or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by melgross

I posted that link above. It's a good one. Not too complex. Read through it. Do t argue it before you read the whole thing.But really, surely you must the arguments for, and against the ration market, or, as some say, the rationality of the investment community. I shouldn't need to present an argument for you you heard it all before.
I bought 5,000 shares back then in 2004. It didn't seem like a lot of money then. Well, it wasn't, at $16.93 a share. I've been sorry I didn't buy a lot more. I was going to buy 10,000, even more, but decided not to. Diversity, and all that. So it was fairly small investment for me. But it's become a big one over time.
Look, I'll tell you who it benefits. It benefir those very large investors, and firms, that can make very quick massive trades before anyone else can. They benefit on small, short term rises and drops that we can never hope to manage. Read the link I posted above. Its not directly related, but it does give an idea how that happens.
This is a vey good, and simple, explaination of efficient(?) markets, and in the end, how rationality, or lack thereof, effects that efficiency.   http://theincidentaleconomist.com/wordpress/efficiency-and-rationality-in-financial-markets/
I've done well because I've resisted that "sell some and realize your gains" argument. If I had done that, I would have considerably less of it now.
Yes, sentiment is a tribute to the irrational market theme. Most reasons for pricing is subjective. I consider it to be the "things are what they are" theory.
I never sell. At times, I buy some more. I'm not a trader anymore. I'm a long term investor. I only benefit from the drops. I tell people not to sell Apple on the drops, but to buy more, if they can.
Did I use the word "efficiency"? We were talking about rationality. Efficiency in the markets is the result of rationality, or lack of it.
"But if you ascribe to the OP's notion that AAPL is not currently a high-flying stock then I can't see how an extra $5.30 (about 4%) would make it so." That was your comment making a statement as to what you thought I meant. I stated that I never said that. It was the proper response.
Can you prove that? It's theory that buybacks raise the stock price. I understand what a buyback does to equity per share. But, there is no single bit of solid evidence that it brings the price up permanently. I've seen many buybacks since I began investing back when I was a kid in 1963. None have ever reliably brought that price up, and had it stay there. It's a great deal of money that could otherwise be used to enhance the business.
New Posts  All Forums: