldn't buy it here myself; seems quite overvalued. But I haven't sold a single share of the AAPL I already own; it has been a 4- and 5-bagger for me, and I like to let my winners keep running unless they break their legs!
AAPL has been relentless, and the announcement of the split only accelerated things. Wouldn’t surprise me if it backed off a bit post split - a common result for stocks that split - but I see no reason to sell here.
-
AAPL has been relentless, and the announcement of the split only accelerated things. Wouldn’t surprise me if it backed off a bit post split - a common result for stocks that split - but I see no reason to sell here.
I’m a very reluctant seller, so I’ll probably keep holding it. Can’t argue with that strategy so far with AAPL!!!
-
I am glad AAPL is all over my portfolio (and even more concentrated in my kids'), but it looks like the dash over $500 prompted some people to take profits.
I am not suggesting selling it necessarily, particularly if you don't have it in a tax advantaged account, but IMO it is awfully pricy here.
-
I am glad AAPL is all over my portfolio (and even more concentrated in my kids'), but it looks like the dash over $500 prompted some people to take profits.
I am not suggesting selling it necessarily, particularly if you don't have it in a tax advantaged account, but IMO it is awfully pricy here.
Yeah, I have a few like that, stocks that have marched well past what seems reasonable valuation.
Every time I think about selling (or at least trimming) AAPL, MSFT, MA, even boring consumer staples and utilities like MKC and NEE, I can't bring myself to do it. And every time, I've been rewarded.
Obviously, this can't keep going on forever. The crash could be painful.