Amongst other incoherencies, you quoted the wrong member of the American judiciary.
Cheers
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.
Life is too short to drink bad coffee.
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.
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.
Life is too short to drink bad coffee.
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
"No theatrics and no more personal attacks, just stick to the logic and tell me why I don't have any argument ~ Jragosta/2012
melior diabolus quem scies
"No theatrics and no more personal attacks, just stick to the logic and tell me why I don't have any argument ~ Jragosta/2012
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.
Life is too short to drink bad coffee.
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...
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…
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.
Life is too short to drink bad coffee.
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.
Just keep believing that there is no manipulation on Wall Street.
For me that thought is right up there with the Tooth Fairy.
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.
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.
Life is too short to drink bad coffee.
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".)
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.
Life is too short to drink bad coffee.
) 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).
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.
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.
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.)
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".
