Apple doesn't seem well suited to the banking business. At least philosophically. Sure they have enough money to enter any business they choose, however, keep in mind that they have suggested one of the secrets to their current success can be attributed to keeping their product line lean. I don't remember how many products they said but it is astoundingly low for a fortune 100 company.
I think Apple entering the banking industry would flop just like Apple entering the social network industry did. They should concentrate on insanely great tech and leave banking to the bean counters.
Not to mention that getting into the banking business doesn't require $100B - the beauty of a bank is that customers GIVE you money to HOLD for them, you don't have to earn it by selling hardware first, and then loan it out. Some people just don't understand!
They've confused cause and effect. Companies that are doing well pay more in dividends. And companies that are doing well tend to do well the next year, as well. Essentially, all their 'evidence' shows is that companies give more dividends during good economic times and tend not to give dividends when there are clouds on the horizon. There's nothing there that indicates that the dividends cause (or even contribute to) growth.
Funny, confusing cause and effect is the same thing you did WRT MSFT in the post I just replied to.
Quote:
HOWEVER, my argument is (and has always been) that it's up to the Board and Management to decide when that time is right. No one on this forum or any of the idiot analysts who keep chiming in on the subject is in a position to dictate when Apple should do so. You buy AAPL if you're confident in the management's ability to make decisions like that. If you're not confident in their ability to make that decision, don't buy the stock.
No, that's not what your argument is or was. You have been saying they SHOULDN'T, not that they HAVEN'T. We all know that the board has not yet delivered a dividend. If you don't wish to participate in a discussion of whether they SHOULD or not, you should not be posting so much on this thread.
Their is a large investor base of Mutual Funds that would LOVE to own AAPL but CAN'T. If AAPL pays a dividend those Mutual Funds will buy AAPL.
Its so basic and straight forward, its almost laughable.
There were approximately 7,600 mutual funds in the US as of 2010, of which a little over 5,000 were equity funds (including hybrid funds that invest in stocks and bonds). The data are from the Investment Company Institute.
The ones that cannot, by their charter, invest in non-dividend-paying companies such as AAPL (e.g., 'income' funds or balanced funds) constitute perhaps no more than 1,500 or so. In other words, there are PLENTY that can still invest in the company despite its not paying dividends.
Second, just an starting to pay dividends will make AAPL attractive to such funds, it will make AAPL less attractive to others, such as pure 'growth' funds. Thus, the net effect predicted on AAPL from such portfolio rebalancing is totally speculative, at best.
Third, and perhaps most important, the stock has been doing superbly even without this group of MFs investing in Apple. Apple need not bother with actions that can only be viewed as responding to a tail's attempt to wag the dog.
The article indirectly mentions that with; ""In other words, Apple is substantially under-owned by major investment funds, particularly those focused on income, i.e., dividend," and I own shares in two such mutual funds.
Of course this is true.
But there thousands of others that hold it. Moreover, the analyst does not allow for the fact that starting to pay a dividend might make Apple less attractive to the ones that already hold the company because it does not pay dividends (i.e., growth funds).
There were approximately 7,600 mutual funds in the US as of 2010, of which a little over 5,000 were equity funds (including hybrid funds that invest in stocks and bonds). The data are from the Investment Company Institute.
The ones that cannot, by their charter, invest in non-dividend-paying companies such as AAPL (e.g., 'income' funds or balanced funds) constitute perhaps no more than 1,500 or so. In other words, there are PLENTY that can still invest in the company despite its not paying dividends.
Second, just an starting to pay dividends will make AAPL attractive to such funds, it will make AAPL less attractive to others, such as pure 'growth' funds. Thus, the net effect predicted on AAPL from such portfolio rebalancing is totally speculative, at best.
Third, and perhaps most important, the stock has been doing superbly even without this group of MFs investing in Apple. Apple need not bother with actions that can only be viewed as responding to a tail's attempt to wag the dog.
Sounds like you just took your opinion, slapped some made up numbers (unless you can tell me where that 1500 came from) and went from there as if you had proved something.
Secondly, the raw number is not important. What is important is the amount of money that is invested elsewhere as a result of the stupid policy of holding onto this much cash and doing zippy with it.
Stock buybacks are easy. Let's say that the market values the entire company at $500 B and there are 1 B shares. That means that each share is valued at $500.
Now, if Apple buys back 10% of its shares, there are only 900 M shares in circulation, but the market valuation doesn't change (the cash is replaced with something of equal value - the shares). So the share price would be about $555.
Your arithmetic does not seem to be correct.
Note that $50B in cash left the company, so the firm's market cap (assuming nothing else changes, there are no signaling effects, etc) is $500B ? $50B = $450B.
With the now 900M shares outstanding, wouldn't the new share price -- $450B/900M -- be the same as before, i.e., $500 (again, assuming nothing else changes)?
Sounds like you just took your opinion, slapped some made up numbers (unless you can tell me where that 1500 came from) and went from there as if you had proved something.
Perhaps you have some kind of comprehension deficiency: did you note that I gave you my source?
Quote:
Originally Posted by cameronj
Secondly, the raw number is not important. What is important is the amount of money that is invested elsewhere as a result of the stupid policy of holding onto this much cash and doing zippy with it.
Talk about throwing in something that is totally speculative to justify an 'opinion.'
I remember Steve talking about focus and how that meant saying NO to ideas. Some that are even good ideas but that by saying NO to some ideas that allowed their focus to be sharpest on the best ideas.
This is a ridiculous idea for a tech company like Apple. Its beyond their core competency and I would sell Apple stock immediately if they announced such a stupid plan. I think others would as well.
Kind of like how cell phones were beyond their core competency as of 2006?
I'm not suggesting that Apple follow in the footsteps of Bank of America, I'm suggesting they just continue doing what they've been doing for a decade with iTunes Store and now with their ability to pay for items with your iPhone at an Apple Store.. just with all other stores.
If they would no longer have to pay a percentage fee to MC and Visa per transaction they could pass some of that savings back to you in terms of free iTS merchandise which is just another win for them.
The only change they have to make is to add NFC (which is surely coming anyway) and have a way for direct deposit added to your account. No need to do home loans and other banking solutions.
I certainly agree.
And as you stated elsewhere, Apple is very close to being a bank already -- people just don't realize it, because (1) they don't understand what a modern bank really consists of and (2) they don't understand there's more to Apple than the devices they see in front of them.
Not to mention that getting into the banking business doesn't require $100B - the beauty of a bank is that customers GIVE you money to HOLD for them, you don't have to earn it by selling hardware first, and then loan it out. Some people just don't understand!
There's more to it than putting up a shingle that says "bank" and then having people deposit their savings. People don't just hand over their money to Fred's Bank.
True, $100B is not a necessary condition to start a bank. But, if you happen to have $100B that you'd like to do something with, loaning money to your customers (so they can buy your products) and loaning money to your suppliers (so they can make your products), isn't such a bad thing to do. And if you can cut out the middle man in making those loans (i.e. the banks), so much the better. And, if in creating this bank, you can increase the value of your entire ecosystem of products, even better still.
There's more to it than putting up a shingle that says "bank" and then having people deposit their savings. People don't just hand over their money to Fred's Bank.
True, $100B is not a necessary condition to start a bank. But, if you happen to have $100B that you'd like to do something with, loaning money to your customers (so they can buy your products) and loaning money to your suppliers (so they can make your products), isn't such a bad thing to do. And if you can cut out the middle man in making those loans (i.e. the banks), so much the better. And, if in creating this bank, you can increase the value of your entire ecosystem of products, even better still.
I think Apple should start a concrete company so they can stop paying these outside companies for the concrete for their stores. And a glass company. And why isn't Apple in the aluminum refining industry anyway? Why do they let these aluminum companies make all that cash?
Speaking of which why do they let Foxconn take the high margin manufacturing business out from under their noses?
People, listen: Apple is a high margin high tech consumer product designer. Doing that, and JUST that, has made them the most valuable public company in the world. They do NOT need to jump into a business (ISP, mobile operator, bank (gasp)) where margins are tiny, regulation is high, and profits are low.
Look at Table 5 for total number of equity funds in 2010 (4,585) and hybrid funds (478; these are firms that own a mix of stocks and bonds).
Of those 2,750 are 'capital appreciation funds' -- i.e., they invest in non-dividend-paying ('growth') stocks such as AAPL for their capital appreciation potential. (Table 6). There are 692 'total return' funds (total return = div yield + capital gains), and they are the ones that are most likely to require dividends. I counted all of them, plus all the hybrid funds as falling into that category, and that is ~1,200. So when I said "1,500" I was being extremely generous about the number of funds that may not buy AAPL because of their investing style limitations.
Look at Table 5 for total number of equity funds in 2010 (4,585) and hybrid funds (478; these are firms that own a mix of stocks and bonds).
Of those 2,750 are 'capital appreciation funds' -- i.e., they invest in non-dividend-paying ('growth') stocks such as AAPL for their capital appreciation potential. (Table 6). There are 692 'total return' funds (total return = div yield + capital gains), and they are the ones that are most likely to require dividends. I counted all of them, plus all the hybrid funds as falling into that category, and that is ~1,200. So when I said "1,500" I was being extremely generous about the number of funds that may not buy AAPL because of their investing style limitations.
Would Apple cease to be growth stock simply by paying out a dividend? Would growth funds be required to sell their stake in Apple in that case? Can a stock not have significant growth and pay a dividend? Maybe it hasn't happened much before, but Apple is all about going where no one has gone before.
It's been a decade since Apple needed cash in the bank to finance operations. Money coming in is sufficient.
What Apple should do is a one-time special dividend using 50 billion. That will amount to about $5 per share, and if they do it soon, the tax hit on shareholders will be small. That will leave them 50B in the bank which grows by around 10 per quarter, and in another year they can do it again if the tax environment remains reasonable.
I'm not trying to argue with you but can you, or anyone, show me a clear, real life example of a dividend being paid that brought extra value to the company. I just don't see it. I think that the 100 billion is burning a hole in everyone's pocket .... except Apple. Nothing wrong with " keeping your powder dry" for future use, imho. Just sayin'
Not to mention that getting into the banking business doesn't require $100B - the beauty of a bank is that customers GIVE you money to HOLD for them, you don't have to earn it by selling hardware first, and then loan it out. Some people just don't understand!
There is ample enough evidence to suggest that Apple makes all of it's money by focussing on what it does best ... and not by trying to be everything to everybody ... so to suggest that they "branch out" into the financial sector ... where they have little or no expertise, goes against the very same kind of thinking that rescued Apple from the brink of bankruptcy. Forget the bank balance ... focus on what they do best. Follow Apple's lead, for cryin' out loud. This is not rocket science. \
These Wall Street bloodsuckers and their Dividend BS. They just want Apple to become "Another Company", riddled in debt, at the mercy of Wall Street and Banks.
I think the cash is a HUGE reason to pay up for the Stock. Yes, I said that right. If you believe in the Management, then you believe that whether it's 100 Billion, or 1 Trillion, they have money there to use if and/or when they ever need it, ensuring that your Company that you're Invested in, will ALWAYS be able to stay on top, or if they ever sneeze, climb quickly back to the top
If I'm going long on AAPL, then I'd rather know that they're secure, and have a "Floor", rather than paying out a ludicrous $50B a year or whatever, in Dividends. Remain a growth story!
Plus, again, AAPL have tons of "weapons" they can use to boost the Stock price, if ever they mature to a level where growth is slowing, and they need to prop, or boost the Stock up. A Dividend is one of them. Right now, Apple is flying, and agile, and rich, yet with its mind on future growth, not letting itself get spoiled by its riches.... let's keep it that way for awhile. No need for a Dividend, at least not yet.
Something you learn in behavioral economics is that when prices go up to an expensive level, people are slow to sell, and eager to buy. They believe that prices tend to increase, so why wouldn't you buy a lot? After all, the most expensive asset in the world has a quantifiable record of making people extremely rich.
When prices crash to a low level, people are terrified of buying, and wish to sell. After all, when prices decline, it is evident that people who own that thing tended to lose money.
So, for the average person, they lust after expensive assets and spurn cheap assets. This is like being wrong 100% of the time.
Buying AAPL today is a worse idea than it has ever been in history. That's simply a fact. I am not saying it will go down. I am not trying to tell people don't buy it. Just saying now is not a "good" time... it is a "bad" time... just offering that.
In 2009, it was a great time to buy stocks. Epically great. But did people emotionally want to do that? Worth thinking about.
Comments
Apple doesn't seem well suited to the banking business. At least philosophically. Sure they have enough money to enter any business they choose, however, keep in mind that they have suggested one of the secrets to their current success can be attributed to keeping their product line lean. I don't remember how many products they said but it is astoundingly low for a fortune 100 company.
I think Apple entering the banking industry would flop just like Apple entering the social network industry did. They should concentrate on insanely great tech and leave banking to the bean counters.
Not to mention that getting into the banking business doesn't require $100B - the beauty of a bank is that customers GIVE you money to HOLD for them, you don't have to earn it by selling hardware first, and then loan it out. Some people just don't understand!
They've confused cause and effect. Companies that are doing well pay more in dividends. And companies that are doing well tend to do well the next year, as well. Essentially, all their 'evidence' shows is that companies give more dividends during good economic times and tend not to give dividends when there are clouds on the horizon. There's nothing there that indicates that the dividends cause (or even contribute to) growth.
Funny, confusing cause and effect is the same thing you did WRT MSFT in the post I just replied to.
HOWEVER, my argument is (and has always been) that it's up to the Board and Management to decide when that time is right. No one on this forum or any of the idiot analysts who keep chiming in on the subject is in a position to dictate when Apple should do so. You buy AAPL if you're confident in the management's ability to make decisions like that. If you're not confident in their ability to make that decision, don't buy the stock.
No, that's not what your argument is or was. You have been saying they SHOULDN'T, not that they HAVEN'T. We all know that the board has not yet delivered a dividend. If you don't wish to participate in a discussion of whether they SHOULD or not, you should not be posting so much on this thread.
Their is a large investor base of Mutual Funds that would LOVE to own AAPL but CAN'T. If AAPL pays a dividend those Mutual Funds will buy AAPL.
Its so basic and straight forward, its almost laughable.
There were approximately 7,600 mutual funds in the US as of 2010, of which a little over 5,000 were equity funds (including hybrid funds that invest in stocks and bonds). The data are from the Investment Company Institute.
The ones that cannot, by their charter, invest in non-dividend-paying companies such as AAPL (e.g., 'income' funds or balanced funds) constitute perhaps no more than 1,500 or so. In other words, there are PLENTY that can still invest in the company despite its not paying dividends.
Second, just an starting to pay dividends will make AAPL attractive to such funds, it will make AAPL less attractive to others, such as pure 'growth' funds. Thus, the net effect predicted on AAPL from such portfolio rebalancing is totally speculative, at best.
Third, and perhaps most important, the stock has been doing superbly even without this group of MFs investing in Apple. Apple need not bother with actions that can only be viewed as responding to a tail's attempt to wag the dog.
The article indirectly mentions that with; ""In other words, Apple is substantially under-owned by major investment funds, particularly those focused on income, i.e., dividend," and I own shares in two such mutual funds.
Of course this is true.
But there thousands of others that hold it. Moreover, the analyst does not allow for the fact that starting to pay a dividend might make Apple less attractive to the ones that already hold the company because it does not pay dividends (i.e., growth funds).
There were approximately 7,600 mutual funds in the US as of 2010, of which a little over 5,000 were equity funds (including hybrid funds that invest in stocks and bonds). The data are from the Investment Company Institute.
The ones that cannot, by their charter, invest in non-dividend-paying companies such as AAPL (e.g., 'income' funds or balanced funds) constitute perhaps no more than 1,500 or so. In other words, there are PLENTY that can still invest in the company despite its not paying dividends.
Second, just an starting to pay dividends will make AAPL attractive to such funds, it will make AAPL less attractive to others, such as pure 'growth' funds. Thus, the net effect predicted on AAPL from such portfolio rebalancing is totally speculative, at best.
Third, and perhaps most important, the stock has been doing superbly even without this group of MFs investing in Apple. Apple need not bother with actions that can only be viewed as responding to a tail's attempt to wag the dog.
Sounds like you just took your opinion, slapped some made up numbers (unless you can tell me where that 1500 came from) and went from there as if you had proved something.
Secondly, the raw number is not important. What is important is the amount of money that is invested elsewhere as a result of the stupid policy of holding onto this much cash and doing zippy with it.
Stock buybacks are easy. Let's say that the market values the entire company at $500 B and there are 1 B shares. That means that each share is valued at $500.
Now, if Apple buys back 10% of its shares, there are only 900 M shares in circulation, but the market valuation doesn't change (the cash is replaced with something of equal value - the shares). So the share price would be about $555.
Your arithmetic does not seem to be correct.
Note that $50B in cash left the company, so the firm's market cap (assuming nothing else changes, there are no signaling effects, etc) is $500B ? $50B = $450B.
With the now 900M shares outstanding, wouldn't the new share price -- $450B/900M -- be the same as before, i.e., $500 (again, assuming nothing else changes)?
Sounds like you just took your opinion, slapped some made up numbers (unless you can tell me where that 1500 came from) and went from there as if you had proved something.
Perhaps you have some kind of comprehension deficiency: did you note that I gave you my source?
Secondly, the raw number is not important. What is important is the amount of money that is invested elsewhere as a result of the stupid policy of holding onto this much cash and doing zippy with it.
Talk about throwing in something that is totally speculative to justify an 'opinion.'
Perhaps you have some kind of comprehension deficiency: did you note that I gave you my source?
Actually you didn't. Your posted the source for the total number of funds, and then you said "perhaps 1500 require dividends"
What am I missing?
Usually when someone provides a source, there is a link involved.
I remember Steve talking about focus and how that meant saying NO to ideas. Some that are even good ideas but that by saying NO to some ideas that allowed their focus to be sharpest on the best ideas.
This is a ridiculous idea for a tech company like Apple. Its beyond their core competency and I would sell Apple stock immediately if they announced such a stupid plan. I think others would as well.
Kind of like how cell phones were beyond their core competency as of 2006?
I'm not suggesting that Apple follow in the footsteps of Bank of America, I'm suggesting they just continue doing what they've been doing for a decade with iTunes Store and now with their ability to pay for items with your iPhone at an Apple Store.. just with all other stores.
If they would no longer have to pay a percentage fee to MC and Visa per transaction they could pass some of that savings back to you in terms of free iTS merchandise which is just another win for them.
The only change they have to make is to add NFC (which is surely coming anyway) and have a way for direct deposit added to your account. No need to do home loans and other banking solutions.
I certainly agree.
And as you stated elsewhere, Apple is very close to being a bank already -- people just don't realize it, because (1) they don't understand what a modern bank really consists of and (2) they don't understand there's more to Apple than the devices they see in front of them.
Not to mention that getting into the banking business doesn't require $100B - the beauty of a bank is that customers GIVE you money to HOLD for them, you don't have to earn it by selling hardware first, and then loan it out. Some people just don't understand!
There's more to it than putting up a shingle that says "bank" and then having people deposit their savings. People don't just hand over their money to Fred's Bank.
True, $100B is not a necessary condition to start a bank. But, if you happen to have $100B that you'd like to do something with, loaning money to your customers (so they can buy your products) and loaning money to your suppliers (so they can make your products), isn't such a bad thing to do. And if you can cut out the middle man in making those loans (i.e. the banks), so much the better. And, if in creating this bank, you can increase the value of your entire ecosystem of products, even better still.
There's more to it than putting up a shingle that says "bank" and then having people deposit their savings. People don't just hand over their money to Fred's Bank.
True, $100B is not a necessary condition to start a bank. But, if you happen to have $100B that you'd like to do something with, loaning money to your customers (so they can buy your products) and loaning money to your suppliers (so they can make your products), isn't such a bad thing to do. And if you can cut out the middle man in making those loans (i.e. the banks), so much the better. And, if in creating this bank, you can increase the value of your entire ecosystem of products, even better still.
I think Apple should start a concrete company so they can stop paying these outside companies for the concrete for their stores. And a glass company. And why isn't Apple in the aluminum refining industry anyway? Why do they let these aluminum companies make all that cash?
Speaking of which why do they let Foxconn take the high margin manufacturing business out from under their noses?
People, listen: Apple is a high margin high tech consumer product designer. Doing that, and JUST that, has made them the most valuable public company in the world. They do NOT need to jump into a business (ISP, mobile operator, bank (gasp)) where margins are tiny, regulation is high, and profits are low.
Actually you didn't. Your posted the source for the total number of funds, and then you said "perhaps 1500 require dividends"
What am I missing?
Usually when someone provides a source, there is a link involved.
Ugh. Add laziness to your arrogance.
See: http://www.icifactbook.org/fb_data.html
Look at Table 5 for total number of equity funds in 2010 (4,585) and hybrid funds (478; these are firms that own a mix of stocks and bonds).
Of those 2,750 are 'capital appreciation funds' -- i.e., they invest in non-dividend-paying ('growth') stocks such as AAPL for their capital appreciation potential. (Table 6). There are 692 'total return' funds (total return = div yield + capital gains), and they are the ones that are most likely to require dividends. I counted all of them, plus all the hybrid funds as falling into that category, and that is ~1,200. So when I said "1,500" I was being extremely generous about the number of funds that may not buy AAPL because of their investing style limitations.
Kind of like how cell phones were beyond their core competency as of 2006?
Are you really going to argue that banking is their core competency?
If so please put forth some reasoning. I'd like to hear it.
Ugh. Add laziness to your arrogance.
See: http://www.icifactbook.org/fb_data.html
Look at Table 5 for total number of equity funds in 2010 (4,585) and hybrid funds (478; these are firms that own a mix of stocks and bonds).
Of those 2,750 are 'capital appreciation funds' -- i.e., they invest in non-dividend-paying ('growth') stocks such as AAPL for their capital appreciation potential. (Table 6). There are 692 'total return' funds (total return = div yield + capital gains), and they are the ones that are most likely to require dividends. I counted all of them, plus all the hybrid funds as falling into that category, and that is ~1,200. So when I said "1,500" I was being extremely generous about the number of funds that may not buy AAPL because of their investing style limitations.
Would Apple cease to be growth stock simply by paying out a dividend? Would growth funds be required to sell their stake in Apple in that case? Can a stock not have significant growth and pay a dividend? Maybe it hasn't happened much before, but Apple is all about going where no one has gone before.
Don't you mean 'back to the customers'? You know, the ones that actually pay THE company, not pay FOR the company.
And then there's the employees. They give their hearts and souls to bring us Apple products.
It's been a decade since Apple needed cash in the bank to finance operations. Money coming in is sufficient.
What Apple should do is a one-time special dividend using 50 billion. That will amount to about $5 per share, and if they do it soon, the tax hit on shareholders will be small. That will leave them 50B in the bank which grows by around 10 per quarter, and in another year they can do it again if the tax environment remains reasonable.
I'm not trying to argue with you but can you, or anyone, show me a clear, real life example of a dividend being paid that brought extra value to the company. I just don't see it. I think that the 100 billion is burning a hole in everyone's pocket .... except Apple. Nothing wrong with " keeping your powder dry" for future use, imho. Just sayin'
Not to mention that getting into the banking business doesn't require $100B - the beauty of a bank is that customers GIVE you money to HOLD for them, you don't have to earn it by selling hardware first, and then loan it out. Some people just don't understand!
There is ample enough evidence to suggest that Apple makes all of it's money by focussing on what it does best ... and not by trying to be everything to everybody ... so to suggest that they "branch out" into the financial sector ... where they have little or no expertise, goes against the very same kind of thinking that rescued Apple from the brink of bankruptcy. Forget the bank balance ... focus on what they do best. Follow Apple's lead, for cryin' out loud. This is not rocket science.
I think the cash is a HUGE reason to pay up for the Stock. Yes, I said that right. If you believe in the Management, then you believe that whether it's 100 Billion, or 1 Trillion, they have money there to use if and/or when they ever need it, ensuring that your Company that you're Invested in, will ALWAYS be able to stay on top, or if they ever sneeze, climb quickly back to the top
If I'm going long on AAPL, then I'd rather know that they're secure, and have a "Floor", rather than paying out a ludicrous $50B a year or whatever, in Dividends. Remain a growth story!
Plus, again, AAPL have tons of "weapons" they can use to boost the Stock price, if ever they mature to a level where growth is slowing, and they need to prop, or boost the Stock up. A Dividend is one of them. Right now, Apple is flying, and agile, and rich, yet with its mind on future growth, not letting itself get spoiled by its riches.... let's keep it that way for awhile. No need for a Dividend, at least not yet.
When prices crash to a low level, people are terrified of buying, and wish to sell. After all, when prices decline, it is evident that people who own that thing tended to lose money.
So, for the average person, they lust after expensive assets and spurn cheap assets. This is like being wrong 100% of the time.
Buying AAPL today is a worse idea than it has ever been in history. That's simply a fact. I am not saying it will go down. I am not trying to tell people don't buy it. Just saying now is not a "good" time... it is a "bad" time... just offering that.
In 2009, it was a great time to buy stocks. Epically great. But did people emotionally want to do that? Worth thinking about.