or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Drop in Apple stock blamed on anticipated capital gains tax hike [u]
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Drop in Apple stock blamed on anticipated capital gains tax hike [u] - Page 3

post #81 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by island hermit View Post


For every seller there is a buyer?

 

Maybe you and I have a different understanding of how the market works.

 

I'm buying 200 @$450.

 

If M. Faber is right, the market will go down another 10% or so.  It's nothing more than shaking out weak hands.

post #82 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBell View Post

Since you are fond of Brits, I will quote you another. "Taxes are the price we pay to live in a civil society." Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. I will take good old Wendell over Thatcher any day.

Amongst other incoherencies, you quoted the wrong member of the American judiciary.

 

Cheers

post #83 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by tribalogical View Post

Yes, I think it's very likely the capital gains rate is going to increase by a few % (it will most likely revert to 20%, but I've also heard the idea floated of reverting to Clinton levels of 18% as a 'compromise' measure)%u2026 but to point to THAT as 'the reason' Apple's stock has dropped? That's just called "making stuff up" and calling it "analysis"...

Exactly. I've heard 20-22% as the target. Even if we assume the larger number, that's an increase of 7% from the current rate. AT WORST, the first 7% could be blamed on that (which happens to be reasonably close to the market's overall drop).

Fundamentally, it could be one of several things:

1. The market expects Apple's earnings to drop quite a bit in the coming months/years. Given that Apple's P/E ratio is already well below the market average, it would take a truly catastrophic drop in profit to cause that.

2. Investors who simply don't understand Apple and have simply succumbed to the "law of large numbers".

3. As someone else suggested, many investment firms are not allowed to have more than a certain percentage of their holdings in any one stock. Since Apple's shares have risen so dramatically in the past few years, many companies probably need to dump some AAPL to get back into balance.

4. The endless FUD being spread about Apple by competitors and people who should know better. Look at the maps issue, for example. It was a relatively minor issue and the only side-by-side comparison I saw said that it was about as good as Google Maps. And even if it was somewhat worse, it had no impact on Apple's revenues or profits - the iPhone 5 continued to set records for new device sales. Now, I won't speculate on whether this was stock manipulation or honest error, but there was certainly plenty of baseless FUD.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #84 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by minicapt View Post

Amongst other incoherencies, you quoted the wrong member of the American judiciary.

Cheers

Actually not. That quote has been widely attributed to Oliver Wendell Holmes:
http://www.politicalhotwire.com/general-political-discussion/18462-taxes-price-we-pay-live-civil-society.html
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #85 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

3. As someone else suggested, many investment firms are not allowed to have more than a certain percentage of their holdings in any one stock. Since Apple's shares have risen so dramatically in the past few years, many companies probably need to dump some AAPL to get back into balance.

I don't think this could explain the rapid sell off as the investment firms would be constantly regulating their holdings not a placing massive sell order at one time.

 

Big sell orders are not a wise strategy as it brings attention to your unfilled sell order and will usually lead to a lower value than market price at the time of the order being placed. Small incremental sell orders is the way these institutions would approach this issue of being over weighted in AAPL.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #86 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by tooltalk View Post

 

I'm buying 200 @$450.

 

If M. Faber is right, the market will go down another 10% or so.  It's nothing more than shaking out weak hands.


I agree with you.

 

... and which tech stock do you think will give you the best returns after the shake out.

 

Exactly.

 

and that's where the manipulation plays a part, otherwise there is no way in a level playing field that AAPL would reach $450... or even $525... no matter what the overall market sentiment was at the time.

 

MSFT, sure. AMZN, absolutely. GOOG, house of cards.

 

To say that AAPL is not being manipulated is to say that Apple is the same as buying any other tech stock... or any other stock for that matter.

na na na na na...
Reply
na na na na na...
Reply
post #87 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by island hermit View Post

 

To say that AAPL is not being manipulated is to say that Apple is the same as buying any other tech stock... or any other stock for that matter.

I think you are conveniently ignoring a number of factors.

 

1) Let's say you own $100,000 in both AAPL and $100,000 in MSFT where you have a 500% profit in AAPL and a %0 profit in MSFT. If you did want to avoid a possible increase in capital gains tax which stock would you sell?

 

2) Manipulating AAPL in some secretive or illegal manner is almost impossible. Spreading negative rumors is not only going to be ineffectual, having the stock retreat doesn't help you if you already own AAPL shares which ALL of the hedge funds do. If that happens you could be selling just to cut your losses so what is the point? Small investors that might be stupid enough to be persuaded that AAPL was a bad investment and that they should sell makes up only a tiny insignificant portion of the outstanding shares. It would be just a tick down, nothing more. It can't explain the sudden drop.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #88 of 128
Speaking of FUD, there was an article in the LA Times about th Kindle Fire being predicted to outsell the iPad 2-1 this holiday season. This prediction was all based on site called CouponCodes4u.com which said people that visited their site searched for Kindle Fire more than iPad. And this is reported by the LA Times as newsworthy! When you go to that site you find the following at the bottom:

CouponCodes4u.com is operated by Markco Media Ltd. Markco Media Ltd. is registered in England and Wales with Company No. 06327961 and VAT Registration 920963422

Of course this isn't newsworthy based on the source, but the media obviously doesn't care so long as they can predict D&G for Apple. Same with the stories wondering if the Nexus 7 will outsell the iPad because it supposedly is "sold out". Yet neither Google nor Asus are giving out hard sales figures. Sold out means nothing if you don't know how many were available for sale. And all Asus has said is they're selling about a million a month. OK, well Apple just announced they sold 3 million iPads in 3 days, so how on earth could the Nexus, or Kindle Fire for that matter, come close to beating that?!? More FUD.
post #89 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan View Post

Speaking of FUD, there was an article in the LA Times about th Kindle Fire being predicted to outsell the iPad 2-1 this holiday season. This prediction was all based on site called CouponCodes4u.com which said people that visited their site searched for Kindle Fire more than iPad. And this is reported by the LA Times as newsworthy! When you go to that site you find the following at the bottom:
CouponCodes4u.com is operated by Markco Media Ltd. Markco Media Ltd. is registered in England and Wales with Company No. 06327961 and VAT Registration 920963422
Of course this isn't newsworthy based on the source, but the media obviously doesn't care so long as they can predict D&G for Apple. Same with the stories wondering if the Nexus 7 will outsell the iPad because it supposedly is "sold out". Yet neither Google nor Asus are giving out hard sales figures. Sold out means nothing if you don't know how many were available for sale. And all Asus has said is they're selling about a million a month. OK, well Apple just announced they sold 3 million iPads in 3 days, so how on earth could the Nexus, or Kindle Fire for that matter, come close to beating that?!? More FUD.

I've never seen a claim that the Nexus 7 would outsell the Mini over the holidays. Where did you see such a ridiculous expectation? There's no single tablet that's going to outsell the iPad mini this quarter, including Apple's own iPad, unless they just can't produce many which is pretty darn unlikely.

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #90 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan View Post

Of course this isn't newsworthy based on the source, but the media obviously doesn't care so long as they can predict D&G for Apple. 

Any attempt to diminish the enthusiasm for Apple gear with dire predictions will be completely ineffectual as is evident by the massive crowds in the Apple Stores.

 

Just like the Republican's errant prediction of a landslide victory for Romney, the general public will vote however they want and this time it is with their wallets. They want iPad minis for the holidays apparently.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #91 of 128

I think it's several factors, including a feeling in the market that Apple's best days are behind them. There is a sentiment, particularly with the lack of innovation coming from Apple, and the poor launch of the new maps app, that Apple isn't the same company that it was under Jobs before cancer began to limit his involvement. Cook simply lacks charisma...
 

post #92 of 128
Originally Posted by ruel24 View Post
…Apple isn't the same company that it was under Jobs before cancer began to limit his involvement.

 

So pre-2004, then.

 

Agreed, though, that Tim should leave the presenting to his fellow executives. Jony has a lot of heart whenever we see him, but I'm sure he gets dreadful stage fright so I doubt we'll ever see him on stage. That means Phil. And I would have said Forstall for the manic, obsessive half of that, but…

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone] exists, it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone] exists, it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply
post #93 of 128
The Federal government is too big for too long.

American's need to start demanding significant cuts in spending, or we will find ourselves so deep in a hole that the it will make peoples heads spin. You think living in Greece is fun right now? Our elected officials have been irresponsible, including this current president in borrowing another 6 trillion dollars in just 4 years.

Stop blaming ... and start cutting.
post #94 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

I don't think this could explain the rapid sell off as the investment firms would be constantly regulating their holdings not a placing massive sell order at one time.

Big sell orders are not a wise strategy as it brings attention to your unfilled sell order and will usually lead to a lower value than market price at the time of the order being placed. Small incremental sell orders is the way these institutions would approach this issue of being over weighted in AAPL.

Maybe. The problem is that if a fund is required to have no more than, say, 10% of their shares in one stock, they usually don't have to meet that target until year end. So it's OK to have 15 or 20% of their money in AAPL as long as they're down to 10% by year end.

The conflict is that AAPL has been a huge winner for a long time. So they would want to keep their money in AAPL as long as possible - even if a massive sale cases the shares to drop by a few points. So, under normal circumstances, mutual funds hold their investments until mid-December and then do their shuffling.

The problem is that no one predicted the drop over the last 2 months. Once it starts to drop, the other companies may panic and say "I'll lock in the gains I have so far so I can get out before it tumbles further, so the selling frenzy feeds on itself.

Ultimately, that is the risk from having a stock that's so large and makes up such a large part of so many portfolios. When it starts to drop, people with lots of money in AAPL can panic whereas they are less likely to do so for a stock that's only a few percent of their holdings.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #95 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

 
Maybe. The problem is that if a fund is required to have no more than, say, 10% of their shares in one stock, they usually don't have to meet that target until year end. So it's OK to have 15 or 20% of their money in AAPL as long as they're down to 10% by year end.

I'm not sure but I suspect it goes quarter by quarter so they would be adjusting every quarter but in this situation it is more like a double witching event because there are regular taxes to pay as well as the looming fiscal cliff so the motivation to sell may be greater at year's end, as you suggest. I still argue that it has little to do with Apple's performance or disingenuous bad press and more to do with worldwide economic indicators and national debt issues post election.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #96 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post2) Manipulating AAPL in some secretive or illegal manner is almost impossible. Spreading negative rumors is not only going to be ineffectual, having the stock retreat doesn't help you if you already own AAPL shares which ALL of the hedge funds do. If that happens you could be selling just to cut your losses so what is the point? Small investors that might be stupid enough to be persuaded that AAPL was a bad investment and that they should sell makes up only a tiny insignificant portion of the outstanding shares. It would be just a tick down, nothing more. It can't explain the sudden drop.

 

Just keep believing that there is no manipulation on Wall Street.

 

For me that thought is right up there with the Tooth Fairy.

na na na na na...
Reply
na na na na na...
Reply
post #97 of 128

Most of this commentary is utterly uninformed.  I sold quite a bit of my AAPL shares about a month or so ago so I can speak to this better than most of you.  

 

One might sell in anticipation of a generally bad stock market ahead of the "fiscal cliff."  I think people expect our elected "leaders" to resolve that, but there is quite a lot of uncertainty.  One could sell now to lock in the gains at the current tax rate, and buy it back.

 

I had (and have) AAPL in my own account and also in accounts I set up for my kids' college savings.  Those accounts are taxable accounts, so the tax rate when I sell and take gains matters.  Those shares gained quite a bit in several years and the kids will go to college fairly soon.  I thought the odds of taxes going up was high, and figured the market as a whole would sell off.  In addition, I will need the money relatively soon, so I sold.  I would rather pay this year's tax rate than next year's tax rate. I sold before AAPL hit its all time high, but rather higher than it is now.  I started buying it back into my own account, but probably a bit early as it is still falling.

 

Anyone doubt my veracity, I am perfectly happy to prove this beyond any doubt to an AI moderator.

post #98 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by island hermit View Post

Just keep believing that there is no manipulation on Wall Street.

 

For me that thought is right up there with the Tooth Fairy.

If you want to believe, as a private small time investor, that you are being taken advantage of by professional traders, it is true, but the regulators are aware of every tactic bening employed so you can be sure that few if any illegal activities are being deployed by regular trading as almost 100% of it is being done electronically within nanoseconds offering no opportunity for human intervention unless things go horribly wrong and have to be undone. Your scenario is completely paranoiac tin foil hat territory.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #99 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

If you want to believe, as a private small time investor, that you are being taken advantage of by professional traders, it is true, but the regulators are aware of every tactic bening employed so you can be sure that few if any illegal activities are being deployed by regular trading as almost 100% of it is being done electronically within nanoseconds offering no opportunity for human intervention unless things go horribly wrong and have to be undone. Your scenario is completely paranoiac tin foil hat territory.

Ha! Agrees with me in one sentence and then refutes it in another.

 

I'd rather wear a tin foil hat than blinders.

 

Two words for anyone with an open mind... Goldman Sachs.

 

... and that is just one outfit.

 

(I'm also curious who said anything about "illegal" activities".)

na na na na na...
Reply
na na na na na...
Reply
post #100 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by island hermit View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

If you want to believe, as a private small time investor, that you are being taken advantage of by professional traders, it is true, but the regulators are aware of every tactic being employed so you can be sure that few if any illegal activities are being deployed by regular trading as almost 100% of it is being done electronically within nanoseconds offering no opportunity for human intervention unless things go horribly wrong and have to be undone. Your scenario is completely paranoiac tin foil hat territory.

I'd rather wear a tin foil hat than blinders.

 

Two words for anyone with an open mind... Goldman Sachs.

 

... and that is just one outfit.

Goldman Sachs and other firms with deceptive investment advice has nothing to do with whether or not the trading system is rigged. It is, to a certain extent, but only for firms that trade on the nanosecond level. For private small time investors you only have two options. One, long time hold, or sell at market value. Of course if you are adventurous you can dabble in the options market.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #101 of 128
Earnings reporting in January, will be their all time highest. Last quarter had maybe 3 days of iPhone 5 sales in them, and no iPad mini's. Its going to be interesting to see what happens to the stock going into that earnings release, and after. Whats even more interesting, is none of the talking heads on TV actually bring this up!
post #102 of 128

Re: wall street manipulation, perhaps so. No one forces you to invest in stocks, but then again, CD rates are terrible at present.

post #103 of 128
The guy who wrote this is one of those people who would literally die for Apple. He should look into journalist work in countries that are run by the state, like North Korea, Iran, et al. That way he won't have to post these embarrassing updates that make him look like the uninformed, prejudice ass that he consistently comes off as. There's a huge difference between 35% & 20%. That's not just misreporting, it's letting your own propaganda agenda and brainwashed way of thinking interfering with reality. The stock has declined solely because Apple released an iPad mini with both forward and backward thinking technology, i.e. non retina display but yet an awesome weight and feel. That alone gives investors and analysts reason to worry that Apple is slowly switching from quality to costs. Also, Wall Street is sick and tired of back ordered orders. Push announcements back 2 months to allow a huge surplus of inventory. Interest on inventory will be extremely minimal if they can sell everything quickly, which you clearly would be salivating over. That will add a good 15% of sustainable stock growth, and investor confidence. You really need to really examine facts, and not react on emotion.
post #104 of 128
@anfboymn: "back ordered orders"? That implies - if what you wrote is what you meant - that demand caught Apple by surprise. Better than to be caught with surplus stock (as long as the demand stays there and doesn't bleed off elsewhere, of course).
Edited by AlexN - 11/17/12 at 9:55pm
post #105 of 128
@AlexN, where have you been? Apple has always had a huge instock deficit to orders...and this is what Wall Street and several people on here have complained about, thus one major reason for the stock plunge. The supply chain sucks, the way the merchandise is presented, and with quality of new products diminishing for the reasons explained in my last post, the stock will continue to fall, along with investor confidence. You cannot introduce new, state of the art products, with yesteryears technology (non retina display). I think it's time they rethink some stuff.
post #106 of 128
As a matter of fact, I have to confess that I have been elsewhere in my foci - and that my comment was a bit naïve and half-baked, for which, my apologies.

From what I've read so far on AI at least (avoiding some of the sites where lurk dangerous beasties) it is claimed that Mr Cook has tightened up/improved the supply-chain considerabl - but apparently not enough?

Regarding the display on the iPad Mini, I made an effort the day that the wifi version was released, and spent some time at the local Apple Store both using it (to type in an AI Forum post 1wink.gif) and comparing it side-by-side with the newly released 4th gen iPad retina. The Mini's display was not as good side-by-side, but nonetheless was much better than the specs might have led me to believe (I didn't do a side-by-side with iPad 2, unfortunately - it didn't occur to me at the time).

Some people here have made the comment that a product's worth is not necessarily just about the specs, and in the case of the iPad Mini, I would agree with them - it probably depends on how one defines the target audience/market of the device.

When it comes to the Mac Pro, I would agree with you (although I have not been in that market for some years now).
post #107 of 128
This is nonsense, Apple has multiple devices being sold out once on a shelf(online or store) including iPhone 5, iPad mini, iPad 4generation soon iMac probably. Yet there stock Is felling. How could apple actually improve themselves? How could apple increase it, sell a whole lot of unnecessary crap? Apple is has multiple points where other company's with smaller supply lines, do it in 1 to 5 years, at most. Plus I see it as apple obviously has secret plans for next year continuing the pattern.
post #108 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by anfboymn View Post

The stock has declined solely because Apple released an iPad mini with both forward and backward thinking technology, i.e. non retina display but yet an awesome weight and feel. That alone gives investors and analysts reason to worry that Apple is slowly switching from quality to costs. Also, Wall Street is sick and tired of back ordered orders. Push announcements back 2 months to allow a huge surplus of inventory. Interest on inventory will be extremely minimal if they can sell everything quickly, which you clearly would be salivating over. That will add a good 15% of sustainable stock growth, and investor confidence. You really need to really examine facts, and not react on emotion.

Ironically, this sounds more like someone's disappointment over the iPad's lack of a Retina screen than an accurate analysis of the market's thinking. As others have said, the big sell-off has hit everybody. The effect on Apple is greater because Apple is the most talked-about stock on the planet. It's a simple as that.

The market makers don't care what goes into an Apple product; most of them don't even know. if you're going to apply your own emotional attachment to having the latest tech in every Apple product then your view of the company is always going to skewed.
Edited by Rayz - 11/17/12 at 11:37pm
post #109 of 128

Even though I think the article is right about the Capital Gains tax, I think the fact that Apple isn't "Exciting" anymore is a big part of their decline. You no longer have the "OMG, you have an iPhone 5! Let me see it!!!".

 

Now it's more like "Oh, you got the iPhone 5... cool".

post #110 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post


Voting against one's self interest does not equate self-loathing. There's nothing wrong with being rich.

 

There are a number of problems with this line of argument that equates wealth concentration in "blue states" with people voting against their self interest. First, and most importantly, is the issue of exactly what is their self-interest. Is it voting against your self-interest, to want to have a more civil society where you don't see people suffering all around you. Is it voting against your self-interest to want to mitigate crushing poverty that breeds crime, putting your hard earned possessions, your loved ones, yourself at the risk of becoming victims? Or, is it intelligently voting for your, and your children's, self interest to vote for a society where by making life better for everyone, you make it more enjoyable and safer for yourself?

 

Sure, there's the selfish, "I got mine, get yours yourself," attitude displayed by some of the wealthy, but most of them aren't that stupid, or short-sighted. (We'll ignore in this discussion those of the wealthy like the Koch brothers whose goal is to actively undermine our democracy, our free society, and establish a neo-feudalist society. Although powerful and influential, they're a small, albeit dangerous, minority.) Most of them realize that crushing the middle class is actually against their self-interest, when viewed outside a short-term how-much-money-is-in-my-pocket perspective.

 

The ones really voting against their self-interest are the poor and middle class whites in "red states". And they are doing so, mainly, out of spite. They are doing so out of the fear that leaders and programs that might actually make their lives better might also narrow the gap between them and those below them. And since their entire self-esteem is based on the fact that those below them on the socioeconomic ladder have it much worse than they do, they aren't going to take a chance that that gap should narrow. And, let's be honest, a lot of people in "red states" are voting against their self-interest for purely racist motives.

 

Then, there's the Tea Party, all of whose members are voting against their self-interest. (And, let's ignore the fact that the Tea Party has been hijacked by the neo-fuedalists who are manipulating it to their own ends.) Those who support the Tea Party either fall into the group described above, or are simply so lacking in understanding that they don't even know what's in their self-interest. This latter group is acting not out of reason, but out of fear and confusion, and is easily manipulated to vote against their self-interest.

 

So, as I see it, the "blue states" aren't voting against their self-interest at all, not even the wealthy in those states who are voting against rehashed Reaganomics. The people voting against their self-interest are the white males in the "red states", most of whom aren't anywhere near being described as wealthy.

post #111 of 128
Originally Posted by mrrodriguez View Post
You no longer have the "OMG, you have an iPhone 5! Let me see it!!!". Now it's more like "Oh, you got the iPhone 5... cool".

 

People are used to crap. They're accustomed to mediocrity. They see all these Android knockoffs and they think that is the standard. If they've never used an iPhone, they don't know there is anything better than the trash put out by everyone else. They think Apple is just "one of the pack" now instead of being the only meaningful ecosystem and UX.

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone] exists, it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone] exists, it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply
post #112 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

People are used to crap. They're accustomed to mediocrity. They see all these Android knockoffs and they think that is the standard. If they've never used an iPhone, they don't know there is anything better than the trash put out by everyone else. They think Apple is just "one of the pack" now instead of being the only meaningful ecosystem and UX.

That's not entirely true, I'd bet that the vast majority of Android owners also have a iPod Touch. They know all about Apple's build quality and it's ecosystem yet still chose not to get a iPhone.
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #113 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by macFanDave View Post

Clearly, the stock is being manipulated by hedge fund managers and other big boys to give them a buying opportunity. It should be illegal, but these guys are the top donors to both parties, so we all have to sit by and witness this theft.

You're probably right, because the 5% increase in the capital gains tax proposed for 2013 has been more than offset by the big drop in the stock price.    If this was all about the tax increase, then the stock shouldn't have dropped more than that 5%.     Investors are panicking and screwing themselves in the process.   I actually bought a few more shares before the latest drop, so I have gotten screwed a bit, but I'm not worried because I think it will all come back as soon as Apple announces the next quarterly results.   (Besides, most of my shares were bought at around 175).  

 

And, it's all "crying wolf" anyway, because I really don't think the Republicans are going to let the cap gain rates climb to 20%.  I bet they compromise at 18%, which is what's being proposed for a new "5-year" capital gains tax rate (which will get eliminated as part of the compromise, since it would be moot).    It's all a bargain anyway, because for the proposed 2013 rates, ordinary income that's taxed at 15% has a long term cap rate of 10% and a 5-year rate of 8%.   The proposed ordinary tax rates of 28%, 31%, 36% and 39.6% have a long-term cap gains rate of 20% and a 5-year rate of 18%.    Fairness would dictate (even though this would negatively impact me personally) that cap gains are taxed the same as ordinary income.     (Although a lot of it already is as cap gain from a 401K or SEP in which the money went in pre-tax, is already taxed at ordinary rates, not cap gains rates, when it's withdrawn.)  

post #114 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

 

There are a number of problems with this line of argument that equates wealth concentration in "blue states" with people voting against their self interest. First, and most importantly, is the issue of exactly what is their self-interest. Is it voting against your self-interest, to want to have a more civil society where you don't see people suffering all around you. Is it voting against your self-interest to want to mitigate crushing poverty that breeds crime, putting your hard earned possessions, your loved ones, yourself at the risk of becoming victims? Or, is it intelligently voting for your, and your children's, self interest to vote for a society where by making life better for everyone, you make it more enjoyable and safer for yourself?

 

Sure, there's the selfish, "I got mine, get yours yourself," attitude displayed by some of the wealthy, but most of them aren't that stupid, or short-sighted. (We'll ignore in this discussion those of the wealthy like the Koch brothers whose goal is to actively undermine our democracy, our free society, and establish a neo-feudalist society. Although powerful and influential, they're a small, albeit dangerous, minority.) Most of them realize that crushing the middle class is actually against their self-interest, when viewed outside a short-term how-much-money-is-in-my-pocket perspective.

 

The ones really voting against their self-interest are the poor and middle class whites in "red states". And they are doing so, mainly, out of spite. They are doing so out of the fear that leaders and programs that might actually make their lives better might also narrow the gap between them and those below them. And since their entire self-esteem is based on the fact that those below them on the socioeconomic ladder have it much worse than they do, they aren't going to take a chance that that gap should narrow. And, let's be honest, a lot of people in "red states" are voting against their self-interest for purely racist motives.

 

Then, there's the Tea Party, all of whose members are voting against their self-interest. (And, let's ignore the fact that the Tea Party has been hijacked by the neo-fuedalists who are manipulating it to their own ends.) Those who support the Tea Party either fall into the group described above, or are simply so lacking in understanding that they don't even know what's in their self-interest. This latter group is acting not out of reason, but out of fear and confusion, and is easily manipulated to vote against their self-interest.

 

So, as I see it, the "blue states" aren't voting against their self-interest at all, not even the wealthy in those states who are voting against rehashed Reaganomics. The people voting against their self-interest are the white males in the "red states", most of whom aren't anywhere near being described as wealthy.

 

While I agree with many of your comments, I think the biggest factor is that most people do not vote on the actual facts.   The average person votes on emotion and how they relate to a candidate.    I've seen research that claims that 50% of Americans cannot name the Vice-President and 70% can't name the Speaker of the House.    Relatively few read a newspaper.    Supposedly, a majority of Americans still believe that Obama was born in Kenya and that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.    My bet is that a very low percentage of Americans understand that Al Gore won the popular vote in 2000.    Most get their news from the clowns at Fox or MSNBC.     Furthermore, we frequently elect a Congress with completely the opposite views of the executive branch (although much of that has to do with what you need to do to win in a local vs. a national election).

 

I think there's another factor:   if you don't live in a densely populated state, it's hard to see where your tax dollars are going. It's very easy to think that "all those immigrants and ethnics in cities are stealing my money".     I think that's the primary reason that the midwest is comprised of red states.    

 

And let's not forget that for the Presidency, the popular vote is always far closer than the electoral vote.   If we ever get away from the "winner take all" rule, there will be far more of a contest.

 

It's all a bit moot anyway because if the Republicans don't find a way to expand their party base to Hispanics, Asians or people in large cities, they're never going to win another national race anyway (with the current electoral rules).    Before too long, Texas may very well turn blue due to the ever-increasing Hispanic population.   If Texas turns Democratic and assuming the Dems can keep Florida, it means that all 7 states with 18 or more electoral votes are blue states for a total of 209 electoral votes.   That means the Dems need only 61 (18.5%) of the remaining 329 electoral votes to win the Presidency in any election.      And even without Texas, I think that at least one southern state will eventually turn Democratic again and North Carolina (with 15 electoral votes) is always a toss-up.     So the Republicans have a very tough road ahead no matter what they do unless they're satisfied dominating the House and always being the "opposition party".    

post #115 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post

I'd bet that the vast majority of Android owners also have a iPod Touch. They know all about Apple's build quality .....

How do you know this?!

post #116 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

How do you know this?!

I'm just going by my experience, everyone I know that has a Android phone also has a iPod Touch and many even a iPad. Is it true in great numbers? That I don't know but it's probably more than you'd guess . Oh and every wife or girlfriend of every Android owning guy I know has a iPhone.
Edited by dasanman69 - 11/18/12 at 11:18am
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #117 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post

I'm just going by my experience, everyone I know that has a Android phone also has a iPod Touch and many even a iPad. Is it true in great numbers? That I don't know but it's probably more than you'd guess . Oh and every wife or girlfriend of every Android owning guy I know has a iPhone.

Don't assume that your experience mirrors others, or the "vast majority" as you say.
post #118 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfanning View Post

Don't assume that your experience mirrors others, or the "vast majority" as you say.

All I said was that I'd bet that fact not that I knew it.
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #119 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post

All I said was that I'd bet that fact not that I knew it.

Why would they have a iPod touch and android phone. When they can have a iPhone which is IPod and a phone at cheaper price than both. ( Even if the android is higher value) they would be better off.

Why would they even try comparing iPod touch to android espicially if different model dates.
post #120 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by Curtis Hannah View Post

Why would they have a iPod touch and android phone. When they can have a iPhone which is IPod and a phone at cheaper price than both. ( Even if the android is higher value) they would be better off.
Why would they even try comparing iPod touch to android espicially if different model dates.

The answer to that question eludes me.
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Drop in Apple stock blamed on anticipated capital gains tax hike [u]