I'm not sure what all the real reasons for the recent stock movements are, but if they were affected by the ads and coverage politics which are taking place only in the US, AAPL's investors would largely have no idea where Apple's strategic opportunities actually are...
I'm a long term AAPL holder. I kept picking up a 100 shares every time it dropped by ten dollars or so, from $190 in Dec 2007 all the way until it fell to $80 this year. I have a nice profit built up but I believe AAPL still has a long way ahead.
I just picked up 200 more shares the other day when it hit $188. Will buy more if it falls further.
I foresee AAPL @ $244 in the first quarter of 2010. Let's see
And I'm still kicking myself for not buying more in February '04, when it hovered around $14.
A rather amazing story when you think about it. $14 to an effective $400 (due to the previous two-for-one split) in less than six years. I do believe that's the classic definition of a value stock becoming a pure growth play.
It was no an effective $400, AAPL was in that $14 range measured the same way as it's now at the $200 range. Amazing nonetheless.
True, but that's looking at it from the other perspective. What I'm saying is that in hindsight, the best stocks tend to be the ones I described. But yes of course there's no way to know what those stocks are, so that's where your point comes in. But one thing is certain - one of the best ways to underperform and generally to lose money i'd to buy individual stocks that have performed well in the past. Those stocks historically are most likely to be the biggest losers.
You've really undercut your own argument with the admission that you don't know which stocks are the "underperformers" until after the fact. You'd have to go back a long way to find AAPL underperforming the market, and by your rule you'd have avoided buying it for many years after it began to over-perform. By the same token, your rule might steer you into buying an underperforming stock which is underperforming for a reason. As you're already said, look at MSFT -- it's been stuck in a rut for a decade.
It was no an effective $400, AAPL was in that $14 range measured the same way as it's now at the $200 range. Amazing nonetheless.
Let me make this simple for you:
I have one share that I buy for $14.
It grows to $200 and splits.
I now own two shares at $100 each.
They both grow to $200.
I now own $400 of AAPL, based upon my single purchase of $14.
Does my current $400 offer me the same purchasing power of the original $200? Of course not, but that wasn't the point I was making.
If you want to get technical about it, I could post charts, graphs, etc., talk ad nauseam about the tech sector, standard deviation, reversion to the mean and sharpe ratios, but that's my day job these days and is not why I come here. I mean, really, this is an Apple forum, no?
I've been an AAPL investor for a lot longer than you, so I know better than to spout theories about what is going to happen, when, and why.
So who do you listen to, Kathryn Huberty of Morgan Stanley? She put a sell on APPL @ 80 10 months ago. Here's a valid stock tip. Whenever Kathryn Huberty says sell, buy! I follow my own advice and I predict a 25% AAPL upside in 2010.
Hey guys, nice posts, I am very novice in investing so I am struggling to follow them!
Is there some information source that tracks what % of stock belongs to whom, i.e. individual investors, multi billion $ funds, multi $ private investors, or is that kind of information unavailable?
So who do you listen to, Kathryn Huberty of Morgan Stanley? She put a sell on APPL @ 80 10 months ago. Here's a valid stock tip. Whenever Kathryn Huberty says sell, buy! I follow my own advice and I predict a 25% AAPL upside in 2010.
Uh, no. I think the point is, nobody can really predict future stock prices. I wouldn't take advice from Huberty let alone from anyone who says we should do just the opposite of what she advises.
Uh, no. I think the point is, nobody can really predict future stock prices. I wouldn't take advice from Huberty let alone from anyone who says we should do just the opposite of what she advises.
Pardon me for be facetious but this thread is, in particular, about forecasting the future price of AAPL's stock. Is it not?
Pardon me for be facetious but this thread is, in particular, about forecasting the future price of AAPL's stock. Is it not?
If you say so. If that's all we're permitted to discuss, my response is that trying to forecast the future price of any given stock is an exercise in futility at best, and a fool's errand at worst.
You've really undercut your own argument with the admission that you don't know which stocks are the "underperformers" until after the fact. You'd have to go back a long way to find AAPL underperforming the market, and by your rule you'd have avoided buying it for many years after it began to over-perform. By the same token, your rule might steer you into buying an underperforming stock which is underperforming for a reason. As you're already said, look at MSFT -- it's been stuck in a rut for a decade.
False - you don't know which ones will be OUTPERFORMERS until after the fact. The underperformers are easy to spot - they're the outperformers of the previous time frame. I'm not talking about a stock that is doing a little better, I'm talking about a top 5% stock, like Apple has been. And yes, it is never easy to spot the top, but there's no around that for either the bulls or the bears. Stocks can remain overpriced for a long time, but the arguments made by Apple bulls right now at these crazy prices are carbon copies of those made by Dell investors (I was one of them) 10 years ago, buying a growth story that was no more. The next 10 years were not be fun, and probably won't be for Apple investors either. Is Apple going to be worth half a trillion dollars in 5 years? If so, even that would only give you 15% gain per year give or take, which of course is great, but I doubt many people saying "WHOA baby! I bought more at $198 and there's no way I'm ever selling!" will be happy about it.
I now own $400 of AAPL, based upon my single purchase of $14.
Does my current $400 offer me the same purchasing power of the original $200? Of course not, but that wasn't the point I was making.
If you want to get technical about it, I could post charts, graphs, etc., talk ad nauseam about the tech sector, standard deviation, reversion to the mean and sharpe ratios, but that's my day job these days and is not why I come here. I mean, really, this is an Apple forum, no?
Dude, this is very simple, I'm not sure why you went where you did with that.
Based on Apple's current split adjusted prices, the price at the time you quoted was $14, not $7. The actual price, had you seen a newspaper on that day in Feb of 2005, was $28. Since then there has been one split. One share bought at $28 back then became two shares bought at $14, and that grew to $200. There were no shares to buy for $14 in that time frame, which is where you're confused. The only way to own $400 worth of Apple right now is to have bought one share at $28 then. You're saying you bought shares at $14 and each is worth $400 after splits now, and the fact is your math is off by 100%.
So who do you listen to, Kathryn Huberty of Morgan Stanley? She put a sell on APPL @ 80 10 months ago. Here's a valid stock tip. Whenever Kathryn Huberty says sell, buy! I follow my own advice and I predict a 25% AAPL upside in 2010.
And what do you do when she says buy? Is she an idiot when she says sell, but a genius when she says buy? Interesting...
Dude, this is very simple, I'm not sure why you went where you did with that.
Based on Apple's current split adjusted prices, the price at the time you quoted was $14, not $7. The actual price, had you seen a newspaper on that day in Feb of 2005, was $28. Since then there has been one split. One share bought at $28 back then became two shares bought at $14, and that grew to $200. There were no shares to buy for $14 in that time frame, which is where you're confused. The only way to own $400 worth of Apple right now is to have bought one share at $28 then. You're saying you bought shares at $14 and each is worth $400 after splits now, and the fact is your math is off by 100%.
I hope that clears it up for you.
Actually it doesn't, because we are both wrong. But for very different reasons. I was off with my dates, which is why the math didn't work for you. But I never actually said that a single share was now worth $400. You just interpreted it that way.
Let me start by saying that did not properly convey what I meant. One share of Apple today is obviously not worth $400. In my head I was thinking just how amazing it was that every $14 I invested, effectively became $400 over the course of 7 years (not 6 as previously stated). Most prudent investors should be happy as a clam if their portfolio doubles every 7 to 10 years, assuming growth only, based on the rule of 72 or GAGR.
For some reason I thought I had purchased in Feb 2004, when it was actually Feb 2003, which is when it did trade for around $14 per share. When it split a year later, in Feb 2005, it was hovering just below $90 per share when the 2 for 1 split was initiated. So that meant I had two shares at $44 and change each. Those two shares have now grown to over $200 each, before the recent pullback. Today AAPL closed at $197.80. So, my math still stands, I just had the dates wrong because I didn't bother to check - I was going purely from memory. And my memory was telling me I bought in Feb '04 at $14 and then it later split at $100. And after a few Manny's drafts, stuff happens.
I do apologize for my tone though. I'm a bit cranky these days due to the unbelievably cold weather (single digits) we are having in the Pacific NW. Extreme cold and old injuries do not mix well. Not an excuse - just my reality.
In the meantime, I think I'll draft another have.....
False - you don't know which ones will be OUTPERFORMERS until after the fact. The underperformers are easy to spot - they're the outperformers of the previous time frame. I'm not talking about a stock that is doing a little better, I'm talking about a top 5% stock, like Apple has been. And yes, it is never easy to spot the top, but there's no around that for either the bulls or the bears. Stocks can remain overpriced for a long time, but the arguments made by Apple bulls right now at these crazy prices are carbon copies of those made by Dell investors (I was one of them) 10 years ago, buying a growth story that was no more. The next 10 years were not be fun, and probably won't be for Apple investors either. Is Apple going to be worth half a trillion dollars in 5 years? If so, even that would only give you 15% gain per year give or take, which of course is great, but I doubt many people saying "WHOA baby! I bought more at $198 and there's no way I'm ever selling!" will be happy about it.
A perfect stock market system. People have been looking for one of those for hundreds of years. Better patent it.
Actually it doesn't, because we are both wrong. But for very different reasons. I was off with my dates, which is why the math didn't work for you. But I never actually said that a single share was now worth $400. You just interpreted it that way.
I do apologize for my tone though. I'm a bit cranky these days due to the unbelievably cold weather (single digits) we are having in the Pacific NW. Extreme cold and old injuries do not mix well. Not an excuse - just my reality.
In the meantime, I think I'll draft another have.....
Glad you came around that you were wrong - but I was not wrong at all, I used your numbers and pointed out the truth. I didn't say one share was worth $400, I went with your claim that one share bought before the split was now worth $400 in two shares.
Next time, if you're not going to check your numbers before you post them, try checking them at LEAST when someone calls you on them, OK?
A perfect stock market system. People have been looking for one of those for hundreds of years. Better patent it.
This one's been well known for decades. The only way to profit from it means shorting stocks for a long time, which is very difficult to do unless you have a ton of capital and time.
Keep buying last decade's best stocks! See where that gets you.
This one's been well known for decades. The only way to profit from it means shorting stocks for a long time, which is very difficult to do unless you have a ton of capital and time.
Keep buying last decade's best stocks! See where that gets you.
Ha-ha. Funny. That was supposed to be funny, right? I shouldn't need to point out the obvious flaw in your system, or more accurately, to point it out again.
Comments
I just picked up 200 more shares the other day when it hit $188. Will buy more if it falls further.
I foresee AAPL @ $244 in the first quarter of 2010. Let's see
And I'm still kicking myself for not buying more in February '04, when it hovered around $14.
A rather amazing story when you think about it. $14 to an effective $400 (due to the previous two-for-one split) in less than six years. I do believe that's the classic definition of a value stock becoming a pure growth play.
It was no an effective $400, AAPL was in that $14 range measured the same way as it's now at the $200 range. Amazing nonetheless.
True, but that's looking at it from the other perspective. What I'm saying is that in hindsight, the best stocks tend to be the ones I described. But yes of course there's no way to know what those stocks are, so that's where your point comes in. But one thing is certain - one of the best ways to underperform and generally to lose money i'd to buy individual stocks that have performed well in the past. Those stocks historically are most likely to be the biggest losers.
You've really undercut your own argument with the admission that you don't know which stocks are the "underperformers" until after the fact. You'd have to go back a long way to find AAPL underperforming the market, and by your rule you'd have avoided buying it for many years after it began to over-perform. By the same token, your rule might steer you into buying an underperforming stock which is underperforming for a reason. As you're already said, look at MSFT -- it's been stuck in a rut for a decade.
It was no an effective $400, AAPL was in that $14 range measured the same way as it's now at the $200 range. Amazing nonetheless.
Let me make this simple for you:
I have one share that I buy for $14.
It grows to $200 and splits.
I now own two shares at $100 each.
They both grow to $200.
I now own $400 of AAPL, based upon my single purchase of $14.
Does my current $400 offer me the same purchasing power of the original $200? Of course not, but that wasn't the point I was making.
If you want to get technical about it, I could post charts, graphs, etc., talk ad nauseam about the tech sector, standard deviation, reversion to the mean and sharpe ratios, but that's my day job these days and is not why I come here. I mean, really, this is an Apple forum, no?
I've been an AAPL investor for a lot longer than you, so I know better than to spout theories about what is going to happen, when, and why.
So who do you listen to, Kathryn Huberty of Morgan Stanley? She put a sell on APPL @ 80 10 months ago. Here's a valid stock tip. Whenever Kathryn Huberty says sell, buy! I follow my own advice and I predict a 25% AAPL upside in 2010.
Is there some information source that tracks what % of stock belongs to whom, i.e. individual investors, multi billion $ funds, multi $ private investors, or is that kind of information unavailable?
So who do you listen to, Kathryn Huberty of Morgan Stanley? She put a sell on APPL @ 80 10 months ago. Here's a valid stock tip. Whenever Kathryn Huberty says sell, buy! I follow my own advice and I predict a 25% AAPL upside in 2010.
Uh, no. I think the point is, nobody can really predict future stock prices. I wouldn't take advice from Huberty let alone from anyone who says we should do just the opposite of what she advises.
Uh, no. I think the point is, nobody can really predict future stock prices. I wouldn't take advice from Huberty let alone from anyone who says we should do just the opposite of what she advises.
Pardon me for be facetious but this thread is, in particular, about forecasting the future price of AAPL's stock. Is it not?
Pardon me for be facetious but this thread is, in particular, about forecasting the future price of AAPL's stock. Is it not?
If you say so. If that's all we're permitted to discuss, my response is that trying to forecast the future price of any given stock is an exercise in futility at best, and a fool's errand at worst.
You've really undercut your own argument with the admission that you don't know which stocks are the "underperformers" until after the fact. You'd have to go back a long way to find AAPL underperforming the market, and by your rule you'd have avoided buying it for many years after it began to over-perform. By the same token, your rule might steer you into buying an underperforming stock which is underperforming for a reason. As you're already said, look at MSFT -- it's been stuck in a rut for a decade.
False - you don't know which ones will be OUTPERFORMERS until after the fact. The underperformers are easy to spot - they're the outperformers of the previous time frame. I'm not talking about a stock that is doing a little better, I'm talking about a top 5% stock, like Apple has been. And yes, it is never easy to spot the top, but there's no around that for either the bulls or the bears. Stocks can remain overpriced for a long time, but the arguments made by Apple bulls right now at these crazy prices are carbon copies of those made by Dell investors (I was one of them) 10 years ago, buying a growth story that was no more. The next 10 years were not be fun, and probably won't be for Apple investors either. Is Apple going to be worth half a trillion dollars in 5 years? If so, even that would only give you 15% gain per year give or take, which of course is great, but I doubt many people saying "WHOA baby! I bought more at $198 and there's no way I'm ever selling!" will be happy about it.
Let me make this simple for you:
I have one share that I buy for $14.
It grows to $200 and splits.
I now own two shares at $100 each.
They both grow to $200.
I now own $400 of AAPL, based upon my single purchase of $14.
Does my current $400 offer me the same purchasing power of the original $200? Of course not, but that wasn't the point I was making.
If you want to get technical about it, I could post charts, graphs, etc., talk ad nauseam about the tech sector, standard deviation, reversion to the mean and sharpe ratios, but that's my day job these days and is not why I come here. I mean, really, this is an Apple forum, no?
Dude, this is very simple, I'm not sure why you went where you did with that.
Based on Apple's current split adjusted prices, the price at the time you quoted was $14, not $7. The actual price, had you seen a newspaper on that day in Feb of 2005, was $28. Since then there has been one split. One share bought at $28 back then became two shares bought at $14, and that grew to $200. There were no shares to buy for $14 in that time frame, which is where you're confused. The only way to own $400 worth of Apple right now is to have bought one share at $28 then. You're saying you bought shares at $14 and each is worth $400 after splits now, and the fact is your math is off by 100%.
I hope that clears it up for you.
So who do you listen to, Kathryn Huberty of Morgan Stanley? She put a sell on APPL @ 80 10 months ago. Here's a valid stock tip. Whenever Kathryn Huberty says sell, buy! I follow my own advice and I predict a 25% AAPL upside in 2010.
And what do you do when she says buy? Is she an idiot when she says sell, but a genius when she says buy? Interesting...
Dude, this is very simple, I'm not sure why you went where you did with that.
Based on Apple's current split adjusted prices, the price at the time you quoted was $14, not $7. The actual price, had you seen a newspaper on that day in Feb of 2005, was $28. Since then there has been one split. One share bought at $28 back then became two shares bought at $14, and that grew to $200. There were no shares to buy for $14 in that time frame, which is where you're confused. The only way to own $400 worth of Apple right now is to have bought one share at $28 then. You're saying you bought shares at $14 and each is worth $400 after splits now, and the fact is your math is off by 100%.
I hope that clears it up for you.
Actually it doesn't, because we are both wrong. But for very different reasons. I was off with my dates, which is why the math didn't work for you. But I never actually said that a single share was now worth $400. You just interpreted it that way.
Let me start by saying that did not properly convey what I meant. One share of Apple today is obviously not worth $400. In my head I was thinking just how amazing it was that every $14 I invested, effectively became $400 over the course of 7 years (not 6 as previously stated). Most prudent investors should be happy as a clam if their portfolio doubles every 7 to 10 years, assuming growth only, based on the rule of 72 or GAGR.
For some reason I thought I had purchased in Feb 2004, when it was actually Feb 2003, which is when it did trade for around $14 per share. When it split a year later, in Feb 2005, it was hovering just below $90 per share when the 2 for 1 split was initiated. So that meant I had two shares at $44 and change each. Those two shares have now grown to over $200 each, before the recent pullback. Today AAPL closed at $197.80. So, my math still stands, I just had the dates wrong because I didn't bother to check - I was going purely from memory. And my memory was telling me I bought in Feb '04 at $14 and then it later split at $100. And after a few Manny's drafts, stuff happens.
I do apologize for my tone though. I'm a bit cranky these days due to the unbelievably cold weather (single digits) we are having in the Pacific NW. Extreme cold and old injuries do not mix well. Not an excuse - just my reality.
In the meantime, I think I'll draft another have.....
False - you don't know which ones will be OUTPERFORMERS until after the fact. The underperformers are easy to spot - they're the outperformers of the previous time frame. I'm not talking about a stock that is doing a little better, I'm talking about a top 5% stock, like Apple has been. And yes, it is never easy to spot the top, but there's no around that for either the bulls or the bears. Stocks can remain overpriced for a long time, but the arguments made by Apple bulls right now at these crazy prices are carbon copies of those made by Dell investors (I was one of them) 10 years ago, buying a growth story that was no more. The next 10 years were not be fun, and probably won't be for Apple investors either. Is Apple going to be worth half a trillion dollars in 5 years? If so, even that would only give you 15% gain per year give or take, which of course is great, but I doubt many people saying "WHOA baby! I bought more at $198 and there's no way I'm ever selling!" will be happy about it.
A perfect stock market system. People have been looking for one of those for hundreds of years. Better patent it.
Actually it doesn't, because we are both wrong. But for very different reasons. I was off with my dates, which is why the math didn't work for you. But I never actually said that a single share was now worth $400. You just interpreted it that way.
I do apologize for my tone though. I'm a bit cranky these days due to the unbelievably cold weather (single digits) we are having in the Pacific NW. Extreme cold and old injuries do not mix well. Not an excuse - just my reality.
In the meantime, I think I'll draft another have.....
Glad you came around that you were wrong - but I was not wrong at all, I used your numbers and pointed out the truth. I didn't say one share was worth $400, I went with your claim that one share bought before the split was now worth $400 in two shares.
Next time, if you're not going to check your numbers before you post them, try checking them at LEAST when someone calls you on them, OK?
A perfect stock market system. People have been looking for one of those for hundreds of years. Better patent it.
This one's been well known for decades. The only way to profit from it means shorting stocks for a long time, which is very difficult to do unless you have a ton of capital and time.
Keep buying last decade's best stocks! See where that gets you.
This one's been well known for decades. The only way to profit from it means shorting stocks for a long time, which is very difficult to do unless you have a ton of capital and time.
Keep buying last decade's best stocks! See where that gets you.
Ha-ha. Funny. That was supposed to be funny, right? I shouldn't need to point out the obvious flaw in your system, or more accurately, to point it out again.