ko024, while I agree that the term is probably misused, and may have been misused this time as well. There is still a relation to the "law of large numbers" and the statement that Apple will plateau (ie will not rise indefinitely.) The relation is that if make the reasonable assumption that the Apple's average stock price (over it's entire existence... future and past) is finite then it will "plateau" at some point. I'm not saying that point is higher or lower than $1,000.... I'm just staying that in order to have a finite average stock price it can not be monotonic from this point forward.
But I agree with your general statement. "law of large numbers" does not indicate when the plateau would occur (or its value.) It does speak to the notion that finite averages exclude monotonic increasing functions.
You might be referring to a regression toward the mean more than LOLN... somewhat similar but quite different... My point is, that in LOLN you have a theoretical mean. An actual statistic that says, it SHOULD be this,,... why is that number less than 1,000 for apple..?? it is not... People just use the law of large number as a catchy saying for that apple has become "too big"... people fear that which they do not know... In 1970, people said, no company could EVER be worth 1 billion, the "law of large number" will catch up to them.... wtf...??? idiots... those same people are the idiots today.... apple will average out to their mean after market saturation and no more new product categories... how that equates to something less than 100% growth from here is beyond me... after china mobile and growth in emerging markets due to IP4 being "free" the phone business ALONE will get us to 1,500, easily... I would say, that if I am being truely honest, apple will average out at about $3,000 in 2020s, after reaching a peak of $4,000 sometime before then... this seems more reasonable than, apple wont make it to 1,000.... wtf..??? haha
Andy Zaky has not missed a bottom yet. I have followed him for several years. He called the bottom five times in the past on interim declines and was accurate each time. It is uncanny.
With several introductions Apple takes a hit for speculative rumours. Once it was the iPad would fail for no external memory. They no one would by iPhone 4 due to antenna. Then iPhone 4S was same form factor as the 4. No it is the maps are no good. In each case the phone sold better and the stock told the story. The best chance to buy in was the media created did, just as it is now with the 10% drop from $705.
I read Apple Insider and other sites to get backup data from the field. All the analysts close to the ground doing store checks and Asia inventory checks show they are selling every unit they can make. iPad mini is confirmed as well. This Xmas will be a blowout. It is no longer a question. The earnings from that will force the stock up. $800 to $900 is guaranteed. I would not bet against Andy about $1,000.
Zaky always has good insight on APPL, unlike a lot of the gibberish I see published on most of these tech sites.
Thanks AppleInsider, I hope you request more articles by Zaky and others who actually know what they are talking about rather than usual blah, blah, blah reactionary b.s. .
I've followed Andy's articles over the years and have always found them to be objective, insightful and very profitable to act on. This one is no different. I'm sure over the next 6 months, Andy is spot on that Apple is going much, much higher.
now you have two choices, you can either wait for that headline and say, aww man I should have bought when it was 600s... OR you can just buy the darn thing now, and be proud of yourself later.. and a little more rich......
To be a "little more rich", you would have to actually sell when it hits $1000. For anyone to have any sort of financial gain, they have to sell, and thus, find a buyer. Are there going to be enough buyers for all the people selling when it nears $1000? Who is still going to be buying at that point?
I think this will keep the stock from truly hitting $1000. Sure, it will hit $1000 someday, due to inflation, but as the stock reaches that mythical number, people will start selling off, keeping the price down.
As for this article and the analyst involved, I suspect there is little correlation between the predictions and the actual outcomes. Humans like to believe they "knew it all along", but in reality, it was just a guess.
You might be referring to a regression toward the mean more than LOLN... somewhat similar but quite different... My point is, that in LOLN you have a theoretical mean. An actual statistic that says, it SHOULD be this,,... why is that number less than 1,000 for apple..?? it is not... People just use the law of large number as a catchy saying for that apple has become "too big"... people fear that which they do not know... In 1970, people said, no company could EVER be worth 1 billion, the "law of large number" will catch up to them.... wtf...??? idiots... those same people are the idiots today.... apple will average out to their mean after market saturation and no more new product categories... how that equates to something less than 100% growth from here is beyond me... after china mobile and growth in emerging markets due to IP4 being "free" the phone business ALONE will get us to 1,500, easily... I would say, that if I am being truely honest, apple will average out at about $3,000 in 2020s, after reaching a peak of $4,000 sometime before then... this seems more reasonable than, apple wont make it to 1,000.... wtf..??? haha
No. I was referring to LOLN. Regression toward the mean is another beast, I agree. And I agree completely with what you are saying (you'll see that in my original post), I state that there is no reason to believe that the Apple stock is more or less than 1,000 for Apple. I just stated that one could say that the Apple stock will not continue to rise indefinitely if it has a finite mean. This statement is true, and the truth in the statement does have to do with the law of large numbers. Regression toward the mean has more to do the likely outliers (extreme data points) and subsequent (or previous) data taken to the outliers. I understand that principle as well. It is another one that is hugely misunderstood and misinterpreted.
We don't know Apple's long-term mean stock value.... so there is no way we could be applying theory of large numbers to determine that stock will tend to go down (or up) in the future. Again, I said given a finite long-term average Apple stock value... it can not increase indefinitely. In-other-words, I'm not saying anything useful.
When Apple was $13 I didn't buy it because I was still in grade school, and not an investor.
Yes market cap matters. Market cap determines the value of the stock, not the dollar price. For example: Google's SP is higher than Apple's, but Apple as a company is worth more.
Market saturation doesn't mean that Apple couldn't sell more. It means that the markets themselves already have reached an equilibrium in the total amount of devices supplied vs. devices demanded. If the market itself only grows so much, then to increase sales you need to differentiate. Apple has done very well on differentiation, but not so well that they'll be earning 500 billion in revenue in 5 years just off iPhones and iPads, just as an example. Their biggest growth has come from creating new markets for themselves. Look at the iPod, sales are declining and its no longer a significant product for Apple's growth.
I use Spread Betting with 20X leverage. Sell on a high, buy on a low, a few times a year with that kind of leverage cranked up and you can get silly returns.
I don't even push the leverage that hard. Could easily have been 30X had I had the nerve.
A friend of mine had 20 X his initial equity within just 6 months last year. But he was in some dark places at times and taking risks well beyond that which I feel comfortable with.
Had he continued that run for the next 6 months he would have had 400 X his initial equity in 1 year...!
You have a much larger appetite for risk than I do. Good job trading.
I thought I was doing good doubling up so far this year on a cash account (no margin, no short selling).
Apple is valued by it's profit stream (price is 4X-6X of annual profits per share [~1Billion shares))... so when Apple hits $200Billion a year in profits, price should be nearing $1000.
I'm a bit of a newbie investor and not familiar with the term "profit stream". Can you explain? Thanks.
I'm also puzzled how 200 billion in annual profits, about 200 per share, would result in a stock price of just 1000. Thanks in advance for some enlightenment.
"...P/E arguments have been made for why the stock is cheap numerous times over the last 2 years, it's refuted all the time..."
Since Apple's stock price has mode than doubled over those two years, it is clear that the P/E arguments were correct, and those that refuted them all the time, were wrong.
Although is known that the economy generally does better during Democratic presidencies, it's not the election results that make a difference, it's more the economic policies that are followed.
No. I was referring to LOLN. Regression toward the mean is another beast, I agree. And I agree completely with what you are saying (you'll see that in my original post), I state that there is no reason to believe that the Apple stock is more or less than 1,000 for Apple. I just stated that one could say that the Apple stock will not continue to rise indefinitely if it has a finite mean. This statement is true, and the truth in the statement does have to do with the law of large numbers. Regression toward the mean has more to do the likely outliers (extreme data points) and subsequent (or previous) data taken to the outliers. I understand that principle as well. It is another one that is hugely misunderstood and misinterpreted.
We don't know Apple's long-term mean stock value.... so there is no way we could be applying theory of large numbers to determine that stock will tend to go down (or up) in the future. Again, I said given a finite long-term average Apple stock value... it can not increase indefinitely. In-other-words, I'm not saying anything useful.
haha... "in-other-words, I'm not saying anything useful".... yet it is actually one of the more intelligent posts yet... funny stuff.... we are kind of getting to a philosophical discussion here... The finite mean part of it... It must have a finite mean right? But what about inflation..?? What about expanding populations? I guess I am asking the question, does the mean need to finite, or can apple just continue to grow, albeit at slower rates as it gets larger....??
I'm a bit of a newbie investor and not familiar with the term "profit stream". Can you explain? Thanks.
I'm also puzzled how 200 billion in annual profits, about 200 per share, would result in a stock price of just 1000. Thanks in advance for some enlightenment.
I think this will keep the stock from truly hitting $1000. Sure, it will hit $1000 someday, due to inflation, but as the stock reaches that mythical number, people will start selling off, keeping the price down.
This argument that there is something special and too big about $1000 share price is common and strongly put by dcorban.
But tell me. If Apple have a 7 for 1 share split is everyone going to understand that $142.86 is just too large, and start selling?
There is nothing magical about a particular share price that can ever stop a company from growing. It's clear nonsense. It can be so trivially bypassed.
How nice. Lets go recycle all our iDevices and Apple Desktops and buy Dells and so on. Meanwhile Apple will continue to get better and we will wait for at least 20 friggen years to see apple stumble while we all play on our android and windows machines and devices.
A trolling we will go. A trolling we will go. Hi ho the merry o a trolling we will go.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by IQ78
ko024, while I agree that the term is probably misused, and may have been misused this time as well. There is still a relation to the "law of large numbers" and the statement that Apple will plateau (ie will not rise indefinitely.) The relation is that if make the reasonable assumption that the Apple's average stock price (over it's entire existence... future and past) is finite then it will "plateau" at some point. I'm not saying that point is higher or lower than $1,000.... I'm just staying that in order to have a finite average stock price it can not be monotonic from this point forward.
But I agree with your general statement. "law of large numbers" does not indicate when the plateau would occur (or its value.) It does speak to the notion that finite averages exclude monotonic increasing functions.
You might be referring to a regression toward the mean more than LOLN... somewhat similar but quite different... My point is, that in LOLN you have a theoretical mean. An actual statistic that says, it SHOULD be this,,... why is that number less than 1,000 for apple..?? it is not... People just use the law of large number as a catchy saying for that apple has become "too big"... people fear that which they do not know... In 1970, people said, no company could EVER be worth 1 billion, the "law of large number" will catch up to them.... wtf...??? idiots... those same people are the idiots today.... apple will average out to their mean after market saturation and no more new product categories... how that equates to something less than 100% growth from here is beyond me... after china mobile and growth in emerging markets due to IP4 being "free" the phone business ALONE will get us to 1,500, easily... I would say, that if I am being truely honest, apple will average out at about $3,000 in 2020s, after reaching a peak of $4,000 sometime before then... this seems more reasonable than, apple wont make it to 1,000.... wtf..??? haha
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich
Independent thought and critical reasoning are not allowed. You will be absorbed.
hehe.... smoke em if you got em.....
With several introductions Apple takes a hit for speculative rumours. Once it was the iPad would fail for no external memory. They no one would by iPhone 4 due to antenna. Then iPhone 4S was same form factor as the 4. No it is the maps are no good. In each case the phone sold better and the stock told the story. The best chance to buy in was the media created did, just as it is now with the 10% drop from $705.
I read Apple Insider and other sites to get backup data from the field. All the analysts close to the ground doing store checks and Asia inventory checks show they are selling every unit they can make. iPad mini is confirmed as well. This Xmas will be a blowout. It is no longer a question. The earnings from that will force the stock up. $800 to $900 is guaranteed. I would not bet against Andy about $1,000.
Thanks AppleInsider, I hope you request more articles by Zaky and others who actually know what they are talking about rather than usual blah, blah, blah reactionary b.s. .
$1000 or not hinges on the Nov. election.
Originally Posted by ipen
$1000 or not hinges on the Nov. election.
Parties rise and fall.
Apple's Apple.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ko024
now you have two choices, you can either wait for that headline and say, aww man I should have bought when it was 600s... OR you can just buy the darn thing now, and be proud of yourself later.. and a little more rich......
To be a "little more rich", you would have to actually sell when it hits $1000. For anyone to have any sort of financial gain, they have to sell, and thus, find a buyer. Are there going to be enough buyers for all the people selling when it nears $1000? Who is still going to be buying at that point?
I think this will keep the stock from truly hitting $1000. Sure, it will hit $1000 someday, due to inflation, but as the stock reaches that mythical number, people will start selling off, keeping the price down.
As for this article and the analyst involved, I suspect there is little correlation between the predictions and the actual outcomes. Humans like to believe they "knew it all along", but in reality, it was just a guess.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ko024
You might be referring to a regression toward the mean more than LOLN... somewhat similar but quite different... My point is, that in LOLN you have a theoretical mean. An actual statistic that says, it SHOULD be this,,... why is that number less than 1,000 for apple..?? it is not... People just use the law of large number as a catchy saying for that apple has become "too big"... people fear that which they do not know... In 1970, people said, no company could EVER be worth 1 billion, the "law of large number" will catch up to them.... wtf...??? idiots... those same people are the idiots today.... apple will average out to their mean after market saturation and no more new product categories... how that equates to something less than 100% growth from here is beyond me... after china mobile and growth in emerging markets due to IP4 being "free" the phone business ALONE will get us to 1,500, easily... I would say, that if I am being truely honest, apple will average out at about $3,000 in 2020s, after reaching a peak of $4,000 sometime before then... this seems more reasonable than, apple wont make it to 1,000.... wtf..??? haha
No. I was referring to LOLN. Regression toward the mean is another beast, I agree. And I agree completely with what you are saying (you'll see that in my original post), I state that there is no reason to believe that the Apple stock is more or less than 1,000 for Apple. I just stated that one could say that the Apple stock will not continue to rise indefinitely if it has a finite mean. This statement is true, and the truth in the statement does have to do with the law of large numbers. Regression toward the mean has more to do the likely outliers (extreme data points) and subsequent (or previous) data taken to the outliers. I understand that principle as well. It is another one that is hugely misunderstood and misinterpreted.
We don't know Apple's long-term mean stock value.... so there is no way we could be applying theory of large numbers to determine that stock will tend to go down (or up) in the future. Again, I said given a finite long-term average Apple stock value... it can not increase indefinitely. In-other-words, I'm not saying anything useful.
When Apple was $13 I didn't buy it because I was still in grade school, and not an investor.
Yes market cap matters. Market cap determines the value of the stock, not the dollar price. For example: Google's SP is higher than Apple's, but Apple as a company is worth more.
Market saturation doesn't mean that Apple couldn't sell more. It means that the markets themselves already have reached an equilibrium in the total amount of devices supplied vs. devices demanded. If the market itself only grows so much, then to increase sales you need to differentiate. Apple has done very well on differentiation, but not so well that they'll be earning 500 billion in revenue in 5 years just off iPhones and iPads, just as an example. Their biggest growth has come from creating new markets for themselves. Look at the iPod, sales are declining and its no longer a significant product for Apple's growth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by monstrosity
I use Spread Betting with 20X leverage. Sell on a high, buy on a low, a few times a year with that kind of leverage cranked up and you can get silly returns.
I don't even push the leverage that hard. Could easily have been 30X had I had the nerve.
A friend of mine had 20 X his initial equity within just 6 months last year. But he was in some dark places at times and taking risks well beyond that which I feel comfortable with.
Had he continued that run for the next 6 months he would have had 400 X his initial equity in 1 year...!
You have a much larger appetite for risk than I do. Good job trading.
I thought I was doing good doubling up so far this year on a cash account (no margin, no short selling).
I'm a bit of a newbie investor and not familiar with the term "profit stream". Can you explain? Thanks.
I'm also puzzled how 200 billion in annual profits, about 200 per share, would result in a stock price of just 1000. Thanks in advance for some enlightenment.
"...P/E arguments have been made for why the stock is cheap numerous times over the last 2 years, it's refuted all the time..."
Since Apple's stock price has mode than doubled over those two years, it is clear that the P/E arguments were correct, and those that refuted them all the time, were wrong.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ipen
$1000 or not hinges on the Nov. election.
Although is known that the economy generally does better during Democratic presidencies, it's not the election results that make a difference, it's more the economic policies that are followed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by IQ78
No. I was referring to LOLN. Regression toward the mean is another beast, I agree. And I agree completely with what you are saying (you'll see that in my original post), I state that there is no reason to believe that the Apple stock is more or less than 1,000 for Apple. I just stated that one could say that the Apple stock will not continue to rise indefinitely if it has a finite mean. This statement is true, and the truth in the statement does have to do with the law of large numbers. Regression toward the mean has more to do the likely outliers (extreme data points) and subsequent (or previous) data taken to the outliers. I understand that principle as well. It is another one that is hugely misunderstood and misinterpreted.
We don't know Apple's long-term mean stock value.... so there is no way we could be applying theory of large numbers to determine that stock will tend to go down (or up) in the future. Again, I said given a finite long-term average Apple stock value... it can not increase indefinitely. In-other-words, I'm not saying anything useful.
haha... "in-other-words, I'm not saying anything useful".... yet it is actually one of the more intelligent posts yet... funny stuff.... we are kind of getting to a philosophical discussion here... The finite mean part of it... It must have a finite mean right? But what about inflation..?? What about expanding populations? I guess I am asking the question, does the mean need to finite, or can apple just continue to grow, albeit at slower rates as it gets larger....??
Quote:
Originally Posted by ipen
$1000 or not hinges on the Nov. election.
Why would it? In case no one told you, the Republican and Democratic parties are now identical.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JBHoule
I'm a bit of a newbie investor and not familiar with the term "profit stream". Can you explain? Thanks.
I'm also puzzled how 200 billion in annual profits, about 200 per share, would result in a stock price of just 1000. Thanks in advance for some enlightenment.
Google, Wikipedia and this site, http://www.investopedia.com/investing/investing-basics/ are your friends.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dcorban
I think this will keep the stock from truly hitting $1000. Sure, it will hit $1000 someday, due to inflation, but as the stock reaches that mythical number, people will start selling off, keeping the price down.
This argument that there is something special and too big about $1000 share price is common and strongly put by dcorban.
But tell me. If Apple have a 7 for 1 share split is everyone going to understand that $142.86 is just too large, and start selling?
There is nothing magical about a particular share price that can ever stop a company from growing. It's clear nonsense. It can be so trivially bypassed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jnjnjn
In the Netherlands we would say: "een broodje gebakken lucht".
J.
Originally Posted by Flaneur
I had some good sandwiches there, very tasty. And you are right, air is what this is about.
But hot air is what floats balloons.
Neun und neunzig luftballons?
Quote:
Originally Posted by donw35
pump that stock
How nice. Lets go recycle all our iDevices and Apple Desktops and buy Dells and so on. Meanwhile Apple will continue to get better and we will wait for at least 20 friggen years to see apple stumble while we all play on our android and windows machines and devices.
A trolling we will go. A trolling we will go. Hi ho the merry o a trolling we will go.