Apple stock soars to all-time intraday, closing high after favorable verdict - Page 2

Give it up. 2% per day for a year is unsustainable even for aapl. Anything unsustainable is soaring in my book.

iPhone 4S sales for this quarter probably won't be able to push it that high.

Not gonna give it up.  Your definition is ridiculous.  If Apple were to go up 1% per day for a year that would work out to over 1100% change in a year.  So is a 1% gain SOARING?

 

Let's cut it in half.  0.5%.  That would work out to 350% gain.  Is that sustainable?

 

Not to mention how MISERABLE you'll be when AAPL PLUNGES tomorrow (like it does 20% of the time in the past year).

 

AAPL moved more than 2% 1 out of every 5 days in the past year.  If your standard for SOARING (or PLUNGING) is something that happens 1 day a week, then more power to you, but you're wrong.

 

 

What's your source for this?  Can you share that with us?

Yes. Yes it is.

I purposely mentioned FoxNews because I wanted to see who loves FoxNews knowing that some one would bring that part up.  LOL.

Your math is off and probably the source of your confusion. If you invest 1000 tomorrow expecting the following compound interest

0.5% compounded daily for 1 year you would have $6174.65 or 517% apr
1% compounded daily for 1 year you would have $37783.43 or 3678% apr
2% compounded daily for 1 year you would have $1377408.29 or 137640% apr

Your checking account gives you, 1% apr if you are lucky. Economic growth if we are lucky is 5% apr.

You are crazy If you think that there is a place where you can invest $1000 and be a millionaire in 1 year.

Yes. Apple is Soaring and 0.5% daily for a year is unsustainable.
Edited by mmmdoughnuts - 8/27/12 at 8:46pm

I did it, just for fun, and since it's quite easy to do (you can go into Yahoo Finance, download the past year's -- i.e., 250 trading days of -- daily stock price data into an Excel spreadsheet, and take it from there).

 

Here are the facts for AAPL:

Average daily return 8/29/11 - 8/27/12: 0.24%

Median: 0.11%

Min: −4.41%

Max +8.50%

Stdev: 1.68%

# days greater than 2%: 25 (10%)

# days greater than 1%: 75 (30%)

# days < 0: 114 (46%)

# days ≥ 0: 135 (54%)

Edited by anantksundaram - 8/27/12 at 8:59pm

I'm not ashamed to state that I'd rather watch Fox instead of certain other news channels, which I'm not going to bother to mention.

 

Thanks for doing that.  I think today's gain was close to 1.9%, so based on your numbers, I estimate that today's gain was in the top 12% or so.  I think cameronj was saying we have 2% gains in 1 out of every 5 days, i.e. in 20% of the days.  So it seems like he was exaggerating by a factor of 2, but not by an order of magnitude like I suspected.

 

Thanks again for that spreadsheet magic!

$1000 invested with 0.24% daily interest would be worth $2398.76 or 139.8% return. I hope my stock will be worth 2.3 times more than it is now. Or today's stock will close at $1616 per share. This daily return seems difficult but possible.

but if you invested $6000 at $20 a share (300 shares) what 10 years ago, and today those $300 share just went up another 3600.  It's a lot;-).

 

or

 

$12 Billion in 8 hours of trading... that's growing 4 RIMMs, one Computer Associates, almost an entire Adobe,   or about 2/3rds of a DELL (can we buy dell, close it down and give the money to the shareholders, can we Daddy, can we, PULEASE?????)

 

... in just one day.  It's a big move. 

 

 

If you're on top of Mount everest, and there's an Eagle flying 600' Feet over the summit... would you say it's 'not that high?'  well that 2% higher than the LARGEST MOUNTAIN IN THE WORLD.  I'd say it's soaring.

 

you're saying it's relative to itself.  I'm saying relative to the average schmoe  in the market.  It Soared. 

 

Very good analogy IMHO.  I wonder if anyone on top of Everest has looked up and seen any kind of bird?  I kind of doubt it.

you have to account for when it comes back down, too

 

look carefully at what he stated: "AAPL moved more than 2% 1 out of every 5 days in the past year.

that's 10% of the time up and 10% of the time back down

I did the exact same thing (same source) but I suspect the difference in our numbers is that I included declines of 2% as well as gains of 2%.  Did you (Anant) include the declines as well?

 

Interesting (not surprising) delrey that you would assume the person you disagreed with exaggerated his numbers by a factor of 10 but not question the numbers of the person that you thought you agreed with.  I guarantee the difference is accounted for by the exclusion of 2% drops, for which there is no reason in this discussion.  We are talking magnitude of moves, not only increases.  A 2% move is VERY common and is certainly not of the rare order that you would want to bust out the superlatives.

 

You can do it yourself - the key formula is =IF(E247/E246>1,E247/E246,E246/E247) - E246 is yesterdays close, and E247 is today's.  With the data from Yahoo finance you will find it easy.  

Thanks for bringing actual numbers into the discussion.

So a 2% gain is something that happened for Apple approximately 1 day out of every 10 in the past year. Since it happens 10% of the time, I can't consider it to be anything really exceptional.

Whether you call it 'soars' or not is up to you. But the facts are that it's not a really exceptional event.

No clue where you got those numbers from.  I simply created a spreadsheet with 1 at the top and the second row = A1*1.01, and copied that down 250 times (to account for 5 days a week instead of 7).  How you ended up with only 1/3 of the gain I did I am totally unaware.  Let me know how you came to the 1% gain number like you did.

 

By your logic even a 0.1% gain is an unsustainable SOAR because nothing can grow at any exponential rate, no matter how small, forever.

Thank you (despite using the wrong numbers - a 2% CHANGE happens 20% of the time, while a 2% GAIN happens half of those).

As I said, the EU never had a chance. Not the way it was formulated. You simply can't have an economic and monetary union without also having a strong central governing authority. The mess they're in right now has as much to do with that than it has with the overall economic situation. Normally, countries like Greece, Portugal, Spain and Italy would simply devalue their currency, and get over it. But that can't be done now, and that bringing the whole house of cards down. Germany isn't helping. But it's interesting to note that everything they have been doing, and refusing to do has helped them, and hurt the other countries in the union. Whether that's intentional or not, I don't know, but it's been working out that way.

I'm less worried about what's happening here. Unless Romney gets elected, that is. The stimulus packages are pretty much gone. Good news on housing today. It's though that it has finally turned the corner. As housing is such an important part of our economy, that will strengthen the entire thing.

It is. What some people don't seem to understand is that movement in the markets is more psychological than monetary. I just got, as I'm writing this, a notification that the markets are down, because they are taking " a breather". If that's not psychological, I don't know what is!

Almost every day, we can see articles in the financial press about how a stock has "jumped", even though it's moved one point. It's almost all psychology. So a 2% rise in one day, particularly when it all came upon opening—a straight line up on the chart, can be described as a leap, or having soared at the opening. Not so unusual a description, even though some don't like to read it.

You're missing the point (LOL, yourself). I'm saying that the writers on the market often say this. You seem to think that it's just AI. It's not. Perhaps you should read the financial press more often.

I don't happen to think that monetarally, a 2% rise is tremendous, but it's a good rise for one day, no matter what. And big cap companies don't do that as often as small cap companies.

Those are examples of anthropomorphism or personification, not psychology.

What you did in excel is not compound interest...

 

Compound interest is calculated by :

value = Principle*(1 +rate)^interval#

 

This isn't fair because a bank would not do this but you argue you can't trade on saturday so whatever. With 250 days per year not 356 which I did.

 

value = 1000*(1.02)^250 = $141267.72

 

0.5% interest on 1000 dollars equals $3479.49 in value after 1 year.  248% apr AAPL stock price would be 2366.05

1.0% interest on 1000 dollars equals $12032.16 in value after 1 year.  1103% apr AAPL stock price would be 8181.87

2.0% interest on 1000 dollars equals $141267.72 in value after 1 year. 14126.772%  AAPL stock price would be 96062

 

 

THERE IS NO LOGIC HERE. By MATH 0.1% gain compounded daily equals a 28.3% annual return but still WAY better than the rest of the market. Compound interest is amazingly powerful.

 

Feel educated, not dissed.

I would argue that's the writer anthropomorphizing to aid in understanding, rather than an actual reflection of the world.

There's no doubt that writers often exaggerate the goodness of something when it's something they're happy about.  That's exactly what I'm pointing out.  Appleinsider staff is acting as a fan of the stock and the company, rather than reporting the news as it happened.

I still don't understand why multiplying each day by 1.01 wouldn't yield the correct outcome after 250 days and why your does.    Definitely not a math major.  Am I wrong?  Does multiplying a given day by 1.01 not yield a 1% increase?  And does doing that 250 times not simulate a stock going up by exactly 1% every day?

 

I grant that what I did in excel is not compound interest, but why is compound interest what you want here?  I don't think it is.  What we are talking about is what would happen if the stock went up 1% every day.  Correct?

 

Sadly, I don't feel educated.  I think you just justified your own incorrect method by throwing a lot of math at me, which a lot of overeducated people will do to try to avoid being wrong when they are.

 

 

Please look up compound interest. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compound_interest

 

By definition, yesterdays gains become today's starting price. Each day you get a new starting price and value. When you get to keep your interest and it continues to grow each day at a percentage, that is compound interest.

 

Day     Balance

Now     P

D1  =   P + rP

D2  =   D1 + rD1

D2  =   (P + rP) + r(P + rP)       There is a common (P+rP) so we can pull it out leaving (1+r)

      =   (P+rP)*(1+r)                  There is a common P so we can pull it out leaving another (1+r)

      =   P*(1+r)*(1+r)                 Multiplying (1+r) by (1+r) is the same as (1+r)^2

      =   P*(1+r)^2

 

DN    =  P*(1 +r)^N                  If you continue this for Day 3 and Day 4 you will see that the formula can be simplified to this.

 

Compound means you get to keep and reinvest your principle and return every time.  Sorry I can't do better instructing, but your method is not compounding.

Edited by mmmdoughnuts - 8/28/12 at 11:34am

Which is exactly the process I used.  Explain why my method is wrong.

By the way I'm sure everyone has already seen, AAPL is plunging today at a totally unsustainable annualized rate.  0.73% down today!  AIEEEEE!  Hopefully tomorrow it will SOAR again and gain at least 1%.

Apple long ago surpassed Dell in market cap. Interesting to note too, at yesterdays close, Apple's market cap exceeded that of not only Dell, but Dell, Microsoft, Intel and IBM combined.

Your method is not wrong. A 1% increase every day for 250 days would be exactly what you've described.

Or, to simplify, (1.01)**250

So is mmdonuts just being obtuse?

I stand correct and I appreciate being educated!!

 

Our starting assumptions were off.  I compounded for 365 vs your 250.  Our math is now consistent as is my point.  No one alive is predicting the stock prices of $2366.05, $8181.87 or $96062 for 0.5%, 1% or 2% sustained growth.  I am presenting hard evidence to refute your statement of 2% per day is not large enough to be considered "soaring."  My contention is that this kind of movement in the stock value IS soaring because it is not meaningful to the projected growth path that the company is on.  It cannot be sustained or the above stock prices would occur (with your 250 days trading per year). 

 

You are right we need to look at volatility as well, but a 2% reaction to a lawsuit in a day when the market closed lower it meaningful and soaring.  As people said before the movement was enough to equal the value of a large number of significant companies, this is a big deal.

I was going to remark that APPL had "crashed" a few hours ago but you two were so embroiled in debate I thought the moment would have been lost.

See what happens when you snooze? ;)

You've refuted that very well, but do you care that I've specifically stated several times that that was not my statement, and that my objection was to a SINGLE DAY EXPLOSION of 2% up being called "soaring"?  No, you don't care ;)  You've decided on your correctness whether or not it has anything to do with the topic at hand.  I'm done with this thread though, I win :)