What's Wrong With Apple (stock)?

[WarriorDad]

An analyst yesterday predicted Apple to go up another 40% by this time next year.  Also, Disney to go up 25%. 

[Dr. Blackheart]

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?

[WarriorDad]

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?

[JWags85]

What does an energy company (DTV) have to do with AT&T?  Did they form an alliance or JV?

DirecTV 

[ZiggysFryBoy]

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.

[WarriorDad]

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

[Dr. Blackheart]

What does an energy company (DTV) have to do with AT&T?  Did they form an alliance or JV?

Go Cubs!

[WarriorDad]

Go Cubs!

Retool a few areas, slot Machado at short, avoid the injury bug and we are right there.

[MU82]

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?

[WarriorDad]

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. 

[Heisenberg v2.0]

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?

[MU82]

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.

[Heisenberg v2.0]

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?

[jesmu84]

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?

[MU82]

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.

[Heisenberg v2.0]

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.

[GGGG]

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.

[Heisenberg v2.0]

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.

[Jay Bee]

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?

[Pakuni]

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.

[Heisenberg v2.0]

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.

[Heisenberg v2.0]

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

[Heisenberg v2.0]

But now that it is $160 those scoopers are no longer rich.

STZ stock over $232.  I made a lot of Scoopers rich.

[Heisenberg v2.0]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TGwZVGKG30s
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/TGwZVGKG30s" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" class="bbc_link bbc_flash_disabled new_win">http://www.youtube.com/v/TGwZVGKG30s</a>

[MU82]

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.