For perspective, this million share sell-off is smaller than what Fidelity sold:
In an amended 13G filing on Apple, Inc. (NASDAQ: AAPL), Fidelity parent FMR LLC disclosed a 4.41%, or 41,472,327 share, stake in the company. This is down 8.84% from the 45,494,145 shares held at the end of the latest quarter ending September 30, 2012.
So the tanking was pure and simple profit taking with these funds reaping huge profits while almost destroying AAPL. Any collusion involved in the sell off or was it purely coincidental? Of course, now that it's at a bargain basement price, these same funds will probably buy it again, pump it up, take profits and destroy the stock a second (and third, and fourth) time. This is not the way to run the financial market and allowing it is not the way to run the country or the world. AAPL was not too high, just look at its pitiful P/E.
Makes one wonder about this suit to stop Apple from cutting preferred shares. Isn't it only really hedge funds and the like that benefit from such offerings and the higher dividends they get compared to common shares
Lets cut throughout the bs. The shares were sold to drop the share price. Period. They were shorted. A lot of people made a lot of money betting the other way.So all this convolution is nothing but smoke and mirrors for the uninitiated.
one million shares isn't that much if the sales are evenly distributed. However, if you onload large chunks shortly before the market close, the closing price will register a sharp drop, which in turn scares the unsophisticated investors and benefits certain options trades.
There are older news reports about how a few massive stock sales shortly before the closing bell, knocked Apple down in stages. If you combine such sales with bad news, you can create the wrong impression in the minds of those who don't know what's going on.
If you know anything about how news works for the most part, then you know that you can buy just about any slant on objective news by paying off a few publicists. It's hardly objective reporting when you follow how Apple's news have lately all been tinted in doom&gloom colors, even though the company keeps breaking just about any relevant record.
Now add in one more crucial point: the fact that last years quarter had 14 weeks, which happens every few years because the year doesn't have 49 or 56 weeks, but 52. So all things equal, that alone would create an 8% drop in sales, revenues and profits, and since numbers aren't reported adjusted on a weekly basis, sophisticated investors who want to knock down the stock price know they have a rare chance of having numbers supporting their case, particularly if they know that the company itself already warned on a few minor number issues, like lower gross-margins due to manufacturing change overs on a variety of product lines. (which of course were reported before and already reflected in the stock price, but proper reporting can make any expected thing sound unexpected, allowing the market to reflect the same news multiple times)
So some smart people figured they want to not just realize profits, but make more on the way down. So they orchestrated their sales, did smart options trades and maybe helped it all by paying some well connected publicists to change the angle under which they report Apple news.
Can I prove it? No. Do many indicators point in that direction, yes.
Looking at the graph included in the article it would seem that shares bought at the beginning of 2010 and held, will have doubled in value by today. It also looks that if you project the curve through 2009, 2010, 2011 and through to today, you get to where the share values are about now. Using this logic, it looks like it was the spike in value in 2012 that was atypical and you could argue that taking the long view the shares are now back on track where they should be. This would also fit with Apple's recent more conservative projections for the quarter ahead........am I missing something?
Looking at the graph included in the article it would seem that shares bought at the beginning of 2010 and held, will have doubled in value by today. It also looks that if you project the curve through 2009, 2010, 2011 and through to today, you get to where the share values are about now. Using this logic, it looks like it was the spike in value in 2012 that was atypical and you could argue that taking the long view the shares are now back on track where they should be. This would also fit with Apple's recent more conservative projections for the quarter ahead........am I missing something?
Yes. The fact that Apple's share price is far lower than it should be by any objective standard. When it peaked last summer, it was closer to a reasonable level (although still somewhat too low).
Look at P/E. Price/book. Price/Equity. PEG. Now, compare them to the rest of the market. For even more laughs, compare them to AMZN.
I hear what your saying.... and if true, and it would seem the stock exchange would beg to differ, then it would seem that with last years peak taken out of the equation, at least Apple shares have been consistently under valued. I personally think the markets are still not convinced that Apple can innovate in the post Jobs era. The obscene amount of money Apple is currently making is probably derived from products designed when Jobs was still with us. If Apple can show innovation through this coming year (not just slimmer and faster) I think the share price will continue to improve. Would it be so terrible if it "only" doubles over the next two to three years?
EXACTLY as you said it. In a calendar quarter AAPL will do a total volume of 1.9 billion (90 days at 21M shares per day)...and they are calling out 1 million shares being dumped in a quarter? That's ridiculous analysis.
Even if you took out that 1 million shares from the market cap at $0/share you would knock AAPL's market cap down by about 0.1%...
The real answer is the broader market (institutional and retail) started selling off AAPL for a variety of reasons. Whether it is priced appropriately today, should be back at $700+, or lower still, is anyone's guess.
Actaully, it is more than 1M share in question. Apple trade on average around 15M to 20M per day, but on the days in question and when those hedge fund did their trades 40M to 50M share were traded these fund did not sell less then 1M share they sold a lot more than that. Their largest block of shares may have only been less then 1M share they could have sold multiply blocks over times. Also, people who watch the markest closely see they large block going they dump as well so it has a snow ball affect plus with automatic limit trading it forces more sales.
If Hedge fund has 10M share they do not sell them all at once an in one large block, they spread them out in various block sizes and time interval to maximize their total profits.
Actaully, it is more than 1M share in question. Apple trade on average around 15M to 20M per day, but on the days in question and when those hedge fund did their trades 40M to 50M share were traded these fund did not sell less then 1M share they sold a lot more than that. Their largest block of shares may have only been less then 1M share they could have sold multiply blocks over times. Also, people who watch the markest closely see they large block going they dump as well so it has a snow ball affect plus with automatic limit trading it forces more sales.
If Hedge fund has 10M share they do not sell them all at once an in one large block, they spread them out in various block sizes and time interval to maximize their total profits.
So who bought those shares?
Judging from the way they pushed down the price at open hour said a lot about shorts activity.
Yes many benefitted except the retail buyers who were left holding the babies.
As someone who doesn't own shares outside for superannuation this looks like such a yeehaw rodeo. Shares should represent an investment in a business. Minimum periods of investment should be measured in days, weeks or months, not nanoseconds. We have is millions of people spending their entire day trying to outsmart each other and chasing their own tails. The investment market doesn't actually produce anything but raw profit, skimmed from the superannuation savings of others.
Comments
In an amended 13G filing on Apple, Inc. (NASDAQ: AAPL), Fidelity parent FMR LLC disclosed a 4.41%, or 41,472,327 share, stake in the company. This is down 8.84% from the 45,494,145 shares held at the end of the latest quarter ending September 30, 2012.
I lost.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rob53
So the tanking was pure and simple profit taking with these funds reaping huge profits while almost destroying AAPL. Any collusion involved in the sell off or was it purely coincidental? Of course, now that it's at a bargain basement price, these same funds will probably buy it again, pump it up, take profits and destroy the stock a second (and third, and fourth) time. This is not the way to run the financial market and allowing it is not the way to run the country or the world. AAPL was not too high, just look at its pitiful P/E.
Makes one wonder about this suit to stop Apple from cutting preferred shares. Isn't it only really hedge funds and the like that benefit from such offerings and the higher dividends they get compared to common shares
1 million shares @ $700 each is not $7 billion worth of stock, is it? I'm pretty sure that 700 x 1 million = 700 million?
You also state the current value of that million shares as being $4.6 billion, but again I think that's one zero too many.
It looks like your math is off by a factor of 10, unless I'm missing something?
Might want to fix that%u2026
However, if you onload large chunks shortly before the market close, the closing price will register a sharp drop, which in turn scares the unsophisticated investors and benefits certain options trades.
There are older news reports about how a few massive stock sales shortly before the closing bell, knocked Apple down in stages. If you combine such sales with bad news, you can create the wrong impression in the minds of those who don't know what's going on.
If you know anything about how news works for the most part, then you know that you can buy just about any slant on objective news by paying off a few publicists.
It's hardly objective reporting when you follow how Apple's news have lately all been tinted in doom&gloom colors, even though the company keeps breaking just about any relevant record.
Now add in one more crucial point: the fact that last years quarter had 14 weeks, which happens every few years because the year doesn't have 49 or 56 weeks, but 52.
So all things equal, that alone would create an 8% drop in sales, revenues and profits, and since numbers aren't reported adjusted on a weekly basis, sophisticated investors who want to knock down the stock price know they have a rare chance of having numbers supporting their case, particularly if they know that the company itself already warned on a few minor number issues, like lower gross-margins due to manufacturing change overs on a variety of product lines. (which of course were reported before and already reflected in the stock price, but proper reporting can make any expected thing sound unexpected, allowing the market to reflect the same news multiple times)
So some smart people figured they want to not just realize profits, but make more on the way down. So they orchestrated their sales, did smart options trades and maybe helped it all by paying some well connected publicists to change the angle under which they report Apple news.
Can I prove it? No. Do many indicators point in that direction, yes.
Yes. The fact that Apple's share price is far lower than it should be by any objective standard. When it peaked last summer, it was closer to a reasonable level (although still somewhat too low).
Look at P/E. Price/book. Price/Equity. PEG. Now, compare them to the rest of the market. For even more laughs, compare them to AMZN.
I hear what your saying.... and if true, and it would seem the stock exchange would beg to differ, then it would seem that with last years peak taken out of the equation, at least Apple shares have been consistently under valued. I personally think the markets are still not convinced that Apple can innovate in the post Jobs era. The obscene amount of money Apple is currently making is probably derived from products designed when Jobs was still with us. If Apple can show innovation through this coming year (not just slimmer and faster) I think the share price will continue to improve. Would it be so terrible if it "only" doubles over the next two to three years?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan
Sad thing is the story is being picked up by news outlets that should know better. Reuters and Forbes to be specific.
Neither Forbes nor Reuters ever knows what they're talking about. They are PR generators.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wubbus
EXACTLY as you said it. In a calendar quarter AAPL will do a total volume of 1.9 billion (90 days at 21M shares per day)...and they are calling out 1 million shares being dumped in a quarter? That's ridiculous analysis.
Even if you took out that 1 million shares from the market cap at $0/share you would knock AAPL's market cap down by about 0.1%...
The real answer is the broader market (institutional and retail) started selling off AAPL for a variety of reasons. Whether it is priced appropriately today, should be back at $700+, or lower still, is anyone's guess.
Actaully, it is more than 1M share in question. Apple trade on average around 15M to 20M per day, but on the days in question and when those hedge fund did their trades 40M to 50M share were traded these fund did not sell less then 1M share they sold a lot more than that. Their largest block of shares may have only been less then 1M share they could have sold multiply blocks over times. Also, people who watch the markest closely see they large block going they dump as well so it has a snow ball affect plus with automatic limit trading it forces more sales.
If Hedge fund has 10M share they do not sell them all at once an in one large block, they spread them out in various block sizes and time interval to maximize their total profits.
Judging from the way they pushed down the price at open hour said a lot about shorts activity.
Yes many benefitted except the retail buyers who were left holding the babies.
How is that ethical?