Tradefair & Financials
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
These 69 comments are related to the topic:
AAPL Tues 18 Jan
AAPL Tues 18 Jan
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 69
|
By:
By average investor, do you mean "mug investor"? I would say it is obvious to even someone as stupid as Melly what is going on. The only way you get burned in the stock market is if you are one of these people who buys a mug stock and then just holds it for 20 years, or you are incredibly greedy and ignore all warning signals.
Buy in when the pump is happening, even if you only get on 1/3rd the way through, and sell up when it becomes obvious that things are about to take a turn for the worst. In the current cycle, I reckon we are probably 2/3 of the way through, and there will be another crash 2012-13 imo. |
|
By:
No, wipeout, I'm afraid not.
The ONLY surefire way to profit in these markets is to do what YOU and "benny" are doing....... ....AFTERTIME. I for one I'm impressed, I'm so impressed I can't stop laughing  |
|
By:
How do all these people make money on the markets then? There must be a way, otherwise people wouldn't be doing it.
Your problem is that you have become so bogged down in theory you have forgotten how to use simple common sense. You have no idea how to apply anything you have learnt in a textbook in the real world. That is why you are, and always will be, a failure. You have absolutely no clue what you are talking about, and are quite frankly bordering on being mentally retarded. |
|
By:
Are these the same analysts who continued to buy the market from March 2007
these are the same analysts who, just under 2 years ago were giving price targets on AAPL of $135 etc (and lightweights like you had even more irrational opinions) like I said, analysts tend to be conservative, but they are based on fundamentals, not fantasy. here's what the last of my JAN11 positions bought then will be going out the door for today... DELTA DESCRIPTION P/L DAY P/L OPEN MARK MARK CHNG AVG PRICE STK ► 0.00 Apple Inc. 0.0% 0.0% 329.22 -3.46 0.00 OPT ► 200.00 AAPL 100 JAN 11 170 CALL (2.34%) 1843.73% 158.9 -3.8 8.175 |
|
By:
polybot, you think that missing AAPL by 160% (expected $135, high $350, a $165 miss) is BECAUSE THEY ARE CONSERVATIVE and their predictions ARE BASED ON FUNDAMENTALS.
I have news for you, a miss this huge shows in fact that they haven't a clue what they are doing, and the markets haven't traded on fundamentals since March 2009. At any rate, you guys were e.j.aculating all over this forum when AAPL bounced off the bottom of the "Jobs" news, only a few days later your positions are all in the red. Good luck anyways. |
|
By:
1. a $135 price target March09 subtracted from a Jan11 $350 price doesn't equal "a $165 miss", buy yourself a calendar. And the reason analysts are generally conservative is because their estimates are for real money traders, not for fantasists, spectators and tyre kickers.
2. not sure where you get the idea markets haven't traded on fundamentals since 09, you must live in an alternate and opposite universe. 3. none of my trades are in the red, my entry and exit points were very clear and posted ahead of time. But if someone had opened a long position then you would expect it to be in the red for a period of time, it's called the stock market and it moves up and down. The calls I bought at around $8 were probably 'in the red' for a day, or a week, or whatever after I bought them, the lowest I sold them at was today at $16000 per contract. and it may surprise you that in the real world not every trade works perfectly, it will probably amaze you that some trades may even result in a loss. |
|
By:
Sounds like a nice little earner, I'd like to find a site that does analysis on analysts to find out which are the most worth following, who is or are the pricewise of stock picking?
|
|
By:
polybot, you are shrewdie indeed.
1. I never said March 2009, you did. 2. If you think these markets are trading on fundamentals you are delusional, unless of course you consider every overt and covert action taken by the FED as a "fundamental". 3. Of course none of your positions are in the red, no one's positions are EVER in the red on here. Point me again to your post that as you claim announced "ahead of time" that you bought calls around $8, I think I missed it. |
|
By:
3. none of my trades are in the red, my entry and exit points were very clear and posted ahead of time. But if someone had opened a long position then you would expect it to be in the red for a period of time, it's called the stock market and it moves up and down. The calls I bought at around $8 were probably 'in the red' for a day, or a week, or whatever after I bought them, the lowest I sold them at was today at $16000 per contract.
and it may surprise you that in the real world not every trade works perfectly, it will probably amaze you that some trades may even result in a loss. This. According to Melly, if you don't have a 100% strike rate, you are a failure. Also according to him, you are a failure if your position goes into the red for even a few minutes. He has tried to mock some of my trades (and ben's) like this a few times, but has then promptly disappeared when they have gone massively into the green.What he fails to understand, is even if the amount made in your average winning trade is the same as your average losing trade, you only have to achieve a strike rate of over 50% to win money. This is not hard to achieve. If you can boost your average win to 2 or 3 times your average loss, which is certainly possible, you have to be right even less of the time. (this applies to swing/position trading only, no idea how hard it is to achieve results like that day trading)  |
|
By:
Point me again to your post that as you claim announced "ahead of time" that you bought calls around $8, I think I missed it.
obviously the trades referred to are re 18/19Jan positions, the 09 calls are given as an example re analysts. either you're being deliberately obtuse or you are naturally obtuse, or english is your second language and you struggle with reading comprehension. as a practice exercise, try reading through your last post and try to identify the other errors. you're analysis is poor, opinionated but short on details, specifics and fact. |
|
By:
No, not obviously. Obviously to who?
Ah, given as an example !!! That clears things up.....NOT! Bring the post up where you "posted ahead of time" AS YOU CLAIMED that you bought calls around $8. You made that claim, SO BACK IT UP. And once you do that, if you really want to impress me, stop the ad hominem attacks and tell me WHY you think the markets have been trading on fundamentals backing it up with "details, specifics and fact". |
|
By:
On second thought, don't bother. I really don't care about your trades, nor your opinions.
FED/CB liquidity injections = equities up That's the only "fundamental" you need to know to understand how the markets traded since their lows. Everything else is noise. |
|
By:
seek help
|
|
By:
Menelaus
Date Joined: 03 Feb 05 Add contact | Send message 23 Jan 11 08:21 No, not obviously. Obviously to who? Ah, given as an example !!! That clears things up.....NOT! Obvious to everyone but you... Bring the post up where you "posted ahead of time" AS YOU CLAIMED that you bought calls around $8. You made that claim, SO BACK IT UP. What like you did, when asked many times to find my post where you claimed I said I "Bought AAPL on the S&P". And once you do that, if you really want to impress me, stop the ad hominem attacks and tell me WHY you think the markets have been trading on fundamentals backing it up with "details, specifics and fact". Now I've seen it all. Melly, the person who attacks everyone in sight without reason, telling someone to stop the attacks. Also Melly, the person who never provides an opinion, other than sitting on the fence, telling someone to provide details and facts. Menelaus Date Joined: 03 Feb 05 Add contact | Send message 23 Jan 11 08:54 On second thought, don't bother. I really don't care about your trades, nor your opinions. If you don't care, then why do you sit on the forum day after day spamming refresh, waiting for someone to hurl insults at? Let me be frank here. Why would anyone come aftertime on this forum? We aren't all as sad as you. I have plenty of friends in the real world, I don't need to try and impress some strangers on an anonymous forum. |
|
By:
Why is it every time I call bull.sh1t on a lie posted here, I get back expletives, suggestions that I get help, and death treats?
Stop posting rubbish, you'll find me a lot more amiable. |
|
By:
im not too sure apple shares are toppish, especially as i dont see any competition soon for their products ( im talking as a user not as a market analyst ). i was reading recently that they had 10billions downloads, that s not even impressive, it s unbelievable. i ve got a friend who has a company designing apps for smartphones and since a couple of yrs he works only for apple, mainly because apple makes the whole process easy for programmers as they take care of everything once the app is developed. when he was designing for nokia for example he had to have a contract with each countrys providers and for sure that was making it very troublesome and legally expensive to comply with.
looks to me that apple is to phone/musicplayers/tablets what facebook is to social networks, betfair to online betting, and so on, the first or the best gets into a virtuos circle as more users determine the success of the company and viceversa, creating a massive entry barrier for followers. for sure apple shares have gone up on fundamentals ( liquidity IS a fundamental, same as low rates as you compare high PE vs low returns on fixed income.. and by the way isnt their PE roughly in line with whatever is fair for a high-growth tech company, again im no expert but i thought they were on 15-20 PE, which is actually the norm in a world with zero pct rates ). In fact if anything the shares tend to trade too much agaisnt fundamentals the days when they drop 5% each time SJ has a health scare... One comment only for the guys arguing here... what is your problem? cannot you just read the threads and try to get the positive form each of them? if someone claims to be somethign that he s not, at the end who cares? i dont care if mr ben makes millions or if he makes only thousands, the same way i dont care if menelaus is on 7figures or thats his boss and he s just on 6.. try to read the forum for what it is, a forum on a betting site. not the FT, not the latest research from JPMorgan, but just a forum with a few guys who want to share ideas. I read it ( although trading in a big bank i get all the information i require ) because sometime i find an interesting comment that makes me think outside my normal patterns. and to be fair, the more distant the background and thinking process of the poster from mine, the better it is, i would never challenge my opinions if i only read what i already knew or agreed with. truce? |
|
By:
johnnie, I agree aapl still reasonably priced, with a forward P/E of 12.60 and around 50 billion in cash, great margins, growth potential in China etc and with less than 10 percent of the global pc market it can still grow in established markets.
the risks are it's susceptible to any general market down turn, and possibly to some technical problem in one of it's product lines, the Steve Jobs factor seems less of issue but could still blow up. competition is a moving target but currently android has it's problems technically as well as the Oracle patent issue etc, not sure what the changes at Google will mean lots of other factors to consider but the fundamentals are strong and a P/E of 18 is good for a tech stock and historically quite low for aapl. |
|
By:
Has anyone seen a Google Nexus? It looks interesting.
|
|
By:
In Lindstrom's studies, Apple loyalists had similar brain scans to those of devout Christians.
Read more: 5 Reasons Not to Buy an iPhone - SmartMoney.com http://www.smartmoney.com/spending/technology/5-reasons-not-to-buy-an-iphone-1295534674499/#ixzz1ByBVepsH |
|
By:
@ polybot
the fundamentals are strong and a P/E of 18 is good for a tech stock and historically quite low for aapl. Is this what you mean by "details, specifics and facts" ????? Heaven help you. @ JW & polybot Apple is overpriced, so is the entire market right now. Even the more bullish hedge fund managers are now calling for a correction in the markets but that's a debate for a different time, back to AAPL. AAPL reported $6 billion in profit in Q4 2010. Let's be incredibly generous and assume they make the same $6 billion every quarter for the next 5 years....or $120 billion over 5 years. Let's also assume an investor can earn 4pc on their investment for those 5 years, that future $120 billion is worth just under $99 billion today. In other words, the next 5 years of AAPL's profits have a present worth $99 billion today at 4pc. In evaluating a company, it is only worth it's future profits plus SE ( "the discounted value of the cash that can be taken out of a business during its remaining life"), so throw another $47 billion in SE on top of the $99 billion and you get $146 billion. The market is valuing AAPL today at $314 billion. TRANSLATION: AAPL IS OVERPRICED. Here's some other things to consider when making that incredible generous assumption that $6 billion in profit will flow in every quarter for the next 5 years: 1. The competition is catching up both in cellphone and tablet technology. Competitive products are "out-reviewing" AAPL products on "tech" websites. Eventually the "sex-appeal" factor gives way to price and functionality. 2. Android phones have been consistently outselling the iphone for the last 3 Qtrs now. 3. What's the likelihood of AAPL delivering another iphone frenzy? What's the likelihood of those who already invested in a new iphone 4 or new ipad to upgrade to future AAPL devices that do not have ground breaking but rather marginal improvements in the next 2-3 years? 4. How long can AAPL sustain feeding "fetish" products to a deteriorating economy at these levels? (and if you don't think the economy is deteriorating, we can debate that separately as well) 5. Steve Jobs is NOT returning, this realization will set in the market sooner and later and while operationally it may not make a difference, the markets don't see it that way. AAPL = Steve Jobs as far as the market is concerned. 6. There's increasing evidence that the cell phone market has reached a stage of cannibalizing itself (see later report from Verizon). Can AAPL sustain these profit margins in a more competitive and shrinking market place? And those who say growth will come from China are deluting themselves. China uses CDMA technology and AAPL has struck out with discussions with China Mobile for a CDMA compatible iphone (this point was addressed by COO Tim Cook in the earning conference call) and besides I really can see millions of Chinese earning $10/day rushing to spend $1,000 on an iphone. @ JW It depends on your definition of "fundamentals". Is the BoE covertly providing £62 billion to RBS without announcing it to the market until 13 months later trading on fundamentals? Is the FED providing liquidity and backstopping "assets" to the tune of $23 trillion (!!!!) through it's opaque alphabet soup programs trading on fundamentals? Is the FED providing $3 billion in liquidity to non-US banks in secret trading on fundamentals? The point is, yes of course interest rates and liquidity can be consider part of "fundamentals" provided all investors knew what's going on. We don't. Besides, the massive and unprecedented FED intervention has greatly distorted the markets. Barry Ritholtz does a great job in addressing this issue on his blog today. Have a read: http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2011/01/how-much-has-the-fed-distorted-the-stock-market/ |
|
By:
wow, i admit my ignorance ( im a buy and hold investor in the stock market ), but - and i promise you these are serious questions - do all companies get valued at the expected profits over only 5yrs (plus cash)? what if we use a 10yr horizon and already get closer to 240? why we take 10yrs of coupons to price a treasury but we need to get only 5yrs of profits to price a share? if so, should we sell every single stock or commodity/asset ( i would think most are dear )?
back to aapl, the only point i was making, from direct experience, is that apple products will probably always have many more applications available from programmers compared to other smartphones, because of the way they work and make it easy to deliver. which should result in a nicer package compared to other phones for a long time. on top, few billions d/loads per year, split of profits roughly 50/50, already the apps market seem to me large enough. but again, im no expert, i m just a user (of rim and apple) although i find the apple product way superior. regarding the liquidity, i actually dont get the point of what you re saying. some of the things you say are correct, although you mix apples with bananas, ( boe lending to rbs is a normal function of a central bank which is always been and will always be a lender of last resort, function necessary since we have fractional reserving. we can have a different thread about last resort lending, but secrecy about it when performed is paramount as it normally goes to offset a lack of liquidity created by a run on a bank, and would be counterprodctive to advertise it. anyway the loan itself was a very short term one - collaterized by the bank assets and didnt create any extra liquidity in the market, if anything went to cover a short term hole ). the rest of course is true, all the central banks have been pushing an easy money policy that meant low interest rates across the curve - we can joke about the printing presses, but buying bonds just means adjustng the long term rates, when the short term cannot be adjusted any lower- but the reality is (whoever created this enviroment) that the results were just in front of everyone, no secrecy involved: we had 2 yrs of zero rates on the front and what? 2-3% rates on the backdates. so once you have such a yield curve, who cares who put it there or why or wheter rightly so or not. it s there, and you can take it as one of your fundamentals when making your decisions ( as a proof have a look at the spx the days the Ts suffer ) ps i read your advertised blog, to be fair it doesnt say anythign new, it s very late for me but as you probably know from a series you can extrapolate any message you want. there s no reference to magnitude of prior collapse, nor any depuration of cyclical factors ( we can safely assume that mobility of workers, efficiency, productivity, -and economic science- are much better now than in the 30s or any other time ). for a guy who thrive on "details, specifics and facts", it is, actually, a very skinny article to quote. good night everyone. |
|
By:
JW, you are rather taking a narrow view of this, aren't you?
"would be counterprodctive to advertise it" ????? Have you lost your mind? Is the BoE secretly lending it's "normal job"? How is secretly bailing banks out not a securities trading violation? If you and I did this, the FSA would have us both in jail by now. Supposing I'm shorting RBS on FUNDAMENTALS, how is secretly providing a £62 billion loan to bail them out, that you don't reveal to the market until 13 months later, "counterproductive" to me as a trader? You either believe in a free market and the rules that ALL investors have to abide by, or you don't. There's no such thing as half-pregnant. P.S: Is this trading on fundamentals, or are you still looking for even more "details, specifics and facts"? This article was posted AFTER I made the "we don't know" comment yesterday.......... and the key word being "SECRET". Buiter on Europe’s secret liquidity operations http://ftalphaville.ft.com/blog/2011/01/24/466731/buiter-on-europes-secret-liquidity-operations/?ftcamp=crm/email/2011124/nbe/MoneySupply/product P.S.S: Do the 10 year back-of-napkin calculations.....IT"S STILL OVERPRICED. (at what point in the planning horizon do you price in RISK?) |
|
By:
Is this what you mean by "details, specifics and facts" ????? you were expecting me to write you 50 page report?
yes I've heard all those arguments over and over again for the last 4 years, when it was $90 plenty were applying the same logic claiming it was over valued, heaven help me if I'd listened. But let's imagine a minute you're correct and one day the share price collapses to nothing in a single minute. It doesn't matter as I've already made the money day trading or on longer positions in the month's and years it was going up, I'd only lose the current positions and if I had concerns even they would be partially protected with puts. Over the last few years I've heard plenty claiming the sky will fall and declaring their imaginary short positions, had they actually been short they would have been wiped out several times over long before they were eventually proved right with a correction or collapse (excepting those with genuine and specific inside info). Like the bloke on the street with the sign saying "the end is nigh", he will be right eventually if only he can stand around waiting long enough. While I've seen these arguments a million times before, here's a brief response to your points (I'm sorry I don't have time for that 50 page report) 1. Apple beat every sales estimate for iPads, a version2 around the corner and still no real competition, remember when the Palm Pre was going to kill the iPhone? 2. Over numerous manufacturers and models including the clunky cheap crap that gets dumped after a few months, even then it's marginal. 3. Extremely high, Apple has very high brand loyalty, most update after 2 years, plenty more before if the phone is lost or dropped in the toilet. 4. heard the exact same argument at the height of the panic, result was record growth quarter over quarter, in a recession not everyone starves to death and people still need connectivity. 5. yes, everyone is aware of this, not fully baked in but mostly. 6. cell phone or smart phone. smart phone is the new paradigm and has enormous growth potential even if the market is shared with Android etc. And if you haven't heard, the Chinese economy is doing OK lately, they're not all rice farmers living in dusty huts, take a trip to Shanghai sometime. Clearly your mind is made up though, I don't expect you to agree with me and I'm not hearing anything new from you, feel free to respond but if no reply from me will probably mean I just don't have the time for the detailed response you require. |
|
By:
Why You Shouldn't Buy an iPhone -- Yet
Verizon subscribers have been a stalwart bunch. While AT&T ( T: 28.48, +0.15, +0.52% ) customers flaunted their iPhones the last 3.5 years, Verizon subscribers countered with claims of network clarity and Droid superiority. But now that their iPhone drought is over, the very loyalty that has kept them with the company for so long might backfire and hit them in the wallet. Some 9 million current Verizon subscribers are expected to upgrade to the iPhone when it becomes available -- representing 75% of the iPhones Verizon ( VZ: 35.24, +0.29, +0.82% ) is expected to sell over the rest of this year. But that move comes with plenty of upfront costs, from buying all those apps again to the early upgrade costs of up to $750. |
|
By:
polybot, I don't have a problem at anything you have posted. It's just a different interpretation of AAPL related matters, and it's certainly different than mine. That's why there's a buyer for every seller, and a seller for every buyer.
The only "broad" question I would ask is, where would the equities market be (AAPL included) without the FED putting a bid under the market (ie, flooding the market with liquidity that found it's way into risk assets) and an extension of the same question, do you see that continuing in the future? Food for thought. |
|
By:
about aapl and the back of napkin calculations..
of course we know we need 15 yrs of earnings to get to the present stock price ( ehm.. pe is at 15 ). my question was, should we buy only stocks with p/e between 5 and 10 then? im asking this as a serious question. about lending of last resort, yes that s the normal job of a central bank. and it s not a trading violation for sure.. these loans happen very often, much more often that you would imagine. and as their function is to cover a sudden but by nature temporary hole in the liquidity ( normally after a 'run' on the bank, given their fractional reserving, but sometimes is only due to overtrading ), they dont alter the fundamentals of the borrower. put it in plain concept. assume you are paid 10k each 28th of the month. and every 29th you have your standing orders to pay your bills and cards for 5k per month. if one month, for exceptional reasons your salary doesnt hit the bank account on the 28th for a technicality, but you know it got paid and will arrive 1week later, are you fundamentally bankrupt even if you ve kept the same earning capabilities? who are you misleading if you ask for a 1 week loan or delay in payment?? and for what concern the free market, well, pros and cons, of course it s nice as a concept, but leave it without regulators and it becomes the far west. and i dont think that advocating the presence and the hand of the regulators in making sure the markets are functioning is a case of half pregnant. it is, on the other hand, a case of the only possible way. but that s my opinion, and i guess it depends on how left or right you r positioned politically speaking. |
|
By:
where would the equities market be without the FED putting a bid under the market? is like asking where would I be today if I was kidnapped by pirates at age 5, I wasn't. and the fed did inject the liquidity.
do you see that continuing in the future? a US economic recovery is possible but not guaranteed, there are plenty of good signs and a cultural shift from grassroots up away from borrow and spend. but like the first question it doesn't matter, either way there will be opportunities in the US or elsewhere. |
|
By:
JW, P/E is a rough indicator and only one of many, a company can be running at a loss and still be a good investment.
|
|
By:
@ polybot
You really are something. Let me spell it out for you since giving you hints doesn't seem to help you. The FED flooding the market with liquidity is the OVERWHELMING single reason why equities are rising, including your precious AAPL. It's the ONLY fundamental right now, and it dwarfs all OTHER fundamentals which you seem to think matter. Allow me to translate for you. If the FED don't come up with more QE by May when this current QE iteration winds down, your AAPL stock will dive despite of those "fundamentals" that you thought were lifting the share price higher. But since Bernanke seems hell bent to put a bit under the markets, and further QE iterations will likely be inevitable to fund the massive USG deficit (who spends $2 for 1$ it brings in) not to mention their insolvent state of municipalities and States, for the moment your investment may be fine. Overvalued, but fine. Unless the INFLATION disaster continues to wreak havoc to the rest on the world and the G20 forces the US to reign-in the FED. Other than that you seem to have a gift of telling me with some authority that: the sun will rise from the east on Friday the Pope will remain stubbornly Catholic and gravity will continue to pull everything towards the center of mass until at least next Wednesday @ JW I disagree with you on this on so many different levels. Yes, the CB is the lender of last resort, we all know that, but the CB should not be the lender of last resort in SECRET. That is withholding MATERIAL information from the market which is a securities trading violation. These transactions are normally reported on the BoE's balance sheet the following month the transaction takes place, not intentionally obfuscated in an OBS entry. You make the unprecedented in scale £62 billion secret loan sound like "normal business", it was not. Without that liquidity injection RBS implodes (goes bust would be more appropriate). How is that not MATERIAL information for trading the market? It is precisely why the BoE did the loan in secret so as not exacerbate an already jittery market. That in itself proves that the information was material.....and intentionally withheld. How is that not a securities violation? The only reason IT'S NOT a securities violation is because the FSA changed the rules in the middle of the night so as to make it not a security violation. One set of rules for the investing public, a moving target set of rules for the banks. Some free market. (BTW, these injections lasted for four months (Oct 08 to January 09), so not as "temporary" as you describe them to be) P.S: I don't know the answer to your question regarding acceptable P/E's other than to say every investor will use their own guidelines as to what they consider acceptable. AAPL at 15/1 in an industry where the next great gadget can make or break a company is not a risk I'm prepared to take, despite the stellar "brand loyalty" that polybot believes in. |
|
By:
poor melanie....seething, huffing and puffing....maybe if you had a bit of success once in a while, it would help to take the edge off.
|